[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17236-17237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           WILKINS NOMINATION

  Mr. GRASSLEY. I am going to vote not to bring up the nomination of 
Judge Wilkins. I have some concerns about his record, but I am not 
going to focus on those concerns today, because there are a lot bigger 
issues we are dealing with. I have said it before and I will say it 
again: By the standards the Democrats established in the year 2006, we 
should not confirm anymore judges to the D.C. Circuit, especially when 
those additional judges cost approximately $1 million per year per 
judge.
  The fact of the matter is, this D.C. Circuit they want to make three 
more appointments to--and this will be the third of these appointments 
we have dealt with--is underworked. The statistics make it abundantly 
clear, but I am not going to go through them all again as I have in the 
past. I will mention a couple brief points regarding the caseload. The 
D.C. Circuit ranks last, for instance, in both the number of appeals 
filed and the appeals terminated. These are the cases coming to the 
court and going out. Not only does DC rank last, but it is not even 
close. To give you a frame of reference compared to DC, the Eleventh 
Circuit, which has the highest caseload, has over five times as many 
appeals as are filed here in the D.C. Circuit. The same is true for 
appeals terminated. Again, it is not even close. The Eleventh Circuit 
has over five times as many appeals terminated as the D.C. Circuit.
  The bottom line is that the D.C. Circuit does not have enough work as 
it is right now, let alone if we were to add even more judges, in this 
case the President's desire to add three.
  That is why the current judges on the court, the current judges, have 
written to me and said things such as: ``If any more judges were added 
now, there wouldn't be enough work to go around.''
  As I said last week, at least some on the other side concede that the 
D.C. Circuit's caseload is low, but they claim DC's caseload numbers 
don't take into account the complexity of the court's docket based upon 
the number of administrative appeals filed in that circuit.
  As I have said, this argument doesn't stand against scrutiny. My 
colleagues argue that the D.C. Circuit docket is complex because 43 
percent of its dockets are made up of administrative appeals. Of 
course, there is a reason they cite a percentage rather than a number. 
That is because it is a high percentage of a very small number.
  When we look at the actual number of these so-called complex cases 
per judge, the Second Circuit has almost twice as many as the D.C. 
Circuit. In 2012 there were 512 administrative appeals filed in the 
D.C. Circuit, but in the Second Circuit there were 1,493 filed.
  Stated differently, in DC there were only 64 administrative appeals 
per active judge. The Second Circuit has nearly twice as many with 115 
files. Again, that is 64 administrative appeals per judge in DC 
compared with almost twice as many with the Second Circuit at 115.
  This entire argument about complexity, I hope, comes out to be 
nonsense to most of my colleagues. To hear the other side, it is an 
outrage that we would hold them to the same standards they established 
in 2006 when they blocked Peter Keisler's nomination to the D.C. 
Circuit based upon caseload.
  Since that time, by the standard that the other side established, the 
court's caseload has declined even further. It has declined so much, in 
fact, that the number of appeals back then, with 10 acting judges, is 
roughly the same as there are now with 8 active judges. Again, we 
didn't set this standard, the Democrats did.
  That standard may be inconvenient for Democrats today, but that is 
not a reason to abandon the standard they established. Remember, the 
other side established the Keisler standard after the so-called Gang of 
14 agreement. Even if that agreement hadn't expired by its own terms at 
the end of the 109th Congress, the Democrats established the Keisler 
standard after that agreement supposedly took effect.
  As I have said, the other side has run out of legitimate arguments in 
support of these nominations. That is why they seem to be grasping at 
straws.
  When the other side gasps at straws, they get desperate. When the 
other side gets desperate, they turn to their last line of defense, 
accuse us Republicans of bias.
  Over the last week or so, my colleagues on the other side have argued 
that Republicans are opposing nominees based on gender. That argument--
as I said last week and I still say--is offensive and patently absurd.
  It is so absurd, in fact, that even the Los Angeles Times called the 
Democrats' attempt to play the ``gender card'' a ``pretty bogus 
argument,'' noting that in the past Republicans have ``happily 
confirmed female nominees.''
  The fact is that the Republicans have supported over 80 women 
nominated to the bench by this President as well as a host of other 
nominees of diverse backgrounds. Those are the facts. It is unfortunate 
but sadly predictable that facts may not mean much.
  These allegations of gender bias are unfortunate because they 
represent cheap attacks that the other side knows are untrue. It also 
is unfortunate because the entire exercise is designed to create the 
appearance of a crisis where there is no crisis. There is no crisis in 
the D.C. Circuit because they don't have enough work to do as it is. 
There is a crisis occurring now all across the country as a result of 
the health care reform bill that often goes by the terminology of 
ObamaCare.
  Millions of Americans are losing their health insurance, even though 
the President promised over and over--we know the quote: ``If you like 
your health care, you can keep it.''
  Even though we have a very real and serious crisis facing this 
country because of ObamaCare, the other side is desperately trying to 
divert attention to anything but the ObamaCare disaster.
  This is how the Roll Call newspaper described this strategy:

       Senate Democrats . . . are readying their next assertive 
     moves on three other issues important to their base:
       Abortion rights
       Minimum wage
       Federal judiciary
       The goal is to divert as much attention as possible away 
     from the problem-plagued ObamaCare rollout.

  Let me get this straight. A crisis is unfolding all across this 
country as millions of Americans are losing their health insurance 
because of ObamaCare. Yet the Democrats' strategy, according to Roll 
Call, is to conceal the ObamaCare crisis by using the D.C. Circuit as a 
smokescreen.
  That is breathtaking, even by Washington, DC, standards. The other 
side is so eager to divert attention from the millions of Americans 
losing their insurance because of ObamaCare that they are willing to 
manufacture a crisis in the D.C. Circuit, even though the current 
judges say: ``If any more judges were added now, there wouldn't be 
enough work to go around.''
  Not only that, but after running out of legitimate arguments to 
justify the President's attempt to stack the deck on this court, the 
other side has resorted to making allegations of gender bias. I have 
already explained that these allegations are offensive and absurd. But 
since the other side's strategy is to conceal the ObamaCare train wreck 
with a D.C. Circuit smokescreen and on top of that is willing to go so 
far as to accuse our side of gender bias, then I am going to take the 
opportunity to share some of the frustrations being experienced by my 
constituents in Iowa, meaning women in Iowa, as a result of ObamaCare.
  A woman from Vinton, IA, writes:

       After 28 days of complete frustration, I got to look at 30 
     plans on the Iowa health care exchange at healthcare.gov. The 
     CHEAPEST one is $1,886 per year with a $6,300 deductible.
       Last year, I spent $1,484 on health care. TOTAL. OUT OF MY 
     OWN POCKET. I wouldn't even meet the deductible paying almost 
     $350 a month on the one plan offered.
       At that rate, what I spent TOTAL last year would be spent 
     on premiums in 4 months. . . .
       With more and more policies being cancelled by the 
     insurance companies; with more and more doctors refusing to 
     serve patients with Obamacare; and with the increasing anger 
     towards elected officials, including

[[Page 17237]]

     President Obama, how do you plan to fix this mess???

  Another woman from Sioux City, IA, writes:

       My company just had a meeting inform us of the changes to 
     our healthcare plan thanks to ``Obamacare''.
       It is going to cost me $190 more each month next year for 
     my family coverage.
       I am going to have to work more overtime, reduce my 401K 
     contributions and opt out of my Flex 125 contributions to try 
     to recover the extra money coming out of my paycheck because 
     of the new laws. . . .
       While I suppose I should count myself lucky I didn't lose 
     my employer health insurance coverage, I sure don't feel 
     happy about the extra money I am going to have to pay for the 
     same coverage I was getting this year. What a joke.
       I wish there was something that could be done about this. 
     Socialized health care . . .

  Then she used a word that I can't repeat in the Senate.
  From a mom in Dayton, IA:

       Our family's health insurance agency contacted us last week 
     to set up an appointment to talk to us about the changes in 
     our health coverage due to Obamacare.
       We went to the meeting and found out that our HSA that we 
     currently have will no longer be available because of 
     Obamacare, plus our monthly rate will go from $350.00/month 
     to $570.00/month.
       We have no idea how we are going to afford this increase. 
     We feel blindsided. I know that you are committed to helping 
     Iowans, as well as all Americans, so I ask that you keep 
     fighting for affordable healthcare.

  My final message is from a woman in Melbourne, IA, who writes:

       I got a full in your face understanding of just how 
     horrible it was today when I went to renew my insurance.
       I currently pay $110 every two weeks for insurance for my 
     whole family.
       Next year I will have to pay over $500 every two weeks to 
     insure my family.
       The healthcare website Obamacare created is no better. I 
     can't even get the website to work properly. It will not 
     allow me to put my husband on a joint policy with me. . . . I 
     actually have to weigh which is cheaper . . . paying the fine 
     or paying for insurance. Sadly it will probably be paying the 
     fine.

  These are real stories from real women facing a real crisis in only 1 
State of the 50 States, my State of Iowa. Of course, this isn't 
happening only in my State. Far from it. This is happening to millions 
of Americans all across the country.
  Rather than focus on this crisis, a real crisis, the other side has 
developed a strategy specifically designed to divert attention from it. 
That strategy is to use the D.C. Circuit as a smokescreen.
  In summary, the judges themselves say: ``If any more judges were 
added now, there wouldn't be enough work to go around.''
  Even though we shouldn't fill these seats based upon the Democratic 
standard set in 2006 and even though filling these seats would waste $3 
million per year in taxpayers' money that we don't have, the other side 
seems, in an unreasonable way, bent upon manufacturing a crisis for 
cynical, political reasons.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side to come to their senses. Let 
us start focusing on the real crisis facing this country. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the Wilkins cloture petition.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________