[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.

                          ____________________