[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5210-5212]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF GEORGE C. HANKS, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                   FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

  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 legislative clerk read the nomination of George C. Hanks, Jr., of 
Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 16 minutes 
of debate remaining on the nomination.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do I have 15 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, tonight, the Senate will vote on the 
nomination of George Hanks to be a district judge for the Southern 
District of Texas. If confirmed, Judge Hanks will be the President's 
309th judicial nominee confirmed since this President took office. By 
comparison, at the same point in his Presidency, President Bush had 
only 273 judicial nominees confirmed.
  Despite some of the complaints that we are hearing from my colleagues 
on the other side, we are moving judicial nominees at about the same 
pace as we did at this point in President Bush's Presidency. One 
difference, of course, is how the Senate handled the judicial nominees 
that were reported out of the committee during the lameduck session.
  Historically, the Senate doesn't confirm judges at the end of a 
Congress if those judges are reported out of committee during a 
lameduck. The reason for this, of course, is so the newly elected 
Members have an opportunity for their voices to be heard. For instance, 
that is what happened in 2006 when the Senate returned 13 judicial 
nominees to the President. Those nominees were then renominated in

[[Page 5211]]

2007 and eventually confirmed in the new Congress, but the Senate 
Democrats did not follow tradition last year. Instead of following 
standard practice, Senate Democrats confirmed 11 judicial nominees who 
were reported out of committee during the lameduck session. Had they 
followed standard practice, we would have voted on those nominees at 
the beginning of this year, just as the committee did with the nominees 
that were resubmitted in 2007.
  At the end of the day, when we include the 11 district court nominees 
who were confirmed at the end of last year, we are at about the same 
pace that the Democratically led Senate was in 2007 during the Bush 
administration. This is further confirmed when you compare the 
committee's work this year to 2007. In 2007, at this point in the 
Congress, the committee had held three nominee hearings for a total of 
10 judges.
  As of right now, the Judiciary Committee has already held 4 
nomination hearings for a total of 10 nominees. These nominees include 
six judges and four executive nominees, including both the Attorney 
General and Deputy Attorney General nominees.
  The bottom line is the Senate Judiciary Committee is treating the 
President's nominees extremely fairly. He has had dozens more nominees 
confirmed than President Bush did at this point in his Presidency. I 
expect another one will be confirmed tonight, and I congratulate Judge 
Hanks on his pending nomination and urge my colleagues to vote 
accordingly.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we will be voting to confirm Judge 
George Hanks, who has been nominated to be a Federal district judge in 
the Southern District of Texas. Judge Hanks is just the second judicial 
nominee that we have voted to confirm more than 3 months into the 114th 
Congress. The slow trickle of confirmations that the new majority has 
allowed is undermining the functioning of our Federal courts and is 
hurting the American people. This past month, the Wall Street Journal 
wrote an alarming article about the backlog of civil cases in our 
Federal courts. One man interviewed for the article filed a Federal law 
suit in 2007 and is still waiting for his case to be heard. It is 
unconscionable that an American would have to wait 8 years and still 
not have his day in court. Unfortunately, it is not surprising given 
that at last count, there were more than 330,000 civil cases pending in 
our Federal courts. This is a record high and an increase of nearly 20 
percent since 2004.
  There are steps the Republican majority should take to help our 
Federal courts better serve the American people. First, the Senate 
should confirm every single one of the nine judicial nominees on the 
Executive Calendar without further delay. Besides Judge Hanks, there 
are two other Federal district court nominees pending on the Executive 
Calendar, both from States with two Republican home State Senators. 
Both of those nominees were reported out of the Judiciary Committee 
unanimously by voice vote. One of the nominees will fill a judicial 
emergency vacancy in Texas that has remained unfilled for more than 2 
years. This type of neglect is unacceptable. In addition, there are 
five other nominees to the Court of Federal Claims and a nominee for 
the Court of International Trade. None of these nominees are 
controversial and they could easily be confirmed by a simple voice vote 
if Republicans would allow.
  After today's confirmation vote, there will be 53 vacancies on our 
Federal courts. But even if we filled every one of these vacancies, we 
still would have to address the growing needs of our co-equal branch of 
government that is struggling with heavy caseloads. Last month, the 
Judicial Conference of the United States, led by Chief Justice John 
Roberts, identified the need for adding 73 permanent judgeships, as 
well as converting 9 temporary district court judgeships to permanent 
status. The Senate should be working in a bipartisan manner to provide 
the Federal Judiciary with the resources it needs, including the 
addition of woefully-needed additional judgeships.
  The fact that today we are only voting on the second judicial nominee 
of this Congress shows that the delay and obstruction that we saw from 
Republicans in the first 6 years of the Obama administration has 
continued now that they control the Senate's agenda. One simply needs 
to look at the nomination of Loretta Lynch to understand how 
Republicans approach our constitutional role of advice and consent. Ms. 
Lynch is an eminently qualified nominee and enjoys broad support, yet 
her nomination has now been pending before the full Senate for 53 days. 
That is more than twice as long as all of the past seven Attorneys 
General combined: Richard Thornburgh, 1 day; William Barr, 5 days; 
Janet Reno, 1 day; John Ashcroft, 2 days, Alberto Gonzales, 8 days; 
Michael Mukasey, 2 days; and Eric Holder, 5 days. This delay is an 
embarrassment for the United States Senate. I agree with President 
Obama, who said last week that ``there are times where the dysfunction 
in the Senate just goes too far.'' The obstruction of this historic 
nominee has gone on far too long. It is long past time for the Senate 
Republican leader to allow Ms. Lynch a vote and allow the American 
people to be served by this outstanding public servant.
  The judicial nominee we are voting on today, Judge George Hanks, will 
fill a Federal district court vacancy in the Southern District of 
Texas. Since 2010, Judge Hanks has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge 
for the U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of Texas. 
Prior to joining the Federal bench, Judge Hanks was a Court of Appeals 
Justice for the First District of Texas from 2002 to 2010, and a judge 
on the 157th Civil District Court of Texas from 2001 to 2002. Before 
becoming a judge, he was in private practice for nearly a decade. The 
ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him 
``Well Qualified,'' its highest rating. Judge Hanks is supported by his 
two Republican home State Senators and his nomination was unanimously 
approved by voice vote by the Judiciary Committee on February 26. He 
has strong qualifications and should be confirmed without further 
delay.
  I urge the Republican Leader to schedule votes to confirm the 
remaining judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar. None of 
the nominees are controversial. We should do our jobs and vote on their 
nominations so that they can start doing their jobs working for the 
American people.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of George C. Hanks, Jr., of Texas, to be 
United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. 
Blunt), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Coats), the Senator from Texas 
(Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the 
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 0, as follows:

[[Page 5212]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 155 Ex.]

                                YEAS--91

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Alexander
     Blunt
     Coats
     Cruz
     Graham
     Murkowski
     Rubio
     Sullivan
     Toomey
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________