[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 54 (Monday, April 11, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1845-S1848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination,
which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Waverly
D. Crenshaw, Jr., of Tennessee, to be United States District Judge for
the Middle District of Tennessee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes for debate only on the nomination, equally divided in the usual
form.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
during quorum calls be charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, in December of 2014, Judge William
Joseph Haynes, Jr., of the Middle District of Tennessee, assumed senior
status, creating a vacancy on the Middle District bench. That vacancy
has resulted in increased caseloads for the three active Federal
district judges--Judge Sharp, Judge Campbell, and Judge Trauger.
Fortunately, help is on the way.
In June, Senator Corker and I had the pleasure of introducing Waverly
Crenshaw to the Senate Judiciary Committee when it met to consider his
nomination. I was pleased that the committee agreed with our position,
and they reported out his nomination by voice vote the following month.
It's easy to see why Tennesseans support Mr. Crenshaw and are excited
about his nomination--and the prospect that the Senate will confirm him
tonight. He was born in Nashville, and then he stayed--attending
Vanderbilt
[[Page S1846]]
University for both college and law school.
After law school, he clerked for Judge John Nixon in the Middle
District of Tennessee, the same court where we hope he will soon serve.
After his clerkship, he worked for the Tennessee attorney general
before entering private practice. In 1987 he became an associate of a
small labor and employment law firm in Nashville. In 1990 he joined one
of our largest firms--Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis--where he is
currently a partner.
He is also active in the Nashville community serving as unpaid legal
counsel to the Nashville Conventions and Visitors Corporation, the
Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association, and the
YWCA, among others.
The Middle District of Tennessee is fortunate to have such a well-
qualified nominee. Waverly Crenshaw is a man of good character and of
good temperament, and today I encourage my colleagues to vote for his
confirmation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am glad to join the senior Senator, as I
have many times, but I thank him for his comments about this
distinguished person whom I hope is going to be confirmed this
afternoon as a district court judge.
When the White House began looking for someone to fill this position,
I spoke with people, as I am sure Senator Alexander did, across Middle
Tennessee to really find someone who not only would serve in his
position well but had, in his current role, been involved in the
community and had done many other things outside of law to benefit the
community itself. Certainly, this is someone who has done that.
It became very clear that he has distinguished himself not only as a
talented attorney but also as a well respected leader in the Nashville
community. As Lamar has mentioned, he is a lifelong Middle Tennessee
resident. He received his law degree from Vanderbilt University. He was
the first African-American attorney at the Waller law firm, and he has
been a partner since 1994.
He served as Tennessee's assistant attorney general from 1984 to
1987, and as a law clerk, as was mentioned, for the Honorable John
Nixon. This is exactly the branch he hopes to serve in.
I am confident he will serve the people of Middle Tennessee in this
new role in an honorable fashion. I am proud to be here to support him
with our senior Senator and with so many other people, by the way, in
Middle Tennessee who want to see him confirmed in this position. I hope
others will join us today in confirming him, and I look forward to him
serving. By the way, it is a place where there is a dire need to have
someone of his capacity. We have many cases that are backed up. This is
one of those places where we not only need someone to fill the role,
but we need someone as distinguished as Mr. Crenshaw.
I thank the Presiding Officer for the time. This Senator looks
forward to his confirmation. I hope everyone will join in confirming
this nominee.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today we will finally vote on the
nomination of Waverly Crenshaw to fill a judicial emergency vacancy in
the Federal District Court in the Middle District of Tennessee. This
vacancy has been open since December 2014, and Mr. Crenshaw was
nominated over a year ago, on February 4, 2015. He has the support of
his two Republican home State Senators, Senators Alexander and Corker.
He was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by unanimous voice vote
last summer on July 9, 2015. There is no good reason why it has taken
14 months to confirm this nominee.
Mr. Crenshaw is currently a partner at the law firm Waller Lansden
Dortch & Davis, LLP, in Nashville. Mr. Crenshaw was the first African-
American partner at Waller, and in his nearly three-decade career in
private practice, he has tried approximately 50 cases to verdict. Mr.
Crenshaw also served for 3 years in the Tennessee attorney general's
office as an assistant attorney general. He has the experience and
qualifications necessary to serve on the Federal bench, and he should
be confirmed.
This is our first judicial confirmation vote in 2 months. In the last
2 years of the Bush administration--with a Democratic majority--the
Senate confirmed 68 judges. This new Congress, the Republican
leadership has allowed only 16 judges to be confirmed since they gained
the majority last year. This record of obstruction began last year,
when Senate Republicans confirmed the fewest judicial nominees in more
than half a century.
Senate Republican leadership is failing our Federal judiciary with
their obstruction of judicial confirmations. When Senate Republicans
took over the majority in January of last year, there were 43 judicial
vacancies. Since then, vacancies have dramatically increased more than
75 percent to 79. Furthermore, the number of judicial vacancies deemed
to be ``emergencies'' by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
because caseloads in those courts are unmanageably high has nearly
tripled under Republican Senate leadership--from 12 when Republicans
took over last year to 34 today.
After we vote on Mr. Crenshaw's nomination, 19 judicial nominees will
remain pending on the Executive Calendar. This includes nominees with
home state support from Republican Senators, including Robert Rossiter
for the Federal District Court in the District of Nebraska; Edward
Stanton for the Federal District Court in the Western District of
Tennessee; and Susan Baxter and Marilyn Horan for the Federal District
Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
We can reduce the empty judgeships in those states if Republican
leadership would allow timely votes on the pending judicial nominees on
the Executive Calendar. All of those nominees were reported out of the
Judiciary Committee by voice vote. There should not be any further
delay in confirming them.
Last Thursday, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
and 42 other organizations submitted a letter to Chairman Grassley
expressing their dismay with the failure of the Judiciary Committee to
do its job to process nominees for our Federal trial and appellate
courts, creating a growing backlog of judicial nominations. I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of this letter
at the end of my statement.
The American people expect Senators to do their jobs. This is true
with judicial nominations to the lower courts, but it is even more
crucial for the Supreme Court of the United States because no one can
fill in for the vacant seat on our highest Court. In just the last few
weeks, the Supreme Court has deadlocked twice, so it was unable to
serve its constitutional function. Refusing to consider Chief Judge
Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court is not only unfair to him, it is
irresponsible and a threat to a functioning democracy.
A recent poll shows that nearly 70 percent of Americans--including a
majority of Republicans--say that the Senate should hold a hearing for
Chief Judge Garland. That is what the American people are saying, but
Republicans are refusing to hear them. Instead of listening to their
constituents, they are listening to powerful interest groups.
Since public confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominees began in
1916, the Senate has never denied a Supreme Court nominee a hearing and
a vote. And based on the Senate's precedent for decades, the Senate
Judiciary Committee should hold a hearing for Chief Judge Garland this
month.
A public hearing would allow Americans to engage in the process of
considering the nomination and hear directly from Chief Judge Garland,
but Senate Republicans continue to refuse to do their jobs. Instead,
Republicans have outsourced their job to political interest groups
whose only goal is to raise millions of dollars to launch a smear
campaign against the nominee's admirable record of public service.
These outside groups are not accountable to the American people. They
do not have the American people's interest in mind. They are private,
powerful groups whose only goal is to advance their own special
interests at any cost.
These special interest groups are spending millions of dollars in
dark money to run ads distorting Chief Judge Garland's record. At the
same time, Republican Senators are planning to deny Chief Judge Garland
a chance to defend himself at a public
[[Page S1847]]
hearing. It is wrong, it is harmful, and it is unfair.
Some Senators have claimed that their unprecedented obstruction
against Chief Judge Garland is based on ``principle, not the person.''
But it is not principled to attack Chief Judge Garland's sterling
career and then refuse to allow him the chance to respond at a public
hearing.
Rather than following the demands of unaccountable interest groups,
Republicans should listen to the American people who want to see real
leadership in Washington. Americans want Republicans to do their jobs
and consider for themselves the merits of Chief Judge Garland's record
through a public hearing and a vote.
I am glad that several Republican Senators have agreed to meet with
Chief Judge Garland. This is a person who has spent almost three
decades in public service and has more Federal judicial experience than
any Supreme Court nominee in history. Those who meet with Chief Judge
Garland will see what I have seen: that he has an exceptional legal
mind and a deep respect for the Constitution. His commitment to public
service is inspiring, from his days at the Justice Department working
as a prosecutor on the ground in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City
bombing to his nearly two decades as a Federal appellate judge.
But simply meeting with Chief Judge Garland is not enough. The Senate
must act on his nomination. In the last several weeks, the Supreme
Court deadlocked twice and was not able to carry out its constitutional
role as the final arbiter of our Nation's laws. Where you live will
impact what your rights are. That is unacceptable and contrary to our
constitutional system. If Republicans' irresponsible obstruction of
Chief Judge Garland does not stop, this will continue at the Supreme
Court for two terms.
I hope Senate Republicans will listen to the American people, roll up
their sleeves, and do their job. We must carry out one of our most
important and solemn responsibilities and consider the Supreme Court
nomination before us.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Leadership Conference
on Civil and Human Rights,
Washington DC, April 7, 2016.
Hon. Charles Grassley,
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Grassley: On behalf of The Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the 42 undersigned
organizations, we write to express our dismay with the
failure of the Judiciary Committee to address a growing
backlog of federal judicial nominations. With only 16 judges
confirmed so far, the 114th Congress is on pace to have the
lowest number of judges confirmed since the 82nd Congress in
1951-1952. Even worse, in the face of rising caseloads and
continuing judicial emergencies, it appears that the
Committee is determined to shut down the confirmation process
entirely--putting political considerations ahead of the
national interest in a well-functioning judicial branch, and
ahead of the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to
do its job of providing advice and consent on presidential
appointments.
While a great deal of public attention has rightly been
focused on the pending nomination of Chief Judge Merrick
Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court, vacancies on the lower
courts must not be lost amidst the debate. This year,
President Obama has nominated seven individuals to serve on
U.S. Courts of Appeal in various circuits throughout the
country, including several in circuits that are currently
experiencing judicial emergencies. While some senators have
expressed vague and superficial reasons for opposing
consideration of individual nominees, the qualifications of
these nominees cannot be seriously disputed-- every one of
the nominees below has an outstanding background, as well as
the widespread respect of those in the legal community who
know them best:
Rebecca Ross Haywood (Third Circuit): Nominated on March
15, Ms. Haywood has spent most of her legal career as an
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, including as the Appellate Chief of the Civil
Division since 2010. She regularly practices before the court
to which she has been nominated--and, if confirmed, would be
the first African-American woman to serve there.
Lisabeth Tabor Hughes (Sixth Circuit): Nominated on March
17, Judge Hughes was appointed to the Kentucky Supreme Court
in 2007 by then-Governor Ernie Fletcher and was reelected
twice, including without opposition in 2014. She previously
served on the Kentucky Court of Appeals (also having been
appointed by Gov. Fletcher), and has extensive experience in
both private practice and as a trial judge in Jefferson
County, Kentucky. She would be the first woman from Kentucky
on the court.
Donald Karl Schott (Seventh Circuit): Nominated on Jan. 12,
Mr. Schott graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School in
1980. Since then, he has spent most of his legal career in
private practice at Quarles & Brady, where he became a
partner in 1987, and has extensive trial and appellate
litigation experience, at both the state and federal levels,
specializing in securities and business fraud, commercial
disputes, health care, and energy-related issues.
Myra C. Selby (Seventh Circuit): Nominated on Jan. 12, Ms.
Selby spent 15 years in private practice and Indiana state
government before being nominated in 1995 to the Indiana
Supreme Court. She was the first African American and first
woman to serve there, and authored more than 100 majority
opinions, before returning to private practice in 1999. Since
then, she has specialized in commercial and health care
litigation. She would be the first African American from
Indiana and the first woman from Indiana on the Seventh
Circuit.
Jennifer Klemestrud Puhl (Eighth Circuit): Nominated on
Jan. 28, Ms. Puhl spent several years in private practice and
as a clerk on the North Dakota Supreme Court. In 2002, she
joined the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the District of North Dakota, where she prosecutes a wide
range of criminal cases and specializes in computer hacking
and cybersecurity, intellectual property, and human
trafficking. She would be the first woman federal judge at
any level in North Dakota.
Lucy H. Koh (Ninth Circuit): Nominated on Feb. 25, Judge
Koh became the first Asian American judge to serve on the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
having been confirmed in 2010 by a 90-0 vote. Prior to her
current position, she worked for the Senate Judiciary
Committee, held several positions within the Department of
Justice, and spent six years in private practice. In 2008,
she was appointed as a judge to the Superior Court of
California for Santa Clara County by then-Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger. She would be only the second Asian American
woman ever to serve on a federal circuit court.
Abdul K. Kallon (Eleventh Circuit): Nominated on Feb. 11,
Judge Kallon has served on the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama since 2009, after being
confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent. For the
previous fifteen years, Judge Kallon specialized in labor and
employment law as a partner at the Birmingham, Alabama firm
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. If confirmed, Judge Kallon
would be the first African American from Alabama to serve on
the Circuit.
In addition, the committee has failed to act on dozens of
pending district court nominees--too many to list here--from
throughout the country. As with the above appellate nominees,
many of these nominees would fill seats in districts that are
currently facing judicial emergencies. Many of the district
and appellate nominees come from states in which both
senators have returned their so-called ``blue slips,''
indicating their approval of the nominees. Normally, this
should clear the way for hearings and up-or-down confirmation
votes. Instead, these nominees have fallen victim to
election-year gamesmanship.
The complete obstruction of nominees is unprecedented, and
the arguments some are making in defense of this obstruction
are wholly unpersuasive. In 2008, the Democratic party-
controlled Senate confirmed 22 judges in the last seven
months of George W. Bush's presidency, including 10 in
September 2008. During Ronald Reagan's presidency, the Senate
on average confirmed 16 judges in the second half of
presidential election years. There is no legitimate reason
why things should be any different in the last year of
President Obama's second term.
While the Committee refuses to do its job, the American
people are left to pay the price. There are currently 32
judicial emergencies nationwide (16 of the pending nominees
would fill these seats), and more than 40 total nominees
pending in committee or on the Senate floor. Many of the
pending nominees would fill vacancies in courts that have
been left shorthanded for years. Donald Schott would fill a
Seventh Circuit seat that has been vacant for more than six years,
and more than 30 of the 46 pending nominees are nominated
to seats that have been empty for more than a year.
Meanwhile, the inaction is slowing the wheels of justice
for all types of parties who are seeking to vindicate their
legal and constitutional rights. Numerous judges have
explained the consequences they and litigants face: long
delays on even the most simple filings and motions,
protracted waits for post- conviction sentences, spoiled
evidence, witnesses whose memories fade, lost businesses and
the jobs that go with them while waiting for trials, and many
more. Not only is the situation rife with injustices, but it
is also completely unsustainable.
The Committee has a constitutional responsibility to
provide advice and consent on presidential nominees, and a
duty to the American people to simply do its job. In the
coming weeks and months, our organizations will continue to
make the case until it does.
If you have any questions, please contact Rob Randhava,
Senior Counsel at The Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights at (202) 466-3311, or any of the organizations
listed below. As organizations that collectively represent
millions of diverse
[[Page S1848]]
Americans who have a stake in a fair, effective judicial
system, we thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, AFL-
CIO, Alliance for Justice, American Constitution Society for
Law and Policy, American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers,
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Americans for
Democratic Action, Asian Americans Advancing Justice AAJC,
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA),
Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations,
The Center for Asian Pacific American Women, Coalition of
Black Trade Unionists, Constitutional Accountability Center,
CREDO, Defenders of Wildlife, Disability Rights Education &
Defense Fund, Earthjustice, Human Rights Campaign, Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, League of Conservation
Voters, NAACP.
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., National
Association of Human Rights Workers, National Association of
Social Workers, National Black Justice Coalition, National
Center on Time and Learning, National Community Reinvestment
Coalition, National Congress of American Indians, National
Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA), National Council
of Jewish Women, National Education Association, National
Employment Lawyers Association, National Fair Housing
Alliance, National Hispanic Media Coalition, National LGBTQ
Task Force Action Fund, National Partnership for Women &
Families, National Women's Law Center, People For the
American Way, Pride at Work, South Asian Americans Leading,
Together (SAALT) United Auto Workers (UAW), The Workmen's
Circle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.