[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 86 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4511-S4516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF KENNETH JOHN GONZALES TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations,
which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nominations of Luis Felipe Restrepo,
of Pennsylvania, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania and
Kenneth John Gonzales, of New Mexico, to be United States District
Judge for the District of New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 30
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to
strongly support the confirmation of Kenneth Gonzales for U.S. district
judge for the District of New Mexico.
Mr. Gonzales is an exceptional nominee with an impressive range of
legal experience and expertise. He was unanimously confirmed by the
Senate as the U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico in 2010. But
he is more than just his resume, remarkable as it is. He is also an
inspiring American story.
Mr. Gonzales grew up in the Pojoaque Valley in the northern part of
our State. He was the first in his family to graduate from college.
With the help of scholarships and grants, he received his undergraduate
and law degrees from the University of New Mexico, a school that I am
proud to call my alma mater.
After graduating he was a law clerk to New Mexico Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Baca, and he worked as a legislative assistant for
Senator Jeff Bingaman.
He began his career as a Federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of New Mexico in 1999, prosecuting a wide range
of Federal offenses, including narcotics and violent crime cases. He
holds the rank of major as a judge advocate in the U.S. Army Reserve,
which he joined in September 2001. He has provided critical legal
assistance to hundreds of active and retired soldiers and spouses, both
here and overseas. In 2008 he was called to Active Duty as a part of
Operation Enduring Freedom, where he was stationed at Fort Bragg and
served as a senior trial counsel.
Mr. Gonzales has been an exemplary U.S. attorney for the District of
New Mexico. He oversees a broad array of criminal and civil cases.
I would also like to note that he has made Indian Country a priority
in the U.S. Attorney's Office, making a real difference in prosecuting
cases of violence against native women and children.
Not surprisingly, his advice and counsel are highly valued. He serves
on the Attorney General's Advisory Committees on Native American
Issues, on the Southwest Border and Immigration Issues, on the
Environmental and Natural Resources Working Group, and is a member of
the Tenth Circuit Advisory Council.
He is also a member of the New Mexico Hispanic Bar Association. If
confirmed, he will join only 58 other Hispanic active district court
judges--less than 10 percent of the country's 677 district court
judgeships.
Mr. Gonzales is esteemed for his diverse experience, for his even
temperament, and for his integrity. From a young man dreaming of going
to college, to his life in public service, his story is one of great
determination and commitment. He has shown a reverence for and
dedication to the law throughout his career.
I urge his confirmation. I know Ken Gonzales will serve New Mexico
well on the Federal bench.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to
also speak about the nomination of Kenneth Gonzales to be a Federal
district judge for the District of New Mexico.
Ken, as he is known back home to many of us, is truly a standout
nominee. I wish I could take credit for his nomination, but that credit
belongs to our former U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman and to our senior
Senator Tom Udall. But I want to thank both of them for putting forward
such a great candidate for this position, and I am very pleased to be
here today to support him.
Ken has a long and distinguished record of public service, including
more than a decade of service in our military. Ken has served as the
U.S. attorney for New Mexico since April 2010. His elevation to lead
that office followed more than a decade of service there as an
assistant U.S. attorney. I would like to highlight at least one of his
many accomplishments that I find particularly important.
I think Ken's efforts as U.S. attorney demonstrate not only his
character and his intellect but the dedication that he has to serving
his home State and making it a better place for all our residents.
Much of New Mexico is Indian Country for which the U.S. attorney has
the responsibility to prosecute criminal activity. Ken has taken the
initiative to reorganize and focus the U.S. attorney's resources to
more effectively combat the higher-than-average rates of violent crime,
sexual assault, and sexual abuse that have plagued Indian Country.
This includes creating the first Indian Country Crime Section within
any U.S. Attorney Office. This section includes a team of lawyers
responsible for pursuing felony offenses on tribal lands. The office is
also collaborating with tribal prosecutors to investigate and prosecute
domestic violence in more than 20 pueblos and tribes located throughout
the State of New Mexico.
This is just one example of Ken's work, but throughout his career Ken
has shown a dedication to serving the people of New Mexico. It is the
sum of all his efforts and accomplishments that make me believe he will
make an outstanding addition to the Federal bench, and I am pleased
that today we are at the final step toward getting him here.
The process for getting to the Federal bench is a long road to
travel. The Judiciary Committee's leadership from both sides of the
aisle takes seriously its responsibility to ensure that every nominee
is fit to serve. I want to say a special thanks to Senator Leahy and
Senator Grassley for working together and with Senator Udall and myself
to get Ken through this process.
As the vetting process surely showed, Ken has the knowledge,
temperament, and integrity to serve on the Federal bench. I have no
doubt that he will distinguish himself there, as he has throughout his
entire legal career.
I strongly support his nomination, and I urge all of my colleagues to
do the same.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I wish to offer my full support for
the nomination of Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo to serve as U.S. District
Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Before I begin, I wish to take this opportunity to thank Chairman
Leahy and Senator Grassley for helping facilitate Judge Restrepo's
confirmation
[[Page S4512]]
hearing and Leader Reid and Leader McConnell for their assistance in
bringing his nomination to the Senate floor.
I would also like to thank Senator Casey for his collaboration in our
bipartisan effort to fill Pennsylvania's judicial vacancies with
exceptional candidates. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, we have worked
together to identify and recommend eight candidates, seven of whom have
been confirmed. The people of Pennsylvania value this bipartisan spirit
and I am pleased our joint efforts have led to today's consideration of
Judge Restrepo.
Judge Restrepo currently serves as a Federal magistrate judge for the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A native
of Columbia, he was raised in Northern Virginia and received his
citizenship in 1993. A graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, he
went on to earn his J.D. from Tulane School of Law.
Judge Restrepo brings a strong record as an attorney in both the
public and private sector, which helps explain why he merited a
unanimous ``Well Qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association.
After working as a public defender, he then practiced law at the law
firm of Krasner & Restrepo, focusing on criminal defense and civil
rights litigation. After 13 years in the private sector, Judge Restrepo
was selected to be a Federal magistrate judge and has served the public
in this capacity for 7 years.
Aside from his legal duties, Judge Restrepo has devoted significant
time to his community. In addition to his involvement with the Make-A-
Wish Foundation, he established the Police/Barrio project, which
focuses on improving the relationship between the Police Department and
Latino Community in Philadelphia.
I am very confident that Judge Restrepo's judicial experience, legal
acumen, and dedication to public service will serve him well should he
be confirmed for the Federal bench. I am pleased to support this highly
qualified nominee and I urge my colleagues to vote for his
confirmation.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. ISAKSON. 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. ISAKSON. I ask permission to speak for 3 minutes as if in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Congressman John Robert Lewis
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I rise proudly today to speak to a
resolution that I have submitted in the Senate commending John Robert
Lewis, Congressman, from the city of Atlanta, civil rights leader in
the 1960s and 1950s, and my personal friend.
In 1954, I was 10 years old in the Atlanta public schools when Brown
v. Board of Education was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. John Lewis
was 4 years older than me. He was born just outside of Pike County, AL,
and went to the Pike County, AL, segregated public school. He went on
to Fisk University to get a degree in religion and philosophy and
volunteered for sit-ins in Nashville to break the first sit-in on lunch
counters in the history of that city.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of what is called the Big Six in
civil rights. As I am sure the Presiding Officer will remember, it was
50 years ago this August that Martin Luther King led a march in
Washington and gave his great speech, ``I Have a Dream'' at the Lincoln
Memorial. There were six great civil rights leaders then. There is only
one left, and that is John Robert Lewis. He is my friend, he is my
compatriot, and our lives have paralleled each other all the way
through.
John introduced me when I was first elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives, and I was honored for that introduction. This year I
joined John on the 50th anniversary of the crossing of the Edmund
Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, the historic march, the bloody march on
Bloody Sunday, which turned around the Voting Rights Act, saw to it
that every American got equal access to vote, and changed the history
of our country.
It is an honor and a privilege for me to honor John today on this
50th anniversary of the crossing of the Edmund Pettus Bridge and honor
a career that has been dedicated to liberty and freedom for all
Americans.
John recently suffered the loss of his beautiful wife Lillian. She is
survived by their son John Miles Lewis. John is a great leader to this
day on the floor of the House, a great leader for the State of Georgia,
and one with whom I am pleased to serve as Senator.
History has many heroes, as we all know--their pictures and their
carvings are all over this Capitol. But none is greater than one who
has sacrificed their life for the rights of others and for everyone to
enjoy the same rights that everyone else in America has. John Lewis is
such a person. I am honored to recognize him with this resolution.
Mr. President, I yield for the distinguished Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on the question of nominations, I attended
President Obama's announcement of the nomination to the DC Circuit a
couple of weeks ago. I have heard some of my colleagues on the
Republican side being very critical of the President for not sending
nominations for judicial vacancies to the Senate, even though when he
has, some of them have held them up for 6 months to a year before they
then vote overwhelmingly for the person. They hold him up and then say:
Why don't you send more people? Frankly, a lot of people say: Why
should I spend 6 months or a year waiting while they hold me up? Now
the President has sent nominees for the multiple vacancies that
continue on the DC Circuit. So the same Senators who are complaining
that he was not sending up nominees now say he is sending up too many.
My friends on the other side of the aisle are saying: You are not
sending up enough, but you are sending up too many. I think maybe the
American people see the fallacy of that argument.
Having been unfairly criticized in connection with the nomination of
Judge Srinivasan, with some Senate Republicans saying: Why didn't you
get him up here earlier for a vote, even though Republicans had asked
us to delay him, I have learned from that that when cooperating and
delaying at their request, I am going to get criticized for delaying,
so going forward I will be making every effort to schedule prompt
hearings for these impressive nominees, each of whom received the
highest possible rating of ``well qualified'' from the nonpartisan ABA
Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. We have three people with
the highest possible rating.
The last time we had someone for the DC Circuit, even though
Republicans kept saying: Let's delay, keep delaying--and I did so at
their request--and they criticized me for delaying, here we are and we
are going forward with them.
Frankly, I voted for a lot of President Bush's nominees. In fact, I
would say I voted for 97 or 98 percent of all Republican nominees over
38 years. I voted for more Republican judicial nominees than any
Republican presently in the Senate. There is no Republican in the
Senate who has voted for more Republican nominees of Republican
Presidents, nominees for judgeships, than I have. So I do not need a
lecture about holding things up.
I have consulted with the ranking Republican on the committee and
informed him that I plan to notice the first hearing for July 10. That
gives plenty of time for everybody to read all the nominee's materials.
We will be on vacation for the Fourth of July week; they can read it
during vacation. That will be 36 days since the nominations and on a
slightly slower timeline than we followed for the more recent
confirmation of the nominee to the Eighth Circuit. I am delighted to
include the nomination of Patricia Millett of Virginia, who should have
broad bipartisan support, in our July 10 confirmation hearing.
It is disappointing that the same Republican Senators who said during
the George W. Bush administration that the DC Circuit should have 11
filled judgeships and who voted to confirm President Bush's nominees
for the 9th, 10th and 11th seats, now that there is a Democratic
President of the United States in the White House, they say no,
[[Page S4513]]
no, they should not be filled. It seems this President has to be
treated differently than the previous Presidents. I am not sure why the
difference, but that is what they want. It is disappointing as well
that Republican Senators I have helped fill circuit vacancies with
nominees from their home states, over opposition from their own
Republican Senate caucus, are ready to tow their party's line when it
comes to the D.C. Circuit.
Following President Obama's reelection, Senate Republicans are even
proposing to eliminate those D.C. Circuit judgeships legislatively.
Their claims of concern about the caseloads of the Second and Eleventh
Circuits but not the most overburdened Ninth Circuit are difficult to
reconcile with their votes for President Bush's D.C. Circuit nominees.
As one scholar at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution has said, this
``fooled no one who was paying attention.''
I cannot help but wonder where Senate Republicans' concern about the
caseload of the Second Circuit was when they needlessly delayed the
confirmation of Gerard Lynch for three months; when they needlessly
delayed the confirmation of Raymond Lohier for seven months; when they
needlessly delayed the confirmation of Susan Carney for five months;
when they unfairly stalled the nomination of Judge Robert Chatigny and
then needlessly delayed the confirmation of the next Connecticut
nominee, Chris Droney, for four months; or when they needlessly delayed
the confirmation of Denny Chin for four months and forced the Majority
Leader to file cloture to get a confirmation vote.
I wonder where their concern about the caseload of the Eleventh
Circuit was when they needlessly delayed the confirmation of Beverly
Martin for four months, or when they needlessly delayed the
confirmation of Adalberto Jordan for four months and forced a cloture
vote before his confirmation. I am prepared to help alleviate concern
about the caseload of the Eleventh Circuit by scheduling a hearing on
the nomination of Jill Pryor, a ``well qualified'' nominee from Georgia
to the Court, if her home State Senators would return their blue slips
indicating that they do not object to her nomination going forward.
The American people are not fooled. Senate Republicans are now
playing by a different set of rules. Politifact has looked at their
argument that President Obama is trying to ``pack'' the D.C. Circuit,
and rated it ``false.'' It goes on to note that the Republican bill to
eliminate D.C. Circuit judgeships ``comes closer to the kind of
structural meddling typical of court packing than does Obama's
approach.'' In the last 30 years, Republican presidents have appointed
15 of the last 19 judges named to the D.C. Circuit. Now that these
three vacancies exist during a Democratic presidency, Senate
Republicans are trying to use legislation to lock in their partisan
advantage, and thwart the will of the American people, who elected
Barack Obama. Even conservative columnist Byron York has tweeted: ``It
doesn't strike me as `packing' to nominate candidates to available
seats.''
The Washington Post's ``Fact Checker'' blog has also looked at the
arguments about the D.C. Circuit's caseload that Senate Republicans are
using to justify their attempt to eliminate three seats on that court,
and has judged them worthy of two ``Pinocchios,'' meaning:
``Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be
involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false,
misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic
language that means little to ordinary people.''
Senate Republicans should know that their argument about the D.C.
Circuit's caseload is misleading. While they claim expertise in the
matter because of a hearing they held in 1995, the fact is that their
current claims fly in the face of the actual testimony from that
hearing. They are fond of citing the testimony of Judge Laurence
Silberman, a Reagan appointee, that he felt the 12th seat was not
necessary. What Senate Republicans do not mention is that Judge
Silberman believed that 11 judgeships was the proper number on that
Circuit, and that the notion that the D.C. Circuit should have only
nine judges was ``quite farfetched.'' Judge Silberman also said that
``the unique nature of the D.C. Circuit's caseload'' means that it is
not directly comparable to the other circuit courts. Even though their
own witness contradicted them, 18 years later Senate Republicans
continue to make their partisan argument. In addition, we eliminated
that twelfth seat years ago.
In its April 5, 2013 letter, the Judicial Conference of the United
States, chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts, sent us recommendations
``based on our current caseload needs.'' They did not recommend
stripping judgeships from the D.C. Circuit but stated that they should
continue at 11. Three are currently vacant. According to the
Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the caseload per active judge for
the D.C. Circuit has actually increased by 46 percent since 2005, when
the Senate confirmed President Bush's nominee to fill the eleventh seat
on the D.C. Circuit. When the Senate confirmed Thomas Griffith--
President Bush's nominee to the eleventh seat--in 2005, the
confirmation resulted in there being approximately 121 pending cases
per active D.C. Circuit judge. According to the most recent data, there
are currently 177 pending cases for each active judge on the D.C.
Circuit, 46 percent higher.
Further, concerns about low caseloads did not bother Senate
Republicans voting this past February to confirm a Tenth Circuit
nominee from Oklahoma, giving that Court the lowest number of pending
appeals per active judge in the country. It did not bother Senate
Republicans voting this past April to confirm an Eighth Circuit nominee
from Iowa, giving that Court the lowest number of pending appeals per
active judge in the country. Yes, lower than the D.C. Circuit. I do not
recall seeing any bills from Senate Republicans to eliminate the
Oklahoma and Iowa judgeships.
This falls into a pattern that we have seen from Senate Republicans
over the past 20 years. While they had no problem adding a twelfth seat
to the D.C. Circuit in 1984, and voting for President Reagan's and
President George H.W. Bush's nominees for that seat, they suddenly
``realized'' in 1995, when a Democrat served as President, that the
Court did not need that judge. Judge Merrick Garland was finally
confirmed in 1997 after President Clinton was reelected but Senate
Republicans would not act on his final two nominees to the D.C.
Circuit.
In 2002, during the George W. Bush administration, the D.C. Circuit's
caseload had dropped to its lowest level in the last 20 years. During
that Republican administration, Senate Republicans had no problem
voting to confirm President Bush's nominees to the ninth, tenth and
eleventh seats. These are the same seats they wish to eliminate now
that Barack Obama is President, even though the Court's current
caseload is consistent with the average over the past 10 years. Even on
its own terms, it is apparent that this argument has nothing to do with
caseload, and everything to do with who is President. When Senate
Republicans get serious about ensuring our Federal courts are
adequately staffed, I am more than happy to work with them on a long-
overdue judgeship bill. But this selective concern about the D.C.
Circuit, and the fact that in 2008 the minority blocked a Judiciary
Committee hearing on ``The Growing Need for Federal Judgeships,'' does
not reflect such seriousness.
I urge those Republicans who say first that the President is not
moving fast enough and then, when he does move, say he is moving too
fast, to reconsider their approach, work with the President, and let's
have fair hearings on these three nominees and go forward with them. If
we do, I am confident we will agree that they are well-qualified
judicial nominees.
Restrepo and Gonzales Nominations
Last week the Senate failed to complete action on one of the three
nominations pending for vacancies in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Even though Senate Democrats had expedited three of
President Bush's nominees to that court, confirming them all by voice
vote just 1 day after they had been reported by the Judiciary
Committee, Senate Republicans refused to do the same for President
Obama's nominees. They refused even though all three had the bipartisan
support of their home State Senators and the
[[Page S4514]]
unanimous support of all Republicans on the Committee. Two were
confirmed last week but one was held back. After waiting 98 days for a
vote, Judge Alejandro and Judge Schmehl were confirmed unanimously last
week. Today, after another unnecessary delay, the Senate will finally
vote on the nomination of Judge Luis Restrepo, more than 100 days after
he was voted out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. When the
Senate is finally allowed to act, we will confirm a judge to fill a 4-
year vacancy.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a court that needs judges.
Even with today's vote, it will remain nearly 20 percent vacant. The
Senate should be taking swift action to fill these kinds of vacancies,
not delaying for no good reason. This obstruction does a disservice to
the people of Pennsylvania, and to all Americans who depend on our
Federal courts for justice.
I regret that I must correct the Record, again. The recent assertion
by Senate Republicans that 99 percent of President Obama's nominees
have been confirmed is not accurate. President Obama has nominated 237
individuals to be circuit or district judges, and 195 have been allowed
to be confirmed by the Senate. That is 82 percent, not 99 percent. By
way of comparison, at the same point in President Bush's second term,
June 17 of his fifth year in office, President Bush had nominated four
fewer people, but had seen 215 of them confirmed, which is 20 more
confirmations. The truth is that 92 percent of President Bush's
judicial nominees had been confirmed at the same point, 10 percentage
points more than have been allowed President Obama. That is an apples
to apples comparison, and it demonstrates the undeniable fact that the
Senate has confirmed a lower number and lower percentage of President
Obama's nominees than President Bush's nominees at the same time in
their presidencies.
I noted at the end of last year, while Senate Republicans were
insisting on delaying confirmations of 15 judicial nominees that could
and should have taken place then, that we would not likely be allowed
to complete work on them until May. That was precisely the Republican
plan. So when Senate Republicans now seek to claim credit for their
confirmations in President Obama's second term, they are inflating the
confirmation statistics. The truth is that only nine confirmations have
taken place this year that are not attributable to those nominations
Senate Republicans held over from last year and that could and should
have taken place last year. To return to the baseball analogy, if a
baseball player goes 0-for-9, and then gets a hit, we do not say he is
an all-star because he is batting 1.000 in his last at bat. We
recognize that he is just 1-for-10, and not a very good hitter. Nor
would a fair calculation of hits or home runs allow a player to credit
those that occurred in one game or season to the next because it would
make his stats look better.
If President Obama's nominees were receiving the same treatment as
President Bush's, today's votes would bring us to 215 confirmations,
not 197, and vacancies would be far lower. The nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service has noted that it will require 31 more
district and circuit confirmations this year to match President Bush's
5-year total. Even with the confirmations finally concluded during the
first 6 months of this year, Senate Republicans have still not allowed
President Obama to match the record of President Bush's first term.
Even with an extra 6 months, we are still 10 confirmations behind where
we were at the end of 2004.
Luis Restrepo has served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania since 2006. Prior to his appointment to the
Federal bench, he was a founding partner of Krasner & Restrepo, a firm
that focused on civil rights and criminal defense work. He has also
worked as an adjunct professor at Temple University, Beasley School of
Law and the University of Pennsylvania Law School. Before co-founding
his own law firm, Judge Restrepo was an Assistant Federal Defender for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, an Assistant Defender for the
Defender Association of Philadelphia, and a Law Clerk for the ACLU's
National Prison Project. The nonpartisan ABA Standing Committee on the
Federal Judiciary has unanimously rated Judge Restrepo ``well
qualified.'' He is supported by both his home State Senators, Senator
Casey and Senator Toomey.
Kenneth Gonzales has been the United States Attorney for the District
of New Mexico since 2010. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in
that office for the previous 11 years. Prior to working with the U.S.
Attorney's Office, Kenneth Gonzales spent 3 years as a Legislative
Assistant to former Senator Jeff Bingaman and 2 years as law clerk to
the Honorable Joseph F. Baca of the New Mexico Supreme Court. He also
serves in the United States Army Reserve as a Judge Advocate General.
Kenneth Gonzales has the support of his home State Senators, Senator
Tom Udall and Senator Martin Heinrich, and was reported unanimously
from the Judiciary Committee 2 months ago.
I want the Senate to make real progress on filling judicial vacancies
so that the American people have access to justice. In President Bush's
first term, half of his consensus district nominees waited 18 days or
fewer for a vote, so we know the Senate is capable of swift action on
nominations. There is no reason consensus nominees like Judge Restrepo
and Kenneth Gonzales should have to wait 2 or 3 months for a vote. The
only reason for these delays is because of Republican refusal to allow
votes. These nominees deserve better, and the American people deserve
better.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to vote for both judges
today. But today I want to inform my fellow Senators and American
people regarding the facts on judicial nominations. Today, we will
confirm two more nominees. I would note that we confirmed two judges
just 4 days ago.
After today, the Senate will have confirmed 197 lower court nominees;
we have defeated two. That is 197-2. That is an outstanding record.
That is a success rate of 99 percent.
And we have been doing that at a fast pace. During the last Congress
we confirmed more judges than any Congress since the 103rd Congress,
which was 1993-94.
This year, the beginning of President Obama's second term, we have
already confirmed more judges than were confirmed in the entire first
year of President Bush's second term. Let me emphasize that again--We
have already confirmed more nominees this year than we did during the
entirety of 2005, the first year of President Bush's second term.
After today, only five article III judges remain on the Executive
Calendar--three district nominees and two Circuit nominees.
Two of those were reported out last week, two more about a month ago,
and one has been on the calendar for about two months. Yet, somehow
Senate Democrats cite this as evidence of obstructionism.
Compare that to the calendar of June 2004, when 30 judicial
nominations were on the Calendar--10 Circuit and 20 District. In fact,
four of those were from Pennsylvania, as is one of our nominees today.
I don't recall any Senate Democrats complaining about how many
nominations were piling up on the calendar, nor do I remember
protestations from my colleagues on the other side that judicial
nominees were moving too slowly.
Last week, when we confirmed two Pennsylvania judges, there were
statements made on the floor that we were treating President Obama's
nominees very different than those of President Bush. But look at the
record. As I said, there were four Pennsylvania nominees on the
calendar in June of 2004.
Gene Pratter was nominated in November 2003, had a hearing in the
following January, was reported in March, and was confirmed in June.
Lawrence Stengel was nominated in November 2003, had a hearing the
following February, was reported in March, and was confirmed in June.
Juan Sanchez was nominated in November, had a hearing the following
February, was reported in March, and was confirmed in June.
Those milestones are nearly identical to our Pennsylvania nominee
today who was nominated last November. Just like the ones I mentioned,
he had a hearing the following February, was reported in March, and now
will be confirmed in June.
[[Page S4515]]
If we have been unfair to this nominee, as it is now claimed, where
was the outcry from Senate Democrats on the Bush nominees I just
described? The fact is there is no difference in how this President's
nominees are being treated versus how President Bush's nominees were
treated.
Remember, now there are only five article III judicial nominees
remaining after today's vote. Yet, as I mentioned, in June 2004 there
were 30 nominations pending on the calendar. Some of those nominees had
been reported out more than a year earlier and most were pending for
months. And some of them never got an up or down vote.
The bottom line is that the Senate is processing the President's
nominees exceptionally fairly. President Obama certainly is being
treated more fairly in the beginning of his second term than Senate
Democrats treated President Bush in 2005. It is not clear to me how
allowing more votes so far this year than President Bush got in an
entire year amounts to ``unprecedented delays and obstruction.'' Yet,
that is the complaint we here over and over from the other side.
Last week it was stated that with this President, ``Republicans have
never let vacancies get below 72.''
After today's votes there will be 77 vacancies in the federal
judiciary. But 52 of those spots are without a nominee. How is it the
fault of the Republicans that the President has not sent 52 nominees to
the Committee? Obviously, common sense ought to tell you that we can't
act on nominees who are not presented to the Senate.
Just one example will illustrate this. Last week the Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee singled out the vacancies on the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania. We are confirming the third judge to that Court, after
the two last week. Four vacancies remain, but there are no nominees
pending in the Senate for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
It was also stated that the seat we are filling today has been vacant
for over 4 years, as if Republicans were to blame for that. The fact
is, this seat went vacant on June 8, 2009. President Obama was the
President then. He waited over 3 years and 5 months before making a
nomination on November 27, 2012. Why did the President make the people
of Pennsylvania wait so long? That wasn't the fault of this side of the
aisle. Yet now we are accused of obstruction.
So I just wanted to set the record straight--again--before we vote on
these nominees. I expect they will both be confirmed and I congratulate
them on their confirmations. And as I said at the beginning, I'm going
to vote to support these nominees.
Kenneth John Gonzales is nominated to be United States District Court
Judge for the District of New Mexico. Upon graduation from the
University of New Mexico School of Law in 1994, Mr. Gonzales clerked
for Chief Justice Joseph F. Baca of the New Mexico Supreme Court. In
1996 he worked as a legislative assistant to Senator Jeff Bingaman.
From 1999 to 2010, Mr. Gonzales served as an Assistant United States
Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Mexico.
His primary responsibility was criminal prosecution including large-
scale drug trafficking cases with various Federal agencies and a small
number of violent crime cases originating in the Mescalero Apache
Reservation. In 2006 Mr. Gonzales transferred to the Albuquerque
Violent Crime Section where he prosecuted violent crime occurring on
Indian Reservations as well as several bank robbery and firearms-
related cases that originated in the Albuquerque area. In 2009 he
transferred to the Narcotics section as a designated attorney for the
Department of Justice Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force where
his work was primarily long-term and complex narcotics trafficking
investigations and prosecutions. In 2010 he became the United States
Attorney for the District of New Mexico.
Since 2001 Mr. Gonzales has served as a Reserve officer with the
United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps. In November 2008 he
was mobilized to active duty and stationed at Fort Bragg, NC with the
18th Airborne Corps where he conducted legal reviews, official
responses to Freedom of Information Act requests, Army Regulation 15-6
investigations, and property accountability investigations. Currently
he fulfills his annual Reserve requirement as an Adjunct Professor of
Criminal Law at the JAG Legal Center & School in Charlottesville, VA.
The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary gave him a ``Qualified'' rating.
Luis Felipe Restrepo is nominated to be United States District Court
Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Restrepo received
his B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1989, and his J.D. from
Tulane University Law School in 1986. Upon graduation, he clerked at
the ACLU Prison Project in Washington, DC. From 1987 to 1990, he was an
assistant defender with the Defender Association of Philadelphia where
he represented criminal defendants in State and Federal court. In 1990,
he became an assistant federal defender for the Federal Community
Defender for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, appearing at the
trial and appellate level.
Judge Restrepo was in private practice with one partner from 1993-
2006. There, he focused primarily on criminal defense, including some
death penalty cases. He defended clients on retainer and as a court-
appointed counsel. While in private practice the majority of Judge
Restrepo's civil cases consisted of Section 1983 actions alleging
police abuse and mistreatment. Other civil matters included
representation in workplace accident, medical malpractice, wrongful
death, and fire cases.
Judge Restrepo was appointed to be a United States Magistrate Judge
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2006. As magistrate judge,
he manages all aspects of the pre-trial process in civil cases:
conducting evidentiary hearings, ruling on non-dispositive motions, and
making reports and recommendations regarding dispositive motions.
The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary gave him a ``Well Qualified'' rating.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask that any time remaining be yielded
back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
All time is yielded back.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Luis Felipe Restrepo, of Pennsylvania, to be United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania?
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President will be immediately notified of
the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is,
Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination of Kenneth John
Gonzales, of New Mexico, to be United States District Judge for the
District of New Mexico?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I request 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 assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and
the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily absent.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Cochran), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Toomey), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
[[Page S4516]]
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 150 Ex.]
YEAS--89
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Chiesa
Coats
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Cowan
Crapo
Cruz
Donnelly
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Leahy
Lee
Levin
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Paul
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--11
Coburn
Cochran
Enzi
Harkin
Inhofe
Mikulski
Murkowski
Shelby
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motions to
reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. The President
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
____________________