[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 175 (Wednesday, December 11, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8625-S8628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Unemployment

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, there is a reason why the favorability 
rating of the Congress is somewhere, on a good day, around 10 percent. 
The reason I think is pretty simple: The American people are hurting. 
They look to their elected officials to try to do something to address 
the problems they have and the crises facing our country. Time after 
time, they see the Congress not only not responding to the needs they 
face but in many cases doing exactly the opposite. In poll after poll, 
the American people tell us the most pressing issue they face deals 
with the economy and high unemployment.
  When we look in the newspapers, we are told the official unemployment 
rate is 7 percent. By the way, that is a rate which has in recent 
months gone down, and that is a good thing. But the truth is, if you 
include people who have given up looking for work and people who are 
working part time when they want to work full time, real unemployment 
in this country is 13.2 percent. That is enormously high.
  The unemployment rate for our young people is close to 20 percent, 
and there are parts of the country where it is higher than that. 
African-American youth unemployment is close to 40 percent.
  So what we are looking at all over this country are millions and 
millions of people who want jobs, who want to work, and who can't find 
those jobs. We are looking at a younger generation of workers who 
cannot get into the economy. If you are a young person and you leave 
high school, for example, and you can't get a job in your first year 
out there or your second year, if you think

[[Page S8626]]

this does not have a cataclysmic impact on your confidence, on your 
self-esteem, you are very mistaken.
  I fear very much and worry very much about the millions of young 
people out there who are not in school, who are not working. 
Tragically, many of those young people will end up on drugs. Some of 
them are going to end up in jail. These are issues we have to consider.
  What the American people tell us over and over is: Yes, the deficit 
is a serious problem. I believe it is. Everybody in the Congress 
believes it is. But what the American people also say is: High 
unemployment is an even more serious issue.
  According to a March 2013 Gallup poll, 75 percent of the American 
people, including 56 percent of Republicans, 74 percent of 
Independents, and 93 percent of Democrats, support ``a Federal job 
creation law that would spend government money for a program designed 
to create more than 1 million new jobs.''
  What the American people are saying is, yes, we have made progress in 
the last 4 years. We have cut the deficit in half. We have to do more. 
But what the American people are saying loudly and clearly is that we 
need to create jobs.
  What they also understand, and poll after poll indicates this, is 
that when we have an infrastructure that is crumbling--roads, bridges, 
water systems, wastewater plants, our rail system--when we have an 
infrastructure that is crumbling, we need to invest in rebuilding that 
infrastructure. When we do that, we create significant numbers of jobs. 
That is what the American people want us to do. When is the last time 
you even heard that debate here on the floor of the Senate?
  The unemployment crisis, the need to create jobs--that is what the 
American people want us to do, and we are not even talking about that 
issue.
  There is a second issue about which the American people are very 
clear. It is a funny thing--sometimes the media writes about how 
partisan the Congress is, how divisive the Congress is. Senator 
Grassley and I supposedly hate each other, we do not talk to each 
other, and all that nonsense. That is not the reality. The truth is 
that among the American people, surprisingly enough, there is a lot of 
consensus. I mentioned a moment ago that the American people very 
strongly believe that we should invest in our infrastructure and create 
jobs. Unfortunately, that is not what we are doing.
  Here is another issue about which the American people are loud and 
clear. They understand that--tragically in today's economy--most of the 
new jobs that are being created are not good-paying jobs. That is the 
sad reality. Most of the new jobs that are being created in today's 
economy are low wage jobs and many of them are part-time jobs. If you 
are making $8 or $9 an hour and you are working 30 hours a week, you 
are going to have a very hard time supporting yourself, let alone a 
family.
  What do the American people say? They say raise the minimum wage. 
Raise the minimum wage.
  Let me quote from today's Wall Street Journal:

       Americans strongly favor boosting the Federal minimum wage 
     to $10.10 an hour but oppose raising it above that, a Wall 
     Street Journal/NBC News poll finds. In the survey, 63 percent 
     supported a rise to $10.10 an hour from the current $7.25 
     rate.

  Sixty-three percent of the American people support that. Democrats 
strongly support it, Independents support it, and many Republicans 
support it. One would think, therefore, when the vast majority of the 
American people understand that $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and 
that we need to raise the minimum wage to at least $10.10 an hour, we 
would be moving on it. Maybe we would get a UC on it, a unanimous 
consent. Let's get it done. I fear very much that right here in the 
Senate we are going to have a very difficult time gaining 60 votes. I 
hope I am wrong, I sincerely do, but I am not aware at this point that 
there are any Republicans prepared to support an increase of the 
minimum wage to $10 an hour. I believe in the Republican-controlled 
House it would be extremely difficult to get legislation widely 
supported by the American people through that body.
  But not only will my Republican colleagues not do what the American 
people want in terms of raising the minimum wage, quite incredibly, I 
have to tell you that many of my Republican colleagues do not believe 
in the concept of the minimum wage. Many of them believe we should 
abolish the concept of the minimum wage, so that if you are in a 
situation in a high-unemployment area where workers are desperate for 
work and an employer says: Here is $4 an hour; take it or leave it, 
that is OK for some of my Republican colleagues.
  Again, we are in a situation where the vast majority of the American 
people want to do something about low wages. They want to raise the 
minimum wage, and we are going to have a very difficult time getting 
that legislation through. I hope I am wrong, but I do know that unless 
the American people stand up, get on the phone, start calling their 
Senators and Members of Congress, we probably will not succeed in doing 
what the American people want.
  Interestingly enough, what the American people also understand is 
that raising the minimum wage will help us with the Federal deficit in 
a variety of ways. It may be a surprise to some Americans to know that 
the largest welfare recipient in the United States of America happens, 
coincidentally, to be the wealthiest family in America. The Walton 
family, which owns Walmart, is worth about $100 billion. They are the 
wealthiest family in America. They own more wealth as one family than 
the bottom 40 percent of the American people--extraordinary wealth. One 
of the reasons they are so wealthy is the American taxpayer subsidizes 
Walmart because Walmart pays low wages, provides minimal benefits, and 
many of their workers end up on Medicaid, they end up on food stamps, 
and they end up in government-subsidized housing. I am not quite sure 
why the middle-class working families of this country have to subsidize 
the Walton family because they pay wages that are inadequate for their 
workers to live a dignified life.
  My hope is that when the American people are loud and clear about the 
need to raise the minimum wage, their Congress will respond, but I have 
to tell you that I have my doubts.
  What we also hear--and most recently from Pope Francis--is an 
understanding that there is something profoundly wrong about a nation 
and increasingly a world in which so few have so much and so many have 
so little. In the United States of America today we have more wealth 
and income inequality than at any time since the late 1920s, and we 
have more wealth and income inequality than any other major country on 
Earth. Today the top 1 percent of our population owns 38 percent of the 
wealth of America, financial wealth of this country, and the bottom 60 
percent owns 2.3 percent. The top 1 percent owns 38 percent of the 
wealth of America, and the bottom 60 percent owns 2.3 percent. Is that 
really what America is supposed to be about? I think not. I think Pope 
Francis recently talked about that issue. He talked about the moral 
aspects of that issue. He is exactly right.
  Those are some of the issues we have to talk about.
  Another issue out there that I think we have to be very clear about--
and again the American people are extraordinarily clear about this--the 
American people understand that Social Security has been probably the 
most successful Federal program in the modern history of this country. 
For the last 70-plus years it has kept seniors out of poverty. In fact, 
before Social Security 50 percent of seniors in this country lived in 
poverty. Today that number, while too high, is about 9.5 percent. That 
is a significant improvement. And Social Security, despite what is 
going on in the economy--in good times and bad times--has never once 
failed to pay all of the benefits owed to every eligible American.

  Today Social Security has a $2.7 trillion surplus. It can pay every 
benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 20 years. Do you 
know what the American people say about Social Security? They say it 
loudly and clearly. Republicans say it, Independents say it, and 
Democrats say it. Do not cut Social Security. Do not cut Social 
Security. Yet I have to tell you that virtually all Republicans think 
we should cut Social Security. Some Democrats believe we should cut 
Social Security. The President of the United States has talked about a 
chained CPI--a very bad idea--about cutting Social Security.

[[Page S8627]]

  Maybe we should listen to the American people and make it very clear: 
No, we are not going to cut Social Security. In fact, we are going to 
take a new look at Social Security and see how we can make it solvent 
not just for 20 years but for 50 years and in addition to that increase 
benefits. There are pretty easy ways to do that, including lifting the 
cap on taxable income that goes into the Social Security trust fund. As 
you know, today, if somebody makes $100 million and somebody makes 
$113,000, they both contribute the same amount into the Social Security 
trust fund. Lift that cap. You can start at $250,000, and you will 
solve the Social Security solvency issue for the next 50 or 60 years. 
That is exactly what we should do, and that is what the American people 
want us to do.
  In terms of Medicare, people say Medicare has financial problems, and 
it does. The issue--and interestingly enough, it gets back to what 
Senator Graham was talking about. He was talking about his health care 
plan in South Carolina. It sounds like a pretty bad plan to me, I agree 
with him. What is the issue there? The issue we have to look at, which 
we don't for obvious issues, is how does it happen that in the United 
States of America--before the Affordable Care Act; things will change a 
little bit--before the Affordable Care Act, we have 48 million people 
who are uninsured, we have tens of millions more people who have high 
deductibles, like Senator Graham--a $6,000 deductible is 
incomprehensible--and high copayments. At the end of the day, 48 
million people uninsured, high deductibles, high copayments, health 
outcomes that are not particularly good--better than some countries, 
worse than other countries--infant mortality worse, longevity worse, 
life expectancy worse, yet we end up spending twice as much per person 
on health care as any other nation. How does that happen? How do we 
spend so much and get so little value? Is that an issue we are prepared 
to discuss? I guess not because the private insure companies say: Don't 
talk about that. We are making a whole lot of money out of the current 
health care system, including the Affordable Care Act. We make a lot of 
money, our CEOs do. Yes, we are spending 30 cents of every dollar on 
administrative costs, on bureaucracy, on advertising. Don't touch that 
because that is the American health care system. I suggest we have to 
take a hard look at what goes on in the rest of the world.
  People have said we have the best health care system in the world. 
That is not what the American people say. The polls I have seen show 
that there is less satisfaction with our system than exists in other 
countries around the world, for obvious reasons. We spend a lot. We get 
relatively little.
  Are we prepared as a Congress to stand up to the insurance companies? 
Are we prepared to stand up to the drug companies that charge us far 
higher prices for prescription drugs than any other country on Earth? 
Are we prepared to stand up to the medical equipment suppliers?
  I don't think so because that gets us into the issue of campaign 
finance, where people get their money to run for office, because these 
guys contribute a whole lot of money.
  Are we prepared to stand up to Wall Street? We have six financial 
institutions on Wall Street that have assets of over $9 trillion--
equivalent to two-thirds of the GDP of the United States of America. 
They write half of the mortgages in this country, two-thirds of the 
credit cards. Do you think maybe it is time to break up these guys or 
are we going to march down the path of too big to fail and have to bail 
them out again? Do you hear a whole lot of discussion about that, Mr. 
President? No, not too often.
  Let me conclude. We had the president of the World Bank here 
yesterday talking about global warming. As I think most people know, 
the entire--well, virtually the entire scientific community, people who 
study the issue of global warming, understands that the planet is 
warming significantly, that it is already causing devastating problems, 
that the issue is manmade, and that if we do not address this crisis by 
cutting greenhouse gas emissions and moving away from fossil fuels, the 
habitability of this planet for our kids and our grandchildren will be 
very much in question. That is what the scientific community says. Have 
you heard any debate on this floor about how we are going to 
aggressively transform our energy system? We do not do it.
  Let me conclude by saying this. There is a reason the Congress has a 
favorability rating of about 10 percent, and that is that the American 
people are hurting and we are not responding to that pain. We are not 
addressing the many crises facing this country, and the American people 
are saying to Congress: What world do you live in? How about joining 
our world? How about changing your attention to our needs?

  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are in postcloture debate on the 
nominee for the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia. I want to 
speak on that nomination, but I am also going to take time to speak on 
issues dealing with the Defense Department, the farm bill, and the new 
nominee for the Department of Homeland Security.
  I will take a few minutes to discuss the President's ongoing scheme 
to stack the DC Circuit with committed ideologues so that the 
President's regulatory agenda doesn't run into judicial roadblocks.
  Yesterday, the Senate confirmed the first of three nominees to the DC 
Circuit that the court does not need. Let me emphasize that: Does not 
need. Of course, the Senate denied its consent on these nominees just a 
few short weeks ago.
  Some may ask: What has changed during that time? The vote count 
certainly has not changed. It is not as if Democrats persuaded some of 
their Republicans colleagues to change their minds.
  That is what you would expect in a body that operates based upon 
rules that guarantee the minority a voice. That is what you would 
expect in what is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body on 
Earth. That is what you would expect under normal circumstances, but as 
I explained in an earlier speech this week on another nominee for the 
same court, these are not normal circumstances.
  No, today's circumstances are different.
  Today the President's legislative agenda cannot get traction in 
Congress. And, no, it is not because Republicans will not negotiate 
with the President. It is because the President of the United States is 
out of step with the American people.
  Today the President's signature health care law, which was passed 
without a single Republican vote, is becoming more and more unpopular 
with each passing day. And no, it is not because the administration has 
not done a good job of ``messaging'' ObamaCare. It is precisely because 
of that message.
  Today, the President can't get climate change legislation passed by 
Congress, and, no, it is not simply because of Republican opposition. 
It is because the President's agenda is too extreme even for some 
Senate Democrats.
  The President and his agenda are out of step with the American 
people, and as a result, he cannot get his agenda adopted in this 
Congress. But that doesn't seem to matter to the radical liberal 
interest groups who support these policy initiatives. They want 
results--no matter what.
  These liberal interest groups are not satisfied with constitutional 
separation of powers. They want the President and his allies in the 
Senate to do whatever it takes to get the same results they would get 
if there were 535 Members of Congress just as liberal as the President.
  Those interest groups want the President to legislate by executive 
order and by administrative action. They want the President to suspend 
the law when it suits his purposes, just as the English kings used to 
do. In fact, the reason our Constitution requires--and let me emphasize 
requires--the President to ``faithfully'' execute the law is because 
the English kings would unilaterally--and selectively--suspend laws 
passed by the parliament. But none of this matters to the liberal 
interest groups. They want results--no matter what.
  In fact, the President has made such a practice of legislating by 
Executive Order and administrative action, that he has created the 
expectation among

[[Page S8628]]

his most faithful supporters that there is nothing he cannot do 
unilaterally.
  Just a week or two ago, the President was delivering a speech in 
California when one of his own supporters interrupted and heckled him 
for not issuing an executive order to stop all deportations.
  The heckler shouted:

       Use your executive order to halt deportations of 11.5 
     million undocumented immigrants in this country. You have the 
     power to stop deportations right now.

  The President responded:

       Actually, I don't. We are a nation of laws.

  I must say, I understand the confusion. The most extreme elements of 
the President's supporters have witnessed him pick and choose which 
laws he will faithfully execute and which he will suspend, or as the 
President likes to say, ``waive.'' So, it is no wonder that those 
supporters would say: Just issue an executive order. We want results.
  It is just like King George III.
  It is no wonder that those supporters would say: We don't care that 
there isn't support in the Congress to pass legislation imposing cap-
and-trade fee increases. We want results
  Just like King George III.
  It is no wonder that those supporters would say: We don't care if 
Democrats block judges to the DC Circuit based on the standards the 
Republicans are applying today. That was then, this is now. We want 
results.
  Just like King George III.
  It is no wonder that those supporters would say: We don't care about 
two centuries of Senate history and tradition that has been passed down 
faithfully from one majority leader to the next. We want results.
  Just like King George III.
  Climate change regulations are too important. Salvaging ObamaCare is 
too important.
  So as we all know, the majority buckled to the pressure from these 
extreme liberal interest groups and broke the rules of the Senate to 
change the rules. They tossed aside two centuries of Senate history and 
tradition. This history and tradition--until 2 weeks ago--had been 
carefully guarded and preserved by each succeeding majority leader.
  Those leaders remembered the history of King George III.
  They did all of this just so they could install the President's hand-
picked judges, so they could hear challenges to his signature health 
care law and to the rest of his regulatory agenda, such as climate 
change regulation.
  But when a President selects a nominee for the specific purpose of 
rubberstamping his agenda--an agenda that has proven too extreme for 
even Members of his own party--he needs a judge who can be counted upon 
to follow through.
  Given that it is inappropriate to ask prospective nominees how they 
would rule on particular cases, how would this White House make certain 
that their nominees would follow through and rubberstamp the 
President's agenda?
  Based upon Professor Pillard's record--and that is the nominee we 
will be voting on tomorrow--apparently the White House looked out over 
academia and selected the most liberal nominee they could find.
  Because Professor Pillard fits that bill to a T.
  I have heard my colleagues come to the floor and argue that these 
nominees to the DC Circuit are mainstream. Professor Pillard may be a 
fine person, but make no mistake about it, she is not mainstream. She 
is the furthest thing from it.
  I am sure that the White House is confident she can be counted upon 
to rubberstamp its agenda, but don't confuse her views with the 
mainstream of American legal tradition. I have a sampling of things she 
has written and said. I will read some of what she has written, and I 
then ask you to determine if she is mainstream.
  She has written this about abortion:

       Casting reproductive rights in terms of equality holds 
     promise to recenter the debate towards the real stakes for 
     women (and men) of unwanted pregnancy and away from the 
     deceptive images of fetus-as-autonomous-being that the anti-
     choice movement has popularized.

  Think of ``deceptive images of fetus-as-autonomous-being.'' Is that 
mainstream?
  She argued this about motherhood:

       Reproductive rights, including the rights to contraception 
     and abortion, play a central role in freeing women from 
     historically routine conscription into maternity.

  Now, think about that: ``historically routine constriction into 
maternity.'' Is that mainstream?
  She has also argued this about motherhood:

       Antiabortion laws and other restraints on reproductive 
     freedom not only enforce women's incubation of unwanted 
     pregnancies, but also prescribe a ``vision of the woman's 
     role'' as mother and caretaker of children in a way that is 
     at odds with equal protection.

  Is that in the mainstream?
  What about her views on religious freedom? This really ought to shock 
you. She argued that the Supreme Court case of Hosanna-Tabor 
Evangelical Lutheran Church, which challenged the so-called 
``ministerial exception'' to employment discrimination represented a 
``substantial threat to the American rule of law.''
  The Supreme Court rejected her view 9 to 0. Nine to zero. And the 
Court held that ``it is impermissible for the government to contradict 
a church's determination of who can act as its ministers.''
  Do my colleagues honestly believe that it is within the mainstream to 
argue that churches shouldn't be allowed to choose their own ministers? 
I don't think so.
  I asked Professor Pillard about Hosanna-Tabor and religious freedom 
at her hearing. She testified this way:

       And I have to admit, Senator Grassley . . . I really called 
     it wrong on that case. I did not predict that the Court would 
     rule as it did.

  In other words, she tried to dodge the question by leaving the 
committee members with the impression that she had merely taken a stab 
at predicting the case's outcome and that she had gotten it wrong.
  Of course, I wasn't troubled that Professor Pillard had wrongly 
predicted the outcome. I was troubled because she actually argued that 
a ruling in favor of the church would represent a ``substantial threat 
to the American rule of law.''
  I don't believe that there is a single Member of this body on either 
side of the aisle who would subscribe to that argument anymore than the 
nine justices of the Supreme Court did. If I am wrong about that, then 
I would like to hear the Senator explain how it is mainstream to argue 
that granting our churches the latitude to choose their own ministers 
represents a ``substantial threat to the American rule of law.''
  These are the so-called ``mainstream views'' the President wants to 
install on a court that will hear challenges to his most important 
priorities. Is it any wonder that the President apparently has high 
confidence will Professor Pillard rubberstamp his agenda?
  Before I close, let me make one final point.
  Given the circumstances surrounding how these nominees were selected 
and nominated;
  Given all three were nominated simultaneously for the purpose of 
changing judicial outcomes and rubberstamping the President's agenda;
  Given they were nominated and rammed through the process, without 
regard to the fact that there is not even enough work for them to do;
  Given the President was originally denied consent under the Rules of 
the Senate;
  Given that the President and certain far-left liberal interest groups 
successfully persuaded the majority of the Senate to cast aside two 
centuries of Senate history and tradition in order to get them 
confirmed;
  And given the extremely liberal record I discussed;
  If you were a litigant challenging the President, or one of his 
administrative actions and you drew a panel comprised of Professor 
Pillard, Millett, and Judge Wilkins, can you honestly say that you 
would be confident you would get a fair shake?

  Of course not.
  And that, my colleagues, is a sad commentary on the damage the 
President and the Senate majority have inflicted not only on the Senate 
but also on our judiciary and fundamental notions of the rule of law.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pillard nomination.