[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 14, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1137-S1138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic whip for his 
remarks, and I will have much more to say on the circumstances 
surrounding General Flynn's resignation as National Security Advisor 
later today.
  This morning, I rise to speak about the nominee on the floor, 
Representative Mulvaney, to be the Director of OMB.
  Each nominee who comes before this body seems to be another 
indication of a Cabinet whose ideology is so far removed from the 
American mainstream and whose ethical conduct is more questionable than 
any other in our Nation's history. Representative Mulvaney is a walking 
demonstration of both shortcomings in this Cabinet.
  First, on his views, which are way out of touch with most Americans, 
with average Americans. Representative Mulvaney has been a consistent 
ideological warrior against crucial safety net programs like Social 
Security and Medicare. He said it plain as day: ``We have to end 
Medicare as we know it. . . . Medicare as it exists today is 
finished.''
  That is from his mouth, and President Trump appoints this man head of 
OMB, one of the most powerful agencies in the government. Not only has 
Mr. Mulvaney advocated for cutting benefits, he wants to jack up the 
retirement age for Medicare to 67, and for Social Security he wants to 
raise it to 70.
  After the confirmation of Representative Price to lead HHS last week, 
the confirmation of Representative Mulvaney will be the launch of week 
2 of the Republican war on seniors.
  Let's be clear. These are fringe positions, way out of touch with how 
most Americans feel about these programs, and it just proves that when 
our Republican colleagues go back home to campaign, not one of them 
says: Raise the age to 70. I don't see Republican ads saying that. They 
say they are going to protect Medicare. Well, where are they now? You 
can't go home and campaign one way and then vote for Mulvaney, who 
wants to do the opposite and hurt our seniors--a war on seniors.
  Literally, tens of millions of Americans rely on these programs and 
don't want to see their benefits cut. Millions more are on the cusp of 
retirement and know it is deeply unfair to move the goalpost on 
qualifying for these programs--changing the rules in the middle of the 
game--to hurt those who have spent their whole lives working and are 
now looking forward to receiving Social Security and Medicare. That is 
not what most Americans voted for, whether they pulled the lever for 
Secretary Clinton or Mr. Trump.
  Candidate Trump promised that he was ``not going to cut Social 
Security like every other Republican and I'm not going to cut Medicare 
or Medicaid,'' but then he turns around and nominates a man to OMB who 
has relentlessly argued the opposite. He nominates a Secretary of 
Health and Human Services who has also argued that, with all of our 
Republican colleagues voting for him--none of us. So if people think 
Donald Trump is going to be a defender--I saw the AARP ads--I would 
like those ads to mention the nominations of Mulvaney and Price. If 
people think Donald Trump is going to be a defender of Social Security 
and Medicare, these nominees seem to indicate a far different approach.
  Candidate Trump didn't run as a far-right conservative. He ran as a 
populist against both establishments, but both Representative Mulvaney 
and Representative Price were plucked out of the very conservative wing 
of a very conservative House caucus and will be placed in charge of the 
budget and every American's healthcare--where they can effectively wage 
the war on seniors they have been plotting throughout their careers.
  Unfortunately, both the OMB Director and the Secretary of HHS have 
hundreds of ways that don't go through the Congress of undercutting 
Medicare and Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in particular. They 
can undercut them in a whole variety of different ways. Given their 
ideology and given their careers, that is just what they will do.
  So the nominations of these two men are exhibits A and B that 
President Trump plans to run his administration from the hard right, 
rather than follow through on his populist rhetoric that defined his 
campaign, and frankly is what elected him. If he had run on the 
campaign views of these two nominees, he might have gotten 100 
electoral votes. He might have gotten 100 electoral votes.

[[Page S1138]]

  Second, on ethics. Again, this Cabinet is not only challenged on 
their views so far away from what the average American believes, but it 
is the most unethical Cabinet I have ever seen nominated, at least in 
my lifetime.
  Representative Mulvaney is unfortunately an example of a Cabinet 
member that is too far compromised by potential conflicts of interest 
and other ethics challenges. It has been disclosed that Representative 
Mulvaney neglected to pay $15,000 in taxes on a household employee. A 
similar revelation sunk the nomination of a former Member and leader of 
this body, Senator Tom Daschle. Senator Daschle was relentlessly 
attacked by the Republican side on this issue. He withdrew his 
nomination. Representative Mulvaney hasn't withdrawn his nomination, 
and we haven't heard a peep out of the Republican side on the same--
very similar--transgression that was disqualifying, at least to our 
Republicans, for Senator Daschle, nor has the nominee for Secretary of 
Labor withdrawn his nomination. He has a similar situation.
  The fact that the Republican majority is proceeding on both of their 
nominations is a dangerous abandonment of public ethics.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________