{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044453/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47706", "Post Nuclear Option Grassley Floor Statement on Patricia Millett", "2013-12-09", "2013", "2013-12", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa  \nRanking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee  \nOn the nomination of Patricia Millett  \nfor the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit  \nMonday, December 9, 2013 Mr. President,  \nApproximately 6 months ago, on June 4, 2013, the President simultaneously nominated three nominees for the D.C. Circuit.\u00a0 Everyone knew then, just as they know now, that these judges aren\u2019t needed.\u00a0 The D.C. Circuit has the lowest caseload in the country by far, based on the standards the Democrats established just a few years ago when a Republican was in the White House. \u00a0 In fact, the caseload on the D.C. Circuit is so low that on April 10, 2013, approximately two months prior to these nominations, I introduced legislation \u2013 together with every Republican on the Judiciary Committee \u2013 to eliminate one seat on the D.C. Circuit and move two others to different circuits. \u00a0 That would be the sensible way to address this issue. \u00a0 Don\u2019t spend $1 million in taxpayer dollars per year, per judge, on judgeships that aren\u2019t needed.\u00a0 Especially when the judges currently on the court say \u201cif any more judges were added now, there wouldn\u2019t be enough work to go around.\u201d \u00a0 Don\u2019t waste $3 million a year.\u00a0 Instead, simply move the seats to where they\u2019re needed. \u00a0 That would be the sensible and good government approach.\u00a0 But being sensible and good stewards of taxpayer dollars isn\u2019t what the other side had in mind when they hatched this scheme.\u00a0 Far from it. No, the Administration\u2019s motive here was clear from the beginning.\u00a0 They knew they couldn\u2019t pass their liberal agenda through a divided congress.\u00a0 The American people had already rejected that agenda at the ballot box. \u00a0 But the Administration, of course, still runs the federal agencies.\u00a0 And through the agencies, the Administration can ignore the will of the American people and continue to pursue its job-killing agenda. It doesn\u2019t matter that the American people don\u2019t want their government to pass Cap and Trade fee increases, the Administration will simply force it upon them anyway through the Environmental Protection Agency. It doesn\u2019t matter that the employer mandate penalty under Obamacare doesn\u2019t apply in the 34 states that haven\u2019t created insurance exchanges, the Administration forced the employer mandate upon the American people anyway through an IRS regulation. This has been the Administration\u2019s plan.\u00a0 It can\u2019t get its liberal agenda through Congress, but it has saddled the American people with its job-crushing agenda anyway through agency regulation.\u00a0 \u00a0 But there is a catch to this scheme.\u00a0 A big catch. \u00a0 Agency decisions are reviewed by the federal judiciary-our independent, third branch of government. \u00a0 So, for this scheme to work, the White House needed to stack the D.C. Circuit with judges who will rubberstamp its agenda. \u00a0 As a result, the Administration decided to ram their agenda through the agencies, and simultaneously stack the D.C. Circuit with judges they believe will rubberstamp that agenda. That\u2019s why, on the day the President made these three nominations, I said: \u201cIt\u2019s hard to imagine the rationale for nominating three judges at once for this court given the many vacant emergency seats across the country, unless your goal is to pack the court to advance a certain policy agenda.\u201d Now, during the last few months, we\u2019ve debated this issue.\u00a0 And throughout the debate, the other side has tried their best to obscure the objective. \u00a0 They\u2019ve manipulated caseload statistics in an effort to deny the obvious: the judges aren\u2019t needed and won\u2019t have enough work to do. They\u2019ve twisted the words of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. \u00a0 They\u2019ve claimed the Chief Justice of the United States believes these judgeships are needed, when of course that isn\u2019t remotely close to being true. They even stooped so low as to accuse Republicans of gender bias. \u00a0 But no matter how the other side manipulated the data or tried to conceal their agenda, they couldn\u2019t overcome simple and basic facts everyone knew to be true: under the standard established by the Democrats under the Bush Administration, these judgeships aren\u2019t needed and shouldn\u2019t be confirmed. \u00a0 As a result, when the United States Senate considered these nominations, it denied consent.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 The other side lost the debate. Under normal circumstances, that would\u2019ve been the end of the matter.\u00a0 But not this time.  \nThis time, there\u2019s a Democrat in the White House and a Republican minority in the Senate.\u00a0 So the caseload statistics that carried the day in 2006 no longer matter to today\u2019s Majority.\u00a0 \u00a0  \nThis time, apparently there are only three members of the Majority who care more for the Senate as an institution than they do for their party, or short term political gain.\u00a0 \u00a0 And of course, the biggest difference is that this time, what\u2019s at stake is a radical agenda and the other side\u2019s effort to remove any meaningful check on that agenda. In short, it\u2019s Obamacare.\u00a0 It\u2019s climate change regulation.\u00a0 It\u2019s Presidential rule by fiat. The other side decided they were no longer willing to play by the rules they established and pioneered. \u00a0 They lost the debate, so they changed the rules of the game in the middle of the fourth quarter. \u00a0  \nThey triggered the so-called \u201cnuclear option\u201d because salvaging Obamacare and insulating Cap and Trade fee increases from meaningful judicial review were just too important. But as I said, the end-game for this scheme has been clear all along. \u00a0 So I wasn\u2019t surprised to read the media accounts confirming the reasons Democrats broke the Senate rules in order to get these nominees confirmed.\u00a0 \u00a0 For instance, on November 23rd, The Hill newspaper ran an article with this headline: \u201cFilibuster change clears path for Obama climate regs crackdown.\u201d \u00a0 The Hill had this to say: \u00a0 \u201cGreen groups might be the biggest winners from Senate Democrats\u2019 decision to gut the minority party\u2019s filibuster rights on nominations.\u00a0 Their top priority \u2013 President Obama\u2019s second-term regulations on climate change \u2013 is likely to have a better shot at surviving challenges once Obama\u2019s nominees are confirmed for the crucial U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.\u201d And the Washington Post wrote this: \u201cDemocrats say the shift in the court will be especially important given that Obama\u2019s legislative proposals have little chance to prevail in the GOP controlled House...\u00a0 The most contentious issue likely to face the appeals court are climate change regulations being pursued by the EPA...\u00a0 The measures represent Obama\u2019s most ambitious effort to combat climate change in his second term \u2013 coal fired power plants are a key source of carbon emissions \u2013 at a time when such proposals have no chance of passage in Congress.\u201d The same Washington Post article acknowledged the importance of removing the judicial check on Obamacare: \u201cThe court is expected to hear a series of other legal challenges as well, including lawsuits related to elements of the Affordable Care Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and new air-quality standards.\u201d And here is how one liberal environmental media outlet described the change: \u201cWhen Senate Democrats blew up the filibuster Thursday, they didn\u2019t just rewrite some rules.\u00a0 They struck a mortal blow to a tradition that has blockaded effective action on climate change.\u201d And of course, according to media reports, it was these same liberal interest groups that pressured the Majority Leader to break the rules.\u00a0 According to The Hill newspaper: \u201c[The] Sierra Club was part of a coalition of liberal groups and unions that pressured Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to limit the use of the filibuster through a majority vote.\u201d So, if there was any doubt about why the other side took such a drastic step, there shouldn\u2019t be any longer. The other side could no longer stand up to the more extreme wing of their party.\u00a0 Under pressure from those interest groups, the other side tossed aside, willy-nilly, some 225 years of Senate history and tradition. \u00a0 And what\u2019s more, by joining the Majority Leader and voting to break the rules, every Senator who did so empowered the President to install judges whose appointments are specifically designed to rubberstamp the President\u2019s regulatory agenda. \u00a0 No one is going to be able to hide from this vote. So, this is a power grab, of course.\u00a0 But it\u2019s much more than that. \u00a0 It\u2019s the erosion of the separation of powers. \u00a0 It\u2019s a White House that is so committed to a policy agenda that the American people don\u2019t want, that it co-opted the Majority in the United States Senate in its scheme to remove a meaningful judicial check on the executive branch of government and its agenda. This is about a White House trying to rig the game so it can impose its Cap and Trade fee increases on the American people \u2013 even though they don\u2019t want it. \u00a0  \n\u00a0 \u00a0  \nAnd this is about a last ditch effort to salvage Obamacare\u00a0 -- and regulations like the IRS rule imposing the employer mandate penalty in 34 states in direct conflict with the statute -- by installing judges the White House believes will rubberstamp it.\u00a0 \u00a0 I urge my colleagues stand up to this White House.\u00a0 Stand up to the radical liberal interest groups. \u00a0 Don\u2019t cast a vote for Cap and Trade fee increases.\u00a0 And don\u2019t cast another vote for Obamacare. Instead, vote against this nomination. I yield the floor.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044453/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47706"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 2.0087910816073418, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}