[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 28, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2029-S2031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           The Nuclear Option

  Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, we find ourselves at an interesting point. 
Let me start by saying what a tremendous privilege it is to serve in 
this body. Every single day that I come to the building from where I 
live, I express that to myself--what a tremendous privilege it is for 
all of us to serve in this body, denoted by many as the greatest 
deliberative body in the world. Certainly, we find ourselves here in a 
place where we can effect so many things that not only affect our 
citizens but citizens across the world. What a privilege that is.
  The Presiding Officer and I have had numerous conversations in the 
past. I spent a life in business before coming to the Senate, and I 
know the Presiding Officer did a lot of unique things as well. At the 
age of 25, I was fortunate enough to build a business, starting with a 
small amount of money. It ended up operating all around the country. 
One of the things we did after every project--I built shopping centers 
around the country--is that we would get together and analyze the 
things we had done well and the things we had done not so well in an 
effort to become better. At the end of each year, we would sit down and 
look at our company, which was growing very rapidly, and try to analyze 
those things. Sometimes we would have setbacks, but generally speaking, 
the company continued to operate on an upward trend.
  What I find here is just the opposite. I have been here now a decade, 
and what we do is just the opposite of that. What we do is we continue 
a downward trend because the way the two parties operate with each 
other is when it gets to a point where there is something very critical 
that has to happen, the other side says, well, if they were in power, 
this is what they would do, so let's go ahead and do this ourselves. So 
what we have in the Senate, at least since I have been here in the last 
decade, is instead of an escalating situation where we continue to 
operate better and deal with these things in a more balanced way, what 
we do is we are on this continual downward trend.
  One of our younger Members mentioned the other day as we were 
discussing this--and I thought it was a great point--that what has 
happened in the Senate is that neither party has had the ability to 
withstand the pressure that is brought to them by their base in either 
party.
  I have seen that play out right now. What happens is their base puts 
pressure on, and we end up breaking the traditions of the Senate. We 
did it legislatively with the cloture vote being the scored vote by 
outside groups. So that is where we find ourselves.
  What is happening in our own caucus--I just realized over the 
weekend--is that we are now trying to figure out whom to blame. I heard 
a discussion last Wednesday that was totally divorced from reality as 
far as how we had gotten where we are today. I realized that we are 
getting ready to do some things here that will change the Senate 
dramatically. What is really happening is that both sides are trying to 
make sure history records that it was the other side that caused this 
to happen.
  We are now starting to see editorials in various publications--some 
that we Republicans read and some that Democrats read--to try to set 
the story straight. I about came out of my chair last Wednesday with 
regard to one of the explanations as to how we got where we are today. 
My guess is, today at lunch on the other side of the aisle, the same 
thing will be taking place. Obviously, on our side, it is the other 
side. On their side, it is our side.
  Let me go back to 2013. We had a breakdown taking place. President 
Obama was bringing forth some nominations, and it was right after he 
was elected for a second term. We went through the summer of 2013 with 
some of his nominees not getting cloture votes. I was called, as were a 
few other Senators, to make what we would call some tough votes. These 
were nominees whom we did not support. Cloture had again become the 
vote that people were scoring, but I and John McCain and Lamar 
Alexander and a few others were asked to make some votes that, 
candidly, were not very pleasant to keep us from getting to a place at 
which Senator Reid would impose the nuclear option.
  We made it through the summer, and we went into the fall. We had just 
confirmed a new circuit court judge for the

[[Page S2030]]

DC Circuit, which is just below the Supreme Court relative to 
importance for lots of reasons. So we had a 4-to-4 balance on this 
circuit court. Senator Reid brought forth three more nominees, and they 
were not bad nominees. I think most people thought they were actually 
pretty decent nominees. But we did not want the balance of the DC 
Circuit to change; it was at 4-to-4.
  We know that a lot of administrative rulings that are relative to the 
administration take place in the DC court, so we made the argument that 
there were already enough judges there and that they did not have a 
very good case. It was the same argument, by the way, that Democrats 
made back in 2006 when Bush was also trying to make some nominations. 
We do the same to each other. So we ended up filibustering those three 
nominees.
  What we thought was going to take place was a negotiation on how many 
judges would actually go when all of a sudden Senator Reid, out of the 
blue, with some of his Members not realizing what had happened, did the 
nuclear option. He ruled and called upon the person sitting in the 
Chair and the Parliamentarian. All of a sudden, we destroyed what had 
been the case of it taking 60 votes to move beyond to an actual vote on 
the nominee. I was livid.
  Somebody said the other day that that was fine and that we had just 
gotten to where we had wanted to be. Are you kidding me? We were livid. 
We were livid that on some circuit court nominees, Senator Reid had 
pulled the nuclear option.
  I will tell you this: There were days--not days, months--where people 
who had normally worked with people on the other side of the aisle just 
kind of shut down. It was hard to believe the nuclear option had been 
invoked.
  Last Wednesday, somebody acted like it was no big deal, that it had 
just gotten us back to where we had always been. The fact is that we 
have not used filibusters much--years ago. The fact is that we are 
using them a lot today. Look, this was a big deal.
  Now we find ourselves in a situation in which we are getting ready to 
take the last step, if you will, on nominations. Let's face it: We have 
a nominee in this judge who is on the floor who is really beyond 
reproach.
  I realize my friends on the other side of the aisle have pressures. I 
have talked to some of them, and I respect them. I understand that 
their base is saying that because of what we did last year. Remember, 
it had been an hour since the great Justice passed away, and we had 
already declared we were not going to allow another Justice to be 
confirmed until after the Presidential race. It was a pretty audacious 
move, let's face it, and obviously it created some hard feelings on the 
other side of the aisle after the election was determined.
  Within their base, many of them are saying they are going to invoke 
the filibuster here. Our leadership is saying: If that happens, then we 
ourselves have to invoke the nuclear option on the Supreme Court 
Justice.
  We understand where this is going. I do not know what has been said 
on the floor other than during the hearings, but let's face it: One 
side is reacting to their base, to their pressure. They are having ads 
run against them if they are even considering voting to move beyond the 
cloture vote to an actual vote on the nominee. On our side, obviously, 
we are in a situation in which, if that happens, then our leader is 
going to call the nuclear option.
  By the way, everybody says: Oh, we are never going to do it on 
legislation. Come on. Let me go back to that for a minute.
  Back in 2010, the Democrats passed a healthcare bill with 60 votes. 
Then there was an election, and it took them down below 60 votes. They 
just needed to fix a little element on the healthcare bill with a 
reconciliation bill, and the Republicans went crazy over that. How many 
times have we talked about their passing this healthcare bill with 
reconciliation? It has been going on for 7 years. Now we are in the 
driver's seat. We have the majority. We are writing an entire bill 
through reconciliation because we understand the power of being able to 
do something with 51 votes. I understand. So what we do is we just keep 
upping the ante with each other. Are you kidding me?
  If we continue on the path we are on right now, the very next time 
there is a legislative proposal that one side of the aisle feels is so 
important, they cannot let their base down, the pressure builds, then 
we are going to invoke the nuclear option on a legislative piece. That 
is what will happen. Somebody will do it. Somebody will say that if 
they were in control, they would do it. That is the way trust has 
gotten around here. So we ought to do it because this is our 
opportunity to really change history.
  Look, I hope that before we move to the place that we all know we are 
going--I do not think anybody here would deny that pressures have 
built. Let's face it. If we do not have respect for the institution we 
serve and for ourselves, no one else will. Who will? These people know 
what we are getting ready to do to this place. For us to act like if we 
do it here, there is no way we would ever do it on a legislative 
piece--let me tell you this: Two years ago, after Senator Reid did what 
he did--a friend of mine and somebody I worked very closely with, I 
think most people know it took me a while to get back to normal with 
him. Two years ago, there would not have been a single Republican in 
our caucus who would have even considered voting for the nuclear 
option. As a matter of fact, we had discussions about changing it back. 
Then the election occurred, and we decided not to do that.
  What it looks like to me is that there is a whole host of Republican 
Senators who are willing to do that today. Everyone knows that on the 
other side of the aisle--maybe everyone; I don't know. Yet to say that 
we will never get to the point at which we will not change a 
legislative piece--give me a break. Somebody is not living in reality, 
because we each continue to take the other down.
  Again, I do not really care how history writes it; I am going to tell 
you how I am going to write it. Neither side of the aisle has had the 
maturity or the willingness to stand up to the pressures and cause this 
institution to operate in the way it should--neither side of the aisle. 
As for anybody who tries to say that one side of the aisle is worse 
than the other, come on. It takes two of us to take the institution to 
the place at which we are getting ready to take it next week. That is 
my history. I have been here 10 years. I have watched it. Neither side 
of the aisle has clean hands. We have one side. They have a decision to 
make. Are they really going to filibuster this judge? Let's face it. If 
you go back and look at the principles of the Gang of 14 that were put 
in place back in the 2000s, when both sides came together and said: We 
are not going to do the nuclear option as long as a judge meets these 
criteria--this judge meets that criteria. It is clear. By the way, I am 
not criticizing; I am just observing.
  We both have pressures. We know that if a filibuster takes place--and 
you will know that immediately; of course, it would be after a few 
filibuster votes just to show that it cannot happen--the leader on this 
side is going to invoke the nuclear option. You all know that. I do not 
know if people are saying that it could happen, but of course that is 
what is going to happen. And then the very next time another big 
legislative issue comes up, the same thing is going to happen unless we 
have the ability to sit down and talk about this. I would love to do it 
out on the floor. Typically, we do not do those kinds of things because 
things get out of control when we talk about things honestly here on 
the floor, but I would like for us to do that. I would love for us to 
have maybe a 4-hour discussion about what we are getting ready to do 
here in the Senate. To me, that would be a healthy thing.
  I think all of these staffers who work up here, whom we respect, know 
exactly what is getting ready to happen here in the Senate.
  I think we owe this to people who are getting ready to run for the 
Senate or maybe to people who are thinking about running for 
reelection. We should go ahead and have this discussion so that they 
will know whether they are running for a 6-year House term--a 6-year 
House term because we do not have the maturity, because we do not trust 
each other, because we are on this constantly deescalating deal and our 
leaders do not talk to each other and fight and all of those kinds of 
things happen, because we are getting ready to take this institution to 
a

[[Page S2031]]

place that I do not think many of us are going to be proud of. But, 
again, for the people who are thinking about running for the Senate, 
let's go ahead and clear it. Let's have a discussion about this 
legislative issue so that people will know, if they are seeking 
election to the U.S. Senate, that they are, in essence, going to sign 
up, possibly, for a 6-year House term.
  I am at a place in my Senate life where I have tremendous respect for 
the people with whom I have served. Every day I come here, I look at 
the things I have the ability to affect as one Senator. I look at that 
with such honor, to be able to be in a body that debates these kinds of 
things and affects people in the way we do. What an honor it is to be 
here. I am here with no malice.
  I am here, though, at a time when I see what is getting ready to 
happen without a lot of discussion, and I hope that somehow or another, 
we will have the ability to avoid what I see as something that is very, 
very detrimental to the Senate and, in the process, very detrimental to 
our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I understand there is a time agreement on 
the recess before lunch.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to finish and complete my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.