Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
On the Nominations of
Luis Felipe Restrepo, to be United States District Court Judge for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
and
Kenneth John Gonzales, to be United States District Court Judge for the District of New Mexico
Monday, June 17, 2013
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’s 197-2. That is an outstanding record. That’s 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’ve 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 4 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.
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.” Mr. President, 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 Republicans’ fault 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 3rd 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 four 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 is 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, North Carolina 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, Virginia.
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.
-30-