[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 154 (Thursday, October 31, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7694-S7699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Affordable Care Act

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be on the floor with 
some very good news out of California and how ObamaCare, the Affordable 
Care Act, is working in our great State. People are phoning. People are 
going

[[Page S7695]]

online. People are talking with insurance agencies, with health 
insurance companies. They are getting health care coverage, some for 
the very first time, and for many for the first time it is affordable; 
all good policies--good policies that will be there when they are 
needed.
  We know a small percentage of people, as the President addressed 
yesterday, are being told their old policies are not going to be 
offered to them anymore, but all of those folks know they can get 
better policies. They can't be turned away. There will be competition 
for their business. Many of them will get subsidies. So at the end of 
the day, this health care story, although quite bumpy, as we know the 
prescription drug launch was years ago--we know it is bumpy, and we are 
angry on both sides of the aisle that it is bumpy--but at the end of 
the day, I think it is going to be good.
  I wish to read some of the comments made by people who have logged in 
to ``Covered California,'' which is coveredCA.com. Here is one who just 
got an affordable health care policy:

       Thank you so much, President Obama! And everyone who works 
     there.
       This was soooo much easier than I thought it would be! I am 
     soooo grateful to get medical insurance! Thank you!

  Another:

       Great phone support, thank you. No wait time, the assistant 
     answered all my questions clearly.

  Another:

       GREAT JOB! EASY! WHAT'S All THE FUSS ABOUT?

  Another:

       Wow. This was easy and my monthly premiums are 
     significantly less than my previous employer's health care 
     coverage before the Affordable Care Act.

  One who I thought truly summed it up:

       Thank God Almighty I'm free at last!

  These are the real people. These are not people who have a political 
agenda. They are real people. They are Democrats. They are Republicans. 
They are Independent voters. They have had a hard time getting health 
insurance and, because of the Affordable Care Act, with all of its 
glitches on the national Web site--and we acknowledge them--it is 
working. It is working in our State, and eventually, once that national 
Web site is fixed, it will work for everybody.
  I wish to put some real numbers on this: 180,000 Californians have 
begun the process of signing up for coverage--180,000 families. Imagine 
the relief they have. Over 2 million unique visitors have been to 
coveredCA.com. There have been 200,000 calls to coveredCA.com's call 
centers. The average wait time is under 4 minutes and the average total 
call time is less than 16 minutes for Californians enrolling in 
coverage and asking questions. We have 4,000 insurance agents and 
clinic workers trained so far and certified. They have their badges so 
they can offer, in person, help to those who are looking to enroll.
  Very recently I went to a clinic in my home county and I can tell my 
colleagues the excitement there is palpable. The doctors, the nurses, 
the assistants, the people in the waiting room, everybody knowing they 
can get either insurance on the exchange or insurance through an 
expanded Medi-Cal Program. We have millions of people who will be able 
to sign up on the exchanges. We have about 1.4 million people who could 
sign up for the expanded Medi-Cal Program.
  Do I have any time remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 5 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. Five seconds. I hope we get these two wonderful nominees 
on the way to confirmation today.
  I hope we will be patient and that we will all work together to fix 
the problems with health care. I think, at the end of the day, it is 
going to be great.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I wish to share some thoughts about the 
filling of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals 
judgeships. I have been involved in that issue for well over a decade. 
We started looking at the case numbers when President Clinton was in 
office. I, along with Senator Chuck Grassley, both Republicans, blocked 
President Bush from filling a vacancy, because that court did not need 
another judge and they wanted to fill it. Let's be frank. Presidents 
want to fill the DC Circuit Court of Appeals because they think they 
can shift the balance there and be able to advance their agenda 
throughout the judicial process because a lot of key cases are filed 
there, and lobbyists and outside forces that care about judges want the 
Presidents to put their kind of people in those positions--maybe even 
their law partner or their friend or their political buddy on that 
court. But there are some great judges on the court. But I am Ranking 
Republican on the Budget Committee also. I serve on the Judiciary 
Committee and on the Budget Committee. We have no money in this country 
to fund a judgeship that is not needed.
  The last time we were able to move one of those judges to the Ninth 
Circuit where the position was needed. Today, it is clear that the 
caseload for the DC Circuit continues to fall. The number of cases per 
judge in the DC Circuit continues to decline. Senator Grassley has been 
a champion of this issue for years. He chaired the court subcommittee 
of the Judiciary Committee. I chaired it after he did. We have seen 
these numbers.
  Senator Durbin says, Oh, it is a shame. It is a shame these nominees 
don't get confirmed. As Senator McConnell noted, it was a shame that 
Peter Keisler, a fabulous nominee, didn't get confirmed. But, in all 
honesty, the court didn't need that slot filled and they don't need any 
of the three slots today that are vacant. They do not need to be 
filled. Congress has no responsibility to fill a vacancy that is not 
needed, and we shouldn't do it. Each one costs about $1 million a year. 
That is what it costs to fill a judgeship.
  We have needs around the country. We have certain needs around the 
country, and we are going to have to add judges. Why would we fill 
slots with judges we don't need and not fill slots with judges we do 
need? That is my fundamental view about it. I will just say this: It is 
not going to happen. We are not going to fill these slots. This country 
is in deep financial trouble.
  The majority basically is saying: Oh, the Budget Control Act and, oh, 
we have cut to the bone. We can't find another dime in savings. Do you 
know what the problem is, America? You haven't sent us enough money. If 
you would just send more money to Washington, we could spread it around 
and everything would be fine.
  This is basically what we are hearing from the leadership: No more 
cuts. In fact, the Budget Control Act reduced spending too much. Oh, 
this is critically important. Every dollar we spend is critically 
important and we can't reduce a dime of it or even the growth of it. 
That is what we have been hearing: Send more money to Washington. We 
want to raise taxes. We are open about demanding increases in taxes to 
fund whatever it is we want to spend.
  Is there any waste and abuse in this government? There absolutely is. 
Look at this chart. Senator Durbin is on the Judiciary Committee. He 
has been involved in this. He knows these numbers. There is nothing 
phony about what I am showing my colleagues today. This is absolute 
fact: Total appeals filed per active judge. These are the judges on the 
court today. The DC Circuit has eight judges. They have eight judges. 
The number of appeals filed per judge in their court is 149, and the 
average per circuit judge in America is 383. The average is 2\1/2\ 
times that number. We do not need to fill these slots.
  Look at the Eleventh Circuit. They have vacancies, but at this point 
they are doing almost 800 cases per judge per year. Think about that. 
In the Second Circuit, which is Manhattan--a very important circuit 
with very complex cases--there are more than 2\1/2\ times the number of 
cases than the DC Circuit. Remember, this is the current number of 
judges, I say to my colleagues. This isn't if we were to add three more 
judges. If we added three more judges, it would be a little over 100 
cases per judge, not 149. This is absolute fact. They take the entire 
summer off. No other circuit does this. They have canceled oral 
arguments they had scheduled because there were no cases to argue. They 
take the summer off.
  I talked to one circuit judge in another circuit who said: At least 
one of

[[Page S7696]]

the judges in the DC Circuit goes around the country sometimes and 
helps out, but none of our judges can because we are so busy we don't 
have time to do it.
  Most of our judges are working very hard. I am a total believer in 
the integrity and the value of the Federal judiciary. I respect them 
greatly. They do important work. But it has just so happened in the 
course of our American system that the DC Circuit is at a point where 
it has the lowest caseload per judge in decades, of any circuit and it 
needs to be fixed and the number of cases continues to decline.
  So what I would say to my colleagues is I believe we should give 
deference to the President in the nomination of judges. I voted for, I 
am sure, close to 90 percent of the nominations the President has 
submitted. I voted for almost 90 percent, I would suggest. But I am not 
going to support three judges we don't need. The last thing we need to 
be doing is burning on the Mall of the United States of America $3 
million a year to fund judgeships we don't need. There are other places 
in this government we can cut wasteful spending as well, but this one 
highlights the situation.
  I suggest to my colleagues this is a test to this Senate. This is a 
test for all of the Members of the Senate. If we say there is no place 
to save money in Washington; if we say we have found every bit of 
waste, fraud, and abuse there is--well, look at this court.
  I am not condemning any of the nominees. I am not complaining about 
their quality or their ability. I am saying the taxpayers of America 
should not have extracted from them another $3 million a year to fund 
three judges that absolutely are not needed, particularly when we have 
legitimate needs in other courts around the country that need more 
judges.
  Look at the Eleventh Circuit, my circuit: Almost 800 cases per judge 
filed. This circuit, the DC Circuit, 149, and they want three more 
judges--not so.
  I believe we have a 10-minute limit. How much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. So, in conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to be 
here. It looks as though we will vote on the Millett nomination maybe 
later today. With no personal criticism of that nominee in any way, I 
think it is important for us to say we just don't need these slots. We 
are not going to fill them. Not one of the three needs to be filled. We 
are not going to fill any of them. We are going to honor the finances 
of the American people.
  Once again, I express my appreciation to Senator Chuck Grassley, the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who has led the fight on 
this issue for a number of years. I have worked with him on it. We have 
legislation to transfer these judgeships to other places. That is what 
we should be doing, moving them to where they are needed. It has been 
great to work with Senator Grassley.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Congressman 
Mel Watt.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an 
inquiry, under the UC were we going to divide 30 minutes per side? Was 
that the intent of the unanimous consent request I made earlier?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time until noon is equally 
divided in the usual form.
  Mr. SESSIONS. In the usual form. All right.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Congressman 
Mel Watt, who is a champion for middle class families in my home State 
of North Carolina. Mel Watt is the President's nominee to be the next 
Director of our Federal Housing Finance Agency.
  Congressman Watt is a true North Carolinian. He was born in North 
Carolina. He attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 
and he has spent much of his distinguished career working for the 
people of North Carolina.
  Congressman Watt is an outstanding choice to lead the Federal Housing 
Finance Agency.
  Over his 20 years on the House Financial Services and Judiciary 
Committees, Congressman Watt has been a steadfast advocate for 
affordable housing in North Carolina and across the country. He has 
worked tirelessly to protect families from predatory and deceptive 
lending practices.
  He has been willing to work across the aisle to find common ground on 
issues that promote economic opportunity for the middle class.
  Well before the housing crisis, Congressman Watt raised concerns that 
predatory lending practices were harming consumers and putting our 
housing market at risk. He was instrumental in enacting Dodd-Frank and 
in supporting its antipredatory lending provisions. He will be a 
tremendous asset to our housing market and economy moving forward.
  In a letter to the Senate this week, 54 community and advocacy 
organizations called for Congressman Watt's confirmation, saying:

       Representative Watt has the depth to grasp the problems 
     that plague Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and has the skills to 
     work with everyone involved to get the housing market back on 
     track.

  I agree. I was proud to join my North Carolina colleague Senator 
Richard Burr in introducing Congressman Watt at his confirmation 
hearing earlier this year, and I am pleased that the Banking Committee 
approved his nomination.
  The bipartisan support for Congressman Watt from our delegation in 
North Carolina is representative of his longtime ability to work across 
the aisle.
  During his distinguished tenure in Congress, Congressman Watt worked 
with Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and 
Representative Lamar Smith to pass legislation that addressed Patent 
and Trademark Office backlogs. And he worked with Representative Blaine 
Luetkemeyer on legislation that ensured adequate transparency for ATM 
fees while eliminating excessive regulatory burdens.
  Congressman Watt's long congressional career builds on more than two 
decades in the private sector as a small business owner and a legal 
expert.
  With experience in the private sector and more than two decades of 
service on the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Watt has 
the background, the skills, and the history of bipartisan cooperation 
necessary to confront the challenges facing our recovering housing 
market.
  His nomination is supported by industry leaders such as the National 
Association of Realtors president Gary Thomas and the National 
Association of Home Builders chairman Rick Judson. He is supported by 
the Mortgage Bankers Association and the United States Conference of 
Mayors. And he is supported by Erskine Bowles, cochair of the National 
Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and the former Bank of 
America chairman and CEO Hugh McColl.
  In fact, I ask unanimous consent that these letters from the National 
Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, and 
Mr. McColl be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              National Association


                                      of Realtors',

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 2013.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the one million members of the 
     National Association of Realtors' (NAR), their 
     affiliates, homebuyers, and homeowners, I strongly urge the 
     United States Senate to expeditiously confirm Representative 
     Mel Watt as the next Director of the Federal Housing Finance 
     Agency (FHFA).
       The National Association of Realtors' has long 
     appreciated Representative Watt's proven ability and 
     willingness to engage the industry, stakeholders, and 
     consumers throughout his service in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives. Watt has always aimed to craft policy that 
     is fair, garners wide consensus, and allows all parties to 
     move forward, all of which are vital qualities for the 
     Director of the FHFA.
       The extended conservatorship of the government-sponsored 
     enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is one of the most 
     pressing issues facing the housing sector. This requires that 
     the FHFA be led by a permanent Director, who looks for 
     measured and comprehensive solutions that will protect both 
     the housing market and taxpayers. Representative Watt has 
     clearly demonstrated through his extended service and 
     involvement with key housing issues before the

[[Page S7697]]

     House Financial Services Committee that he has a keen 
     understanding of the importance of housing finance to the 
     nation's economy.
       The FHFA Director plays a critical role in the future of 
     our nation's housing finance system and must weigh the costs 
     of action and inaction with the benefits of protecting the 
     taxpayer and ensuring the continued recovery of housing. 
     Representative Watt has the experience and skill necessary to 
     work with Congress and the Administration to ensure that both 
     costs and benefits are handled in a manner that benefits our 
     nation. As our economy continues its slow recovery from the 
     Great Recession, we must focus on sensible and commonsense 
     policies that foster strong growth and stability. 
     Representative Watt has the experience, knowledge, and 
     ability to bring that much needed focus to the FHFA.
       In short, we know that Representative Watt will not only be 
     an asset to FHFA but also to the Congress and the 
     Administration as we work together to restore strength to the 
     housing and mortgage markets. The National Association of 
     Realtors urges confirmation of Representative Watt, 
     and stands ready to work with FHFA and Congress to facilitate 
     a strong housing and economic recovery.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Gary Thomas,
     2013 President, National Association of Realtors'.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                             of Home Builders,

                                 Washington, DC, October 29, 2013.
     Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC,
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell: On 
     behalf of the 140,000 members of the National Association of 
     Home Builders (NAHB), I am pleased to offer NAHB's strong 
     support for the nomination of Representative Mel Watt as the 
     next Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). I 
     urge you to support his nomination when it is considered by 
     the full Senate later this week.
       Today's mortgage finance system is in a state of 
     uncertainty. The ongoing conservatorship of the government 
     sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 
     continues to be one of the most challenging issues facing the 
     housing industry today. With the path forward for 
     comprehensive housing finance reform taking shape, and with 
     that outcome still very uncertain, having a permanent FHFA 
     Director will be critical to ensure the safety and soundness 
     of the housing GSEs, as well as promote a stable and liquid 
     residential mortgage financing system for our nation's 
     housing market. NAHB believes that the confirmation of 
     Representative Mel Watt will bring much-needed certainty to 
     the U.S. housing finance system as we transition from the 
     current state of conservatorship to a new and stronger system 
     of housing finance.
       Representative Watt will bring years of experience to this 
     position at a pivotal moment in the recovery of our nation's 
     housing market. During Representative Watt's tenure on the 
     House Financial Services Committee, he has proven to be a 
     thoughtful leader on housing policy. The FHFA needs a 
     permanent director with his leadership capabilities.
       NAHB looks forward to working closely with Representative 
     Watt to help address the many complex challenges still facing 
     the housing finance system and the recovery of the housing 
     market. We hope that the Senate will move quickly to approve 
     his nomination.
           Best regards,
                                                      Rick Judson,
     2013 NAHB Chairman of the Board.
                                  ____

                                  Charlotte, NC, October 25, 2013.
     To: The Editor

                 Time To Act on the Mel Watt Nomination

       Given the need to have more economic activity, it appears 
     to me that the Senate should move now to confirm Congressman 
     Mel Watt as Director of FHFA. There seems to be no reason not 
     to approve Mr. Watt's nomination other than he has been 
     nominated by the President.
       I have known Mel Watt for 40-some odd years, both as a 
     lawyer and as a US Congressman. I know him to be highly 
     intelligent, a man of impeccable character, and a straight 
     shooter. While Chairman of the Board of the Bank of America, 
     I consulted with him on many occasions about banking 
     legislation. We did not always agree with each other, but I 
     always knew that I was getting an honest opinion and one that 
     was well thought out.
       Mr. Watt has been a real estate lawyer in one of the 
     fastest growing cities in America--Charlotte, NC, and he is 
     very much aware of the need for housing loans for people from 
     all economic segments. Most of his more than 20 years in 
     Congress were spent on the House Financial Services 
     Committee.
       It is worth reminding people that Congressman Watt has a 
     business degree from the University of North Carolina at 
     Chapel Hill, and a law degree from Yale University. Without 
     question, he is well educated. No doubt he is smart, and 
     there is no doubt that we need somebody like him in charge.
       I hope Senator Burr and Senator Hagan from North Carolina 
     will push for his confirmation. The Country needs him.
           Sincerely,
                                               Hugh L. McColl, Jr.

  Mrs. HAGAN. Congressman Watt's strong record of working with industry 
leaders, consumer advocates, Democrats and Republicans proves that he 
can deliver results for middle class families across the country and in 
North Carolina.
  We need Congressman Watt at the Federal Housing Finance Agency. I 
know he will work successfully with Congress to strengthen the backbone 
of our current housing finance system, and I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting his nomination later today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, just a parliamentary inquiry: I have 10 
minutes allocated to me?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I rise to address the candidacy of Congressman Mel Watt to be 
Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency as well.
  Let me preface my comments by making it very clear. I know 
Congressman Mel Watt. He is a good man. I served with him in the House. 
We served on the Banking Committee together. I know for many years he 
has been and continues to be a passionate advocate for increasing 
taxpayer subsidies for housing finance, and I have never once doubted 
his sincerity, his commitment, or his passion for working for his 
constituents and also for disadvantaged people generally. Having said 
that, while Mel Watt is certainly a good man, I think this is the wrong 
job for this good man, and I want to explain why.
  I think it is useful to first consider the massive size of the 
institutions that the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the FHFA, 
regulates. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks 
combined are enormous.
  Fannie and Freddie together hold 48 percent of all the outstanding 
mortgages in the United States of America. Last year, they guaranteed 
almost 80 percent of all the new mortgages that were issued. Combined, 
Fannie and Freddie have assets that are nearly $5.2 trillion--this is 
much larger than the Federal Reserve--which have just made themselves 
into an enormous institution. Combined, Fannie and Freddie are more 
than twice as big as JPMorgan Chase, the biggest bank in America. In 
addition to being very large, they are enormously complex, and they are 
at the center--in fact, they are the housing finance market of the 
United States of America.
  So they are enormously large, they are enormously complex. And the 
post we are talking about here--the directorship of the regulator--has 
virtually unchecked powers. The legislation that creates this post, 
that creates this agency and the head of this agency, empowers the 
Director enormously. Let me quote from the statute. The Director's 
powers include ``all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the 
regulated entity, and of any stockholder, officer, or director'' of the 
entity. In plain English that means this person has the power of the 
entire board of directors, the CEO and all the management, and the 
regulatory agency that controls it all. There is no parallel in our 
country for an institution where so much power is concentrated in one 
person.
  In addition, there is no congressional oversight. The FHFA does not 
depend on Congress for appropriations. It gets its money from fees from 
the entities it regulates. So Congress has no control, no authority, 
once a person is confirmed in this post, and they are confirmed for a 
5-year term and can only be removed for cause. So it is unchecked power 
on an enormous scale.
  Now, precisely because of the unchecked power over these enormously 
large, important, powerful, and complex institutions--precisely for 
that reason--the statute stipulates very clearly that the person 
holding this post has to be someone who is technically competent 
because of their own history, because they have been a practitioner in 
this field. The legislation demands that, and for good reason. 
Specifically, the law insists that the Director shall have a 
``demonstrated

[[Page S7698]]

understanding of financial management or oversight, and have a 
demonstrated understanding of capital markets, including the mortgage 
securities markets and housing finance.''
  So we are not talking about being automatically qualified by virtue 
of being a Member of Congress. One needs to be a practitioner. I will 
give you one quick example of many why central to the management of the 
enormous complexity of these institutions is the use of complex 
derivatives, which manage the interest rate risk inherent in these 
portfolios. Fannie and Freddie are the world's biggest users of 
derivatives for this risk management purpose. Understanding how these 
work, the risks that are inherent in them, and how it affects the 
broader capital markets is absolutely essential. Yet in December 2011, 
Mel Watt said this. I quote Congressman Watt:

       For all of the last term of Congress, I sat in the 
     Financial Services Committee, and a lot of these arguments 
     that I am hearing today are the same arguments that I heard 
     about derivatives. Well, I didn't know a damn thing about 
     derivatives. I am still not sure I do.

  Derivatives are central to the management of these institutions.
  There is another reason why this statute insists on an experienced 
practitioner and a technocrat rather than a politician, and that is 
because pursuing a political agenda at these institutions is enormously 
dangerous. Look at the damage that it did the last time. Congressman 
Watt was an advocate for all of the policies that helped to drive 
Fannie and Freddie into the conservatorship that cost taxpayers so much 
money. He supported lower capital standards, lower downpayments, lower 
underwriting standards, loan forgiveness. He was opposed to tougher 
regulations, even when it was becoming clear that these institutions 
were on a downward spiral and soon would need a massive bailout.
  Unfortunately, Congressman Watt still supports these policies. And if 
he were confirmed as the Director, with all of these powers, he could 
unilaterally reinstitute these policies.
  Now, fortunately, at the moment, we have a Director who understands 
that his obligation to the taxpayer precludes these misguided policies. 
I am deeply concerned that if confirmed, Congressman Watt would reverse 
that practice and reinstitute some of these very damaging and dangerous 
policies.
  So for these reasons and, I would say, in respect and in honoring the 
clear language of the statute, we have an obligation to not confirm 
Congressman Mel Watt. While I know he is a very good man, I think he is 
the wrong person for this job. So I would urge my colleagues to vote no 
on cloture later today.
  I yield the floor.


                      The Nomination of Mel Watts

 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, while not many people know about 
the Federal Housing Finance Agency, it has become one of the most 
powerful and important government agencies. Following the financial 
crisis and massive bailouts of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and all the big 
banks, the Federal Government took a primary position in the mortgage 
market. Right now, 48 percent of all outstanding U.S. mortgages and 77 
percent of those issued last year were guaranteed by the Federal 
Government. This is a problem in and of itself, but the FHFA is the 
agency that oversees all of them.
  Mel Watts is the guy President Obama has nominated to lead the 
agency. I know Mel from my time both in the House and the Senate, and I 
am deeply concerned that he will push the Federal Government further 
into the mortgage business, instead of moving us away from it. He has 
shown his colors during his time here in Washington, and he is not the 
right guy to lead the agency. I am opposed to his nomination and urge 
my colleagues to oppose him.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to any motion to 
invoke cloture on nominees to the DC Circuit. I am somewhat 
disappointed that the Senate majority wants to turn to a very 
controversial nomination next rather than to continue on a path of 
cooperative confirmations or other important Senate business. It seems 
to me that scheduling such a controversial vote in the closing weeks of 
this session of Congress is designed simply to heat up the partisanship 
of judicial nominations.
  My opposition is based on a number of factors.
  First, an objective review of the court's workload makes clear that 
the workload simply does not justify adding additional judges, 
particularly when additional judgeships cost approximately $1 million--
$1 million--every year per judge.
  Second, given that the caseload does not justify additional judges, 
you have to ask why the President would push so hard to fill these 
seats. It appears clear that the President wishes to add additional 
judges to this court in order to change judicial outcomes.
  Third, the court is currently comprised of four active judges 
appointed by a Republican President and four active judges appointed by 
a Democratic President. There is no reason to upset the current makeup 
of the court, particularly when the reason for doing so appears to be 
ideologically driven.
  I will start by providing my colleagues with a little bit of history 
regarding this particular seat on the DC Circuit.
  It may come as a surprise to some, but this seat has been vacant for 
over 8 years. It became vacant in September 2005, when John Roberts was 
elevated to Chief Justice.
  In June of 2006, President Bush nominated an eminently qualified 
individual for this seat, Peter Keisler. Mr. Keisler was widely lauded 
as a consensus bipartisan nominee. His distinguished record of public 
service included service as Acting Attorney General. Despite his broad 
bipartisan support and qualifications, Mr. Keisler waited 918 days for 
a committee vote. The vote never happened.
  When he was nominated, Democrats objected to even holding a hearing 
for the nominee based upon concerns about the workload of the DC 
Circuit.
  First, I would like to remind my colleagues that in 2006 Democrats 
argued that the DC Circuit caseload was too light to justify confirming 
any additional judges to the bench. Since that time, do you know what 
happened. The caseload has continued to decrease.
  In terms of raw numbers, the DC Circuit has the lowest number of 
total appeals filed annually among all the circuit courts of appeals. 
In 2005 that number was 1,379. Last year it was 1,193--a decrease of 
13.5 percent.
  There are a lot of different ways to look at these numbers, but 
perhaps the best numbers to examine are the workload per active judge. 
The caseload has decreased so much since 2005 that even with two fewer 
active judges, the filing levels per active judge are practically the 
same. In 2005, with 10 active judges, the court had 138 appeals filed 
per active judge. Today, with only 8 active judges, it has 149. This 
makes the DC Circuit caseload levels the lowest in the Nation and less 
than half the national average.
  It has been suggested that there are other circuits, namely the 
Eighth and the Tenth, that have lighter caseloads than the DC Circuit. 
That is inaccurate. The DC Circuit has fewer cases filed and fewer 
cases terminated than either the Eighth or the Tenth Circuit.
  Cases filed and cases terminated measure the amount of appeals coming 
into the court and being resolved. Some of my colleagues have been 
arguing that the Eighth and the Tenth Circuits are similar to the DC 
Circuit based upon the comparison of pending cases. But cases pending 
does not measure how many cases are being added and removed from the 
docket.
  When looking at how many cases are added or filed per active judge, 
the DC Circuit is the lowest with 149. It is lower than the Eighth 
Circuit's 280 and the Tenth Circuit's 217. When looking at the number 
of cases being terminated by each court, the DC Circuit is once again 
the lowest at 149. Again, the Eighth Circuit and the Tenth Circuit 
courts are much higher at 269 and 218.
  Let me mention one other important point about pending appeals and 
the statistics my colleagues use. Several of my colleagues said on the 
floor yesterday that in 2005 there were only 121 pending appeals per 
active judge. That number seemed a little odd to me, so we looked into 
it a bit further, what the situation was in 2005. In order to arrive at 
that number, my colleagues appear to be taking the total appeals for 12 
months ending June 30, 2005, and dividing them by 11 active judges.

[[Page S7699]]

  As it turns out, there were only 9 active judges for almost that 
entire 12-month period. Janice Rogers Brown was sworn in on June 10, 
2005, and Judge Griffith was sworn in June 29, 2005. As a result, 
during that 12-month period there were 10 active judges for a total of 
only 19 days. There were 11 active judges on the DC Circuit for a grand 
total of 1 day.
  A few months later in 2005, the court was back down to nine after 
Judge Roberts was elevated to the Supreme Court and Judge Edwards took 
senior status.
  This is how hard pressed the other side is to refute what everyone 
knows to be true: The caseload of the DC Circuit is lower now than it 
was back in 2005. In order to have a statistic that supports their 
judgment, the other side is claiming there were 11 active judges for 
that 12-month period, while that claim was true for only a total of 1 
day.
  The bottom line is this: The objective data clearly indicates the DC 
Circuit caseload is very low and that the court does not need 
additional active judges. That is especially true if you use the 
standard Senate Democrats established when they blocked Mr. Keisler.
  In addition to the raw numbers, in order to get a firsthand account, 
several months ago I invited the current judges of that court to 
provide a candid assessment of their caseload. What they said should 
not surprise anyone who has looked at this closely. The judges 
themselves confirmed that the workload on the DC Circuit is 
exceptionally low, stating, ``The court does not need additional 
judges.'' And, ``If any more judges were added now, there wouldn't be 
enough work to go around.''
  Those are powerful statements from the sitting judges in that 
circuit. Given these concerns, it is difficult to see why we would be 
moving forward with additional nominations, especially in a time when 
we are operating under budget constraints. Unfortunately, the 
justification for moving forward with additional DC Circuit nominees 
appears to be a desire and an intent to stack the court in order to 
determine the outcome of cases this court hears.
  It is clear the President wants to fill this court with ideological 
allies for the purposes of reversing certain policy outcomes. This is 
not just my view. It has been overtly stated as an objective of this 
administration.
  I would quote along this line a Washington Post article, ``Giving 
liberals a greater say on the D.C. Circuit is important for Obama as he 
looks for ways to circumvent the Republican-led House and a polarized 
Senate on a number of policy fronts through executive order and other 
administrative procedures.''
  We have a President who says: If Congress will not, I will. How do 
you stop that? The courts are the check on that. Even a member of the 
Democratic leadership admitted on the Senate floor that the reason they 
need to fill these seats was because, as he saw it, the DC Circuit was 
``wreaking havoc with the country.''
  This is perplexing, given the current makeup of the court. Currently, 
there are four Republican-appointed judges, and, with the most recent 
confirmation, there are now four Democratic-appointed judges. 
Apparently some on the other side want to make sure they get a 
favorable outcome of this court.
  I have concerns regarding filling seats on this court which clearly 
has a very low caseload. I have greater concerns about this President's 
agenda to stack the court and to upset the current makeup simply in 
order to obtain favorable judicial outcomes because: If Congress will 
not, I will.
  Given the overwhelming lack of a need to fill these seats based upon 
caseload and especially considering the cost to the taxpayers of over 
$1 million per judge per year, I cannot support this nomination and 
urge my colleagues to reject it as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since I was first elected, the Senate has 
considered more than 1700 nominations to Article III federal courts. In 
nearly every case, the focus was on the individual nominee and whether 
he or she was qualified for judicial service. The nominee before us 
today is one of the rare exceptions. The focus here is on the court to 
which she and two others have been nominated, the US Court of Appeals 
for the DC Circuit. I cannot support any of these nominees because no 
one, no matter who they are and no matter what their qualifications, 
should be appointed to this court at this time.
  It would be difficult to make a more compelling case that the DC 
Circuit needs no more judges. The Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts is the keeper of the caseload facts and ranks the DC Circuit 
last among all circuits in appeals filed and appeals terminated per 
judicial panel. In fact, the AO ranks the DC Circuit last even in the 
catch-all category of ``other caseload per judgeship.'' And Chief DC 
Circuit Judge Merrick Garland recently confirmed that the number of DC 
Circuit cases scheduled for oral argument has declined by almost 20 
percent in the last decade.
  Here is another way to look at this issue. In July 2006, Democrats on 
the Judiciary Committee signed a letter to then-Chairman Arlen Specter 
opposing more DC Circuit appointments for two reasons. First, they used 
specific caseload benchmarks to conclude that the court's caseload had 
declined. Second, they said that filling vacancies labeled judicial 
emergencies by the Judicial Conference was more important.
  I am not aware that my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee have said either that they used the wrong standard in 2006 or 
that their 2006 standard should not be used today. I do not want to 
accuse anyone of using different standards for nominees of different 
political parties, so it is fair to apply the same standard that 
Democrats used to oppose Republican DC Circuit nominees.
  Democrats opposed more DC Circuit nominees because total appeals 
filed had declined. According to the AO's most recent data, total 
appeals filed have declined 18 percent further since 2006. Democrats 
opposed more DC Circuit nominees because written decisions per active 
judge had declined. The AO's data show that written decisions per 
active judge have declined 27 percent further since 2006. Democrats 
opposed more DC Circuit nominees because there were nominees to only 60 
percent of the 20 existing judicial emergency vacancies. Today, the 
Senate has pending nominees to only 49 percent of the 37 current 
judicial emergency vacancies. These are the facts. New appeals filed 
and written decisions per active judge in the DC Circuit are both 76 
percent below the national average and 50 to 60 percent below the next 
busiest circuit.
  I hope that my colleagues get the point. No matter how you slice it 
or dice it, the DC Circuit has the lowest caseload of any circuit in 
the country and its caseload continues to decline. The very same 
standards that Democrats used to oppose Republican nominees to the DC 
Circuit in 2006 show conclusively that the court needs no more judges 
today. As I said, none of my Democratic colleagues--and 4 who signed 
that 2006 letter are on the Judiciary Committee today--have said they 
were wrong in 2006 or attempted to explain why their 2006 standard is 
inappropriate today.
  The Senate evaluates the vast majority of judicial nominees on their 
own merits. These current DC Circuit nominees are the rare exception 
because they have been chosen for a court that needs no more judges at 
all. The better course would be to enact S. 699, the Court Efficiency 
Act, which would move two of these unnecessary DC Circuit seats to 
circuits that need them.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.