Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20161128 :

When you say we are talking about a remedy not in terms of finding a violation. Dont say you are implementing congresss intent when you look at what a congress 60 years later would do. When you are rendering a gender discriminatory statute by leveling up or down you are not using congresss intent. But you will ask what would they have wanted if they knew they couldnt make this discrimination. I thought if you have to go back to 52, they are going to either have to take the benefit away from the woman or give it to the man. They hate that. They get into trouble when they take benefits away. That moves them in one direction and also moves them in the same direction if there are a handful of men who might benefit. If there were millions of men who might benefit they might get worried about what they are doing particularly since they are discriminating more against the married couple. I was interested in those questions, but i take it you have said what you can say on that. All you can say is they would have to meet a lot of requirements. We are talking about a fairly limited class. Children born outside the United States born to fathers who cannot satisfy the tenyear requirement but they can satisfy the oneyear. Assuming Justice Ginsburgs point that the father has to have legit ma tiezed the child without marriage because if they marry the mother they would end up having to fulfill the fiveyear. We are not challenging that. They may be individually challenging. In this case they could be. This is a different requirement than what was at issue in the wynn case. The court addressed a paternal acknowledgment requirement and said thats a minimal burden for the father to satisfy. He is not similarly situated with respect to biological proof of his relationship with the child, but the requirement he then come forward and take affirmative steps to demonstrate by acknowledging the child, that satisfies intermediate scrutiny. We are talking about the requirement. As the amicus brief points out if legitimate meant marriage the father may not be able to satisfy the requirement at all. For example if the mother isnt available. If she doesnt want to marry the father or if shes dead. Or if hes already married. If he is already married. Where is the requirement . 8 usc 1409 c. It doesnt say a word. Its in 1409 a. That doesnt apply. It says notwithstanding subsection a. Right. Notwithstanding subsection a somebody who is born outside the u. S. Out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother if the mother is a u. S. Citizen and had been physically in the United States for one year. I dont see anything that says they have to be legitimized for the mother to get that. In 1409a it applies only after theres been in 1409a and what the first words of c are notwithstanding the provision of subsection a. Right. I could figure it out later. Let me try to help you. The remedy imposed by the court of appeals is as 1401 a 7, the physical presence requirement, the court of appeals, that applies through 1409a. Thats the provision that applies to fathers. The remedy would be to apply the one continuous year rule in 1401a7 and this is complicated. As it applies through 1409a. That would put mothers and fathers on equal footing with respect to the physical presence requirements and the legitimation requirement still applies to fathers. But if i could address the governments u. S. Connection interest in my time remaining the statute here absolutely bars a u. S. Citizen father under the age of 19 from transmitting citizenship to his foreignborn child even if the father spent his entire life in the United States up until the day the child is born and even if the father legit mates the child and seeks to raise the child in the United States. By contrast the statute automatically confers citizenship on a child whose u. S. Citizen mother spent only a year of her life at any point in her life, even during infancy. Even if the mother marries the alien father and the child is raised by the mother and the alien father. It is impossible to view a statute that permits these results as related to a u. S. Connection interest. I would submit, your honor, the statelessness interest doesnt justify discrimination either. There is no dispute that the statute creates statelessness for children born abroad to fathers who legitimate their children but cant satisfy the ten and fiveyear physical presence requirement. The statute confers citizenship on a child born abroad to an unmarried United States citizen mother even if the child faces no risk of statelessness at all. Because shes born the child is born in a country that assigns citizenship by virtue of being born there. We arent leaving children uncovered whose mothers have not had a continuous one year residency in the United States though the mother might be an american citizen. Thats right. Her child might have no face no risk of statelessness at all yet the statue still confers citizenship. I said they do. The mother can only pass on citizenship if shes been in the United States continuously for a year prior to the birth of the child. Correct . Correct. What happens to a citizen mother who cant meet that oneyear requirement . What happens to her child . That child could be stateless. There is a risk of statelessness, no matter what . There is a risk of statelessness but that risk is created by these physical presence requirements that congress chose to impose. Whether it is the mother or the father. The risk is greater with respect to the fathers. It is lesser with respect to the mothers. But it is the physical presence requirements that create the risk of statelessness and this scheme cannot be justified as seeking to reduce a risk of statelessness. If the court has no further questions, thank you. Thank you, counsel. Three minutes, mr. Needler. Thank you mr. Chief justice. First on the merits. The provision here furthers two substantial governmental interests. At the time the child is born and there is only the mother as a recognized parent it is uncertain whether the child will ever be legitimated. Congress has an interest in conferring citizenship on that child at birth if there is a connection to the United States. Congress has a substantial interest in not die vesting the child of citizenship if the child is later legitimated by an alien father. There are two substantial interests that are furtherered and it is tailored to take care of the two interests. If youre concerned about the stateless children in the world then you have a problem with the father who cant transmit his citizenship in a country where women citizenship goes by who was the father. If the father later legitimates hes put in the same position as if they were married at the time the child was born. We know from 1401 that thats today there are lots of fathers who do look after their children. I dont say they do it perfectly, but they try. Right now. Now suppose just the words you said take the same words, just put in father instead of mother. Today, why is it any different . It isnt different. I just want to repeat again when the father legitimates there are two parents. Im not talking about legitimacy. Im talking about a surprising number of people unfortunately never get married. A lot of them do live abroad and they do have children. Certainly your words applied where it was the mother. My question is couldnt you put the same words and apply it where it is the father . I think it is of critical importance in citizenship laws to have a legal occurrence in order to pass citizenship and thats legitimation. Your suggestion that the father could pass on citizenship without legitimation doesnt c say that . Yes. But this is a question of remedy. But and also in laird versus robertson if the father filed a notice or filed a document and got notice of the proceeding he didnt get the veto power the mother had before legitimation. He got to be a parent, too. Thats what happens here. When the father legitimates hes not put in the same position as the mother. There are two parents. Thats a two parent family. With respect to remedy, let me point out on page 38 where the statelessness is addressed its clear the interests i identified that congress wanted to ensure the child would have citizenship at birth and not be die vested. Thank you, counsel. We have a special web page at cspan. Org to help you follow the Supreme Court. Go to cspan. Org and select Supreme Court near the righthand top of the page. Once on our Supreme Court page you will see four of the most recent oral arguments heard by the court this term. Click on the view all link to see all the oral arguments covered by cspan. In addition, find recent appearances by many of the Supreme Court justices or watch justices in their own words including one on one interviews in the past few months with justices kagan, thomas and ginsburg. There is a calendar for the term, a list of all current justices with links to quickly see their appearances on cspan, as well as many other Supreme Court videos available on demand. Follow the Supreme Court at cspan. Org. A look now at how the Justice Department investigates and enforces International Corruption and fraud cases under the foreign corrupt practices act. This law prohibits payment of bribes to foreign officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. Held by George Washington University Law school, this is about 90 minutes. Good afternoon. Im the Senior Society dean for Academic Affairs and on behalf of the dean and the president i welcome you to the George Washington University Law school. I will hand over the podium momentarily to my colleague who will normally introduce our two distinguished panelists, but first let me say how thrilled we are to host this discussion on the foreign corrupt practices act, one of the most significant issues confronting criminal law practitioners today. Among our full time and part time faculty are many who like myself have served as federal prosecutors or defended individuals and entities charged with criminal conduct, including under the fcpa. We have a rich curriculum in the areas of criminal law and procedure here and we produce many graduates who go on to have distinguished careers in government and private practice. One such star graduate is the assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division Leslie Caldwell. Were so excited to welcome her pack this afternoon. Although our other distinguished guests is not a gw law graduate, she too has a strong connection to the university. I learned this week that her father once coached football at George Washington university. Yes, we once had a Football Team and he was a phenomenal coach and after coaching at gw went on to coach in the nfl. So in a way youre part of the gw family so welcome back karen. With that i will hand over the program to my wonderful colleagues our society dean to formally introduce our guests and to moderate the discussion. Thank you again and welcome. Thank you so much for that kind introduction. As you just learned, Roger Fairfax was a former department of justice lawyer. We are fortunate to have him along with other prosecutors and defense lawyers on our faculty. The experience they have had in practice brings immense benefits to the students here at the George Washington University Law school. I would like to welcome to you this conversation about the foreign corrupt practices act with two very distinguished lawyers. The assistant attorney general leslie kaldwell and karen pop who is the chair of the white collar group. The event is possible due to the hard work of a number of people and i would like to thank them at the outset. My colleagues here at the George Washington University Law school, dean Roger Fairfax, and to ms. Kraldwells colleagues. Thank you so much for all of your help in making this possible. In 1977 the United States enacted the foreign corrupt practices act designed to eliminate or minimize corruption of foreign officials by certain persons and entities. The statute has been amended on certain occasions as well to expand its reach. The antibribery section of the foreign corrupt practices act is enforced by the United States department of justice. It raises a host of issues such as the extra territorial reach of u. S. Law, the relationship between practices of Foreign Countries and standards in the United States, the appropriate penalty to be given for violations of the act and the consideration that should be given to companies and individuals that have adopted policies and practices to prevent violations of the foreign corrupt practices act. Today were going to have a conversation about these and many other topics. Were honored to have with us our graduate Leslie Caldwell who on may 15th, 2014 was confirmed as the assistant attorney for the United States department of criminal justice. She works with more than 600 lawyers who prosecute federal criminal cases around the country. Shes responsible to help develop criminal law and formulate criminal enforcement policies. She also has worked closely with the 93 u. S. Attorneys that have involved in investigations and prosecutions of criminal matters in the districts around the United States. Her entire career has largely been dedicated to handling federal criminal cases as a prosecutor and as defense counsel. Shes known particularly for her work on the task force, which she was director of from the year 2002 to 2004. She worked at the u. S. Attorneys office for the Northern District of california and had served as the chief of the Criminal Division and the chief of the securities fraud section. She worked for 11 years in the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of new york including serving as senior trial counsel for the business and securities fraud section and chief of the antifraud section. For her distinguished work on the task force she received an award for Exception Service and the john marshal award for trial litigation and the attorney generals award for fraud prevention. She also had before joining the Criminal Division a position as a partner at morgan and lewis and she was co chair of the firms Corporate Investigations and white collar practice group. Its great to welcome you back to your ala matter. Youre here in school again and were delighted that youre here and shes a graduate of Pennsylvania State university. She will provide opening remarks and then karen pop from the law firm of Sidley Austin will give a response as well. Let me just also introduce karen at this time too. Shes on the firms executive committee and as i mentioned she leads the firms white collar government litigation investigations group. That group is recognized as one of the top highprofile white collar groups in the United States with substantial experience in legal, political and Public Relations aspects of criminal defense, internal investigations, congressional investigations and the list goes on. Karens practiced is informed by a wealth of government and private sector experience including serving as a federal prosecutor in new york, a lawyer in the office of Legal Counsel at the u. S. Department of justice and Society White House Counsel to president clinton. Shes a graduate of the university of North Carolina where she earned her bachelor and jd degrees. We look forward to your opening remarks and after that ms. Pop will provide some comments. I have some questions and after weve had a discussion with the three of us, well open the floor to questions and comments. So please lets welcome leslie back to her alma mater. Thank you, dean. I can say that when i was here, none of this was here. It was a very different Physical Plant back then, but its great to be back at gw. I had a lot of good memories here and for me it was a great Legal Education and ive always valued it so hopefully those of you who are students are having a great experience. As the dean said, 2 1 2 years ago i was privileged to be named by the president and confirmed by the senate to become the assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division. Many people dont know what the Criminal Division does. Most people know about the u. S. Attorneys offices, which there are 93 of them and they do mostly focus on crime in their geographic areas. We went beyond our area too. In the Criminal Division were not really limited by geography, so we focus on subjec