{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://web.archive.org/web/20140221044521/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47553", "Doing Whatever It Takes - Majority Changes the Senate Rules", "2013-11-21", "2013", "2013-11", "Republican", "House", "IA", "Charles Grassley", "G000386", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley  \nRanking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary  \nOn the Majority\u2019s Change to the Senate Rules  \nThursday, November 21, 2013 Mr. President, I\u2019d like to spend a few minutes discussing the Majority Leader\u2019s employment of the so-called \u201cNuclear Option.\u201d\u00a0 Unfortunately, this isn\u2019t a new threat.\u00a0 Over the last several years, every time the Minority has chosen to exercise its rights under the Senate Rules, the Majority has threatened to change the Senate rules.\u00a0 In fact, this is the third time in just the last year or so that the Majority Leader has said if he didn\u2019t get his way on nominations, he\u2019d change the rules.\u00a0 Ironically, that\u2019s about as many judicial nominees as our side has stopped with the filibuster.\u00a0 Prior to the recent attempt by the President to simultaneously add three judges to the D.C. Circuit that aren\u2019t needed, Republicans had stopped a grand total of two of President Obama\u2019s judicial nominees.\u00a0 Not 10, as the Democrats had done by President Bush\u2019s 5th year in office.\u00a0 Not 34, as one of my colleagues tried to suggest earlier this week.\u00a0 2. And if you include the nominees for the D.C. Circuit, we\u2019ve stopped a grand total of 5.\u00a0  \nAgain, not 10 as the Democrats had done by 2005. Not 34, as one of my colleagues tried to argue earlier this week.\u00a0 5.\u00a0 During that same time we\u2019ve confirmed 209 lower court Article III judges.\u00a0 That\u2019s a record of 209 to 5.  \n\u00a0  \nSo this threat isn\u2019t based on a \u201ccrisis.\u201d\u00a0 There is no crisis.\u00a0 I\u2019d note that today\u2019s Wall Street Journal editorial, entitled \u201cD.C. Circuit Breakers, \u2018The White House wants to pack a court whose judges are underworked,\u2019\u201d lays out the caseload pretty clearly.\u00a0 And I\u2019d ask that this editorial be made part of the record.\u00a0 So, this is about a naked power grab, and nothing more.\u00a0 This is about the other side not getting everything they want, when they want it.\u00a0 Now, the other side claims that they have been pushed to this point because our side objected to the President\u2019s plan to fill the D.C. Circuit with judges it doesn\u2019t need.\u00a0 But the other side tends to forget history, so let\u2019s review how we got here.\u00a0 After the President simultaneously nominated 3 nominees for the D.C. Circuit that aren\u2019t needed \u2013 a blatant political power grab in its own right \u2013\u00a0 what did Republicans do?\u00a0 Well, we did something quite simple.\u00a0 We said we\u2019d hold Democrats to the same standard they established in 2006 when they blocked Peter Keisler. So let\u2019s be clear about why the Democrats are \u201coutraged.\u201d\u00a0 Democrats are \u201coutraged\u201d because Republicans actually had the temerity to hold them to a standard they established.\u00a0 And because we did, because we insisted that we all play by the same rules, they\u2019ve come right back and said, \u2018then we\u2019ll change the rules.\u2019\u00a0\u00a0 The other side has said, in effect, \u2018we don\u2019t want to be held to the standard we established in 2006.\u2019\u00a0 And not only that, but if you don\u2019t give us what we want, we are willing to forever change the Senate. Now, we hear a lot of ultimatums around here.\u00a0 But this ultimatum is not run-of-the-mill.\u00a0 It\u2019s different.\u00a0 It\u2019s different because this threat is designed to hold the United States Senate hostage.\u00a0 It\u2019s different because it\u2019s designed to hold hostage all of the Senate\u2019s history and traditions.\u00a0 It\u2019s different because, to be effective, it relies on the good will of Senators who don\u2019t want to see the Senate as we know it destroyed.\u00a0 Now, I\u2019d note that today\u2019s Majority didn\u2019t always feel the way they do today.\u00a0 Not too many years ago, my colleagues on the other side described their fight to preserve the filibuster with great pride. For instance, in 2006 one of my colleagues on the other side said it this way:  \n\u201cThe nuclear option was the most important issue I have worked on in my public life. Its rejection was my proudest moment as minority leader. I emerged from the episode with a renewed appreciation for the majesty of Senate rules. As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect.\u201d In 2005, another of my Democrat colleagues had this to say:  \n\u201cToday, Republicans are threatening to take away one of the few remaining checks on the power of the executive branch by their use of what has become known as the nuclear option. This assault on our tradition of checks and balances and on the protection of minority rights in the Senate and in our democracy should be abandoned.  \nEliminating the filibuster by the nuclear option would destroy the Constitution's design of the Senate as an effective check on the executive.\u201d And then there was this, from the late Senator Byrd in 2005: \u201cAnd I detest this mention of a nuclear option, the constitutional option.\u00a0 There is nothing constitutional about it, nothing.\u201d But of course, that was back when today\u2019s Majority was in the Minority, and there was a Republican in the White House.\u00a0 Today, the shoe is on the other foot.\u00a0 Today, the other side is willing to forever change the Senate because Republicans have the audacity to hold them to their own standard. But why?\u00a0 Why would the other side be willing to do this?\u00a0 There clearly isn\u2019t a crisis on the D.C. Circuit.\u00a0 The judges themselves say if we confirmed any more judges, there wouldn\u2019t be enough work to go around.\u00a0 And it\u2019s not as if all of these nominees are mainstream, consensus picks, despite what the other side would have you believe.\u00a0 Take Professor Pillard, for instance. She has written this about motherhood: \u201creproductive rights, including rights to contraception and abortion, play a central role in freeing women from historically routine conscription into maternity.\u201d Is that mainstream? She has also argued this about motherhood: \u201cAntiabortion laws and other restraints on reproductive freedom not only enforce women\u2019s incubation of unwanted pregnancies, but also prescribe a \u2018vision of the woman\u2019s role\u2019 as mother and caretaker of children in a way that is at odds with equal protection.\u201d Is that mainstream? And what about her views on religious freedom?\u00a0 She argued that the Supreme Court case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church, which challenged the so-called \u201cministerial exception\u201d to employment discrimination, represented a \u201csubstantial threat to the American rule of law.\u201d The Supreme Court rejected her view 9-0.\u00a0 9-0. And the Court held that \u201cit is impermissible for the government to contradict a church\u2019s determination of who can act as its ministers.\u201d Do my colleagues really believe mainstream America thinks churches shouldn\u2019t be allowed to choose their own ministers? I could go on, but you get the picture.\u00a0 The point is this: any vote to change the Senate rules is a vote to remove one of the last meaningful checks on the President, and that vote would put these views on this important court. So I ask again, why would the other side do this? It is nothing short of a complete and total power grab. It is the type of thing we\u2019ve seen again and again out of this administration and their Senate allies. And you can sum it up this way: Do whatever it takes. -You can\u2019t get Obamacare passed with Republican support?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Pass it at 7 a.m. on Christmas Eve with just Democrat votes.\u00a0 -You can\u2019t get all of your side to support Obamacare?\u00a0  \n- Do whatever it takes: Resort to the \u201ccornhusker kickback.\u201d\u00a0 -You lose your 60th Senate vote on Obamacare due to a special election?\u00a0  \n- Do whatever it takes: Ram it through anyway using reconciliation.\u00a0 -The American people don\u2019t want to be taxed for not buying healthcare?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Tell the American people it isn\u2019t a tax, and then argue in court that it IS. -The American people want to keep their healthcare?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Promise them \u201cif you like your healthcare you can keep it,\u201d then issue regulations making it impossible.\u00a0 -Your big labor allies want out from under Obamacare?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Consider issuing them a waiver from the reinsurance tax. -You can\u2019t find consensus nominees for the National Labor Relations Board?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Recess-appoint them when the Senate isn\u2019t even in recess. -You can\u2019t convince Congress to adopt your gun control agenda?  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 - Do whatever it takes: Issue some Executive Orders. -You can\u2019t convince moderate Democrats to support Cap and Trade fee increases?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Do the same thing through EPA regulation. -Frustrated that conservative groups\u2019 political speech is protected under the First Amendment?\u00a0  \n- Do whatever it takes: Use the IRS to harass and intimidate those same conservative groups. -Frustrated when the court stands up for religious freedom and issues a check on the Obamacare contraception mandate?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Stack the D.C. Circuit in your favor. -Frustrated when the court curbs your power on recess-appointments?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Stack the D.C. Circuit in your favor. -Worried EPA\u2019s regulations on Cap and Trade fee increases might get challenged in court?  \n- Do whatever it takes: Stack the D.C. Circuit in your favor. -Frustrated because Senate Republicans have the nerve to hold you to the same standard you established during the last Administration?  \n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 - Do. Whatever. It. Takes. -Change the rules of the United States Senate. Mr. President, that\u2019s what we have witnessed today.\u00a0 This is an absolute power grab.\u00a0 The Majority in the Senate and their allies in the Administration are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their partisan agenda.\u00a0 They know there will be additional challenges to Obamacare. They know if they can stack the deck on the D.C. Circuit, they can remove one of the last remaining checks on presidential power. But make no mistake.\u00a0 My friends on the other side will have to answer this question: Why did you choose this moment to break the rules to change the rules? Why now? Why, when we are witnessing the collapse of this massive effort to centrally plan 1/6th of this wonderful Nation\u2019s economy? Why, when millions of Americans are losing their healthcare? Why did you choose this moment to hand the keys to the kingdom over to the President?\u00a0 Because the fact of the matter is this: any vote to break the rules to change the rules is a vote to ensure Obamacare remains intact. So, Mr. President, I\u2019ll conclude by saying this.  \nChanging the rules of the Senate in this way was a mistake.\u00a0 But if the last several years have taught us anything, it\u2019s that the Majority won\u2019t stop making these demands. And we can\u2019t give in to these constant threats.\u00a0 Sooner or later, you have to stand up and say \u2018enough is enough.\u2019 But, if there is one thing that will always be true, it\u2019s this:\u00a0 Majorities are fickle.\u00a0 Majorities are fleeting.\u00a0 Here today.\u00a0 Gone tomorrow.\u00a0 That\u2019s a lesson that sadly, most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle haven\u2019t learned, for the simple reason that they\u2019ve never served a single day in the Minority. So the Majority has chosen to take us down this path, the silver lining is that there will come a day when the roles are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees with 51 votes, regardless of whether the Democrats actually buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the filibuster on lower court nominees and still preserve it for Supreme Court nominees. 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/20140221044521/http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=47553"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.6774330288171768, "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"}