Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 27 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1175-S1179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Trade

Mr. President, I want to weigh in briefly on the issue of trade.
During the Presidential campaign and since then, there has been a lot
of talk about international trade. It has led to a healthy debate about
lopsided trade deals--whether bilateral trade deals or multinational
trade deals actually are better--and how best to leverage trade to help
American workers and consumers.
In my State of Texas, there is no question trade delivers in two
ways. One, it helps Texas families stretch their paychecks by providing
greater access to more affordable goods. That is a good thing. And two,
it helps our farmers, our ranchers, our small businesses, and other
manufacturers access more customers around the world.
Texas continues to lead the Nation as the top exporting State, and it
has done so for about a decade now. It is one reason our economy has
done better than the national economy in recent years. And it is
estimated that Texas trade supports more than 1 million jobs currently.
But it is important to understand that our economic partnership with
Mexico has been a key part of that success, and that is thanks, in
part, to the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, the trade
deal between the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
Our southern neighbor is our largest export market, with more than
one-third of all Texas goods--including ag products and manufactured
goods, to the tune of close to $92 billion a year--heading south of our
border because of NAFTA and trade. Well, this may not be universally
true around the country, but suffice it to say that in Texas, NAFTA has
been a big success for our economy. And because Texas has been leading
the Nation in terms of economic growth and job creation, I think it is
fair to say that it has helped the Nation as a whole not recede into a
recession with the anemic growth rates that we have seen since 2008.
It is not just that my State benefits from the deal. The agriculture
industry across the country benefits greatly. Mexico is one of the
biggest buyers of crops grown in the United States, like corn. In fact,
Mexico is the third biggest export market for American agriculture.
NAFTA is not just critical to my State, but for those far away from
the southern border, as well, like Ohio and Michigan, which export a
majority of their goods to NAFTA partners. I think it is important to
acknowledge the fact that roughly 6 million jobs in the United States
depend on bilateral trade with Mexico.
But here is the truth: The world looks a lot different today than it
did 20 years ago when NAFTA was negotiated, and there is ample
opportunity to work with our partners to craft a better deal for the
United States. We can update it to be even more constructive and an
even bigger driver of the U.S. economy.
Trade is essential to our economy, and I believe the administration
agrees with me on that. In my conversations with Mr. Ross, who will
head up the Department of Commerce, and others--the trade negotiator
and the like--they all tell me that this administration is pro-trade,
although they are skeptical of large multinational trade deals like the
Trans-Pacific Partnership.
We have also recently heard the President himself talk about the
importance of our relationships with countries like Canada and Japan.
During the visits of the Prime Ministers of

[[Page S1176]]

each of those countries in the last week, with both heads of State, the
administration continues to stress the importance of robust trading
partnerships. And the President has made it clear that he supports
those.
I believe that good trade deals help everyone, so I want to be clear
that the United States is not retreating from the global economy, as if
we even could. With more than 95 percent of the world's consumers
outside of our borders, our citizens rely too much on free trade and
fair trade to turn inward and retreat.
Texas certainly proves that trade deals can help everyone from
manufacturers to farmers, to small businesses, all of whom find more
markets for the goods they make or grow. That, in turn, creates more
jobs and provides greater access to more goods for consumers. And it is
a good example for the broader U.S. economy as well.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
nomination of Congressman Mick Mulvaney to be the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget. Based on his appearance before the
Senate Budget and Homeland Security Governmental Affairs Committees, he
appears to be a smart and articulate individual, but after examining
his record and his testimony, I believe he lacks the fundamental
judgment to serve in this important role.
Mr. Mulvaney's tenure as a Member of Congress has been marked by
symbolic stands and stunts that have been most successful in generating
bipartisan opposition rather than support. Until now, it has mattered
little whether his proposals have been motivated by firmly held
principles or other motives. We have just been fortunate that few of
Mr. Mulvaney's ideas have been made into law. However, with an
appointment to a position of real authority at OMB, Mr. Mulvaney will
have great power to put his ideas into practice. For that reason, it is
worth reflecting on the positions he has taken.
At times of national fiscal and economic turmoil, Congressman
Mulvaney could consistently be found among those stoking the flames of
pandemonium in order to advance a partisan or ideological point.
Indeed, he was among those Republican Members of Congress who cheered
efforts to force the country to default on our financial obligations in
2011, dismissing the domestic and global alarm over Republican
brinkmanship as ``fear mongering'' and as promoting a ``fabricated
crisis.''
In 2013, he voted to support the Republican shutdown of the Federal
Government, which ultimately cost American taxpayers $2 billion in back
wages for Federal workers who were locked out of their jobs. In
addition to this and other fiscal waste, the 16-day shutdown hurt the
economy. Moody's estimated that it ``cut real GDP by $20 billion,
shaving half a percentage point off growth in the fourth quarter [of
2013].''
In 2015, Mr. Mulvaney was part of another Republican shutdown effort.
This time it was to shutter the Department of Homeland Security to
protest President Obama's immigration policy. Thankfully, House
Republicans relented before the shutdown took effect. Otherwise, the
closure would have caused about 30,000 furloughs and about 200,000
other people, including Coast Guard personnel, TSA, ICE, Border Patrol
and Customs officers, to report to work, most of them without the
promise of a paycheck.
When Americans have suffered natural disasters, Mr. Mulvaney has
shown himself among those who are the least sympathetic about providing
Federal assistance, insisting, for example, that emergency aid for the
victims of Hurricane Sandy should be offset. He has at least been
consistent in this regard, since he voted against similar aid to his
home State of South Carolina. Of course, his opposition in that
instance was mainly symbolic because it was a foregone conclusion that
the bill would pass. But this should give every American pause. Mr.
Mulvaney's record of supporting brinkmanship and his responses to
written questions show that his first instinct will be to use any one-
time emergency as an opportunity to force lasting budgetary cuts.
I am also concerned about Mr. Mulvaney's intentions with regard to
the elimination of the sequester-level budget caps. In 2013, with
sequester cuts on the horizon, Mr. Mulvaney ruled out revenue increases
or scaling back the sequester. He said: ``We want to keep the sequester
in place and take the cuts we can get.''
As the nominee to OMB director, Mr. Mulvaney now believes, like
President Trump, that the sequester caps should be lifted for defense,
but he has made no allowance for nondefense discretionary programs and
agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Mulvaney has thus far failed to grasp that there is simply no way
to secure support for sequester relief without addressing both the
defense and nondefense sides of the ledger. Moreover, he has not
recognized that it is repugnant to many to suggest that one side of the
budget can be cannibalized to fund the other side. The best way to fund
sequester relief is through the proven combination of additional
revenue and reasonable cuts. It has worked before, and we should look
to that solution again.
We should also reject efforts to use Overseas Contingency Operations
accounts, or OCO funding, to fill the gap when it comes to defense
spending. It is not a legitimate tool to fix the sequester. Despite my
many disagreements with Mr. Mulvaney, this is one point where we do
appear to see roughly eye to eye in terms of using the OCO for those
overseas contingencies they were designed to fund.
Where we disagree most vehemently is on the matter of core programs
that help Americans lift themselves up so they can participate fully in
our economy and society. Although he has recently changed his position,
Mr. Mulvaney, as a State legislator, voted for legislation that
questioned the constitutionality of Medicaid and Social Security, and
today he still questions the constitutionality of Federal involvement
in education. This is more than a philosophical stand. His position
will color how the administration invests in schools and students over
the next 4 years. I am especially disturbed that Mr. Mulvaney is not
even willing to commit to protecting funding for the Pell Grant Program
and to reducing college debt, a burden faced by students and their
families all across this country.

I have also been disturbed by Mr. Mulvaney's cavalier position about
benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare, by such measures as
increasing the retirement age. Let's be clear. When you force a person
to wait 2 or 3 more years to begin collecting the full benefits they
have earned, it is a cut. If poor health or lack of job prospects
forces a person to begin collecting benefits before reaching the normal
retirement age, he or she will see a significant reduction in monthly
benefits.
These cuts fall heaviest on the most vulnerable--low-income workers
and workers in the most physically demanding jobs, those who simply
cannot continue to work for another few years. We can make changes to
sustain these programs without the deep cuts to benefits that Mr.
Mulvaney would promote.
In this one area, I would hope the President could prevail over his
staff. Many times during the campaign, President Trump promised to
protect Social Security and Medicare. In fact, last March he said:
``It's my absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is.
Not increase the age and to leave it as it is.''
It remains to be seen how sincere the President is on this issue.
Last month, he was effectively rebuffed by 49 Republicans who voted
successfully to kill Senator Sanders' amendment to create a point of
order that would prevent the Senate from breaking President Trump's
promise that ``there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid.''
Unfortunately, the President said nothing about this vote, which
should lead all Americans to ask how committed he is to his promise.
His choice of Mr. Mulvaney also leaves me concerned that he is not
sincere about this

[[Page S1177]]

promise, since Mr. Mulvaney seems clearly intent on making cuts to
these vital programs.
Mr. Mulvaney has also proven himself unsympathetic to the challenges
facing working men and women in this country. He has sponsored
legislation to bar the Federal Government from requiring project labor
agreements. He has voted to repeal Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements, and he has cosponsored legislation to undermine the
ability of workers to collectively bargain.
Moreover, Mr. Mulvaney failed to pay more than $15,000 in
unemployment and FICA taxes for a household employee between 2000 and
2004, only making good on that obligation during his nomination
process. Even if this could be characterized as an oversight, it is
worth noting that Mr. Mulvaney has previously proposed legislation to
bar tax delinquents from serving in elected office in South Carolina
and to authorize supervisors of Federal employees to take punitive
action against workers who have failed to pay taxes.
One wonders how Mr. Mulvaney would feel about the fitness of a
Democratic nominee with a similar challenge.
Finally, let me say a few words about Mr. Mulvaney's laissez-faire
approach to regulation, particular the oversight of Wall Street. I
believe strongly that the lack of effective regulation, the lack of
oversight, and the lack of appropriations for the financial regulatory
agencies contributed heavily to the great recession, which is why I
worked so hard to support the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, including the creation of the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Mr. Mulvaney, not surprisingly, takes a different view. As a member
of the Financial Services Committee in the House, he said: ``I don't
like that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exists.'' The CFPB
is a consumer-focused agency that has brought nearly $12 billion in
refunds and restitution to consumers for Wall Street's abuses. This
includes more than $120 million that have been returned to our military
families through the efforts of the Bureau's Office of Servicemember
Affairs, which I worked with Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts to
establish.
Because of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, working Americans have an advocate in the consumer finance
marketplace that is laser-focused on protecting them. Mr. Mulvaney
would prefer to transform this agency into a paper tiger that is
subject to partisan political pressure and influence from the various
industries it is attempting to police. We should not allow him the
chance to do that from a perch at OMB.
The country has been fortunate that House Republican leadership, with
good reason, in my view, did not reward Mr. Mulvaney with a position of
authority from which he could exercise real control. Unfortunately, the
promotion that President Trump has offered would give him great power--
power that will ultimately, I believe, be destructive in his hands. As
a result, I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am honored to follow my
distinguished colleague from Rhode Island who has been such a champion
for working people and economic progress in manufacturing and economic
fairness so that our country as a whole can advance together.
I am proud to be a Senator who fights to preserve, protect, and
strengthen the safety net for all Americans, as my colleague from Rhode
Island does, and many of us here do. So I come to the floor to speak on
Congressman Mick Mulvaney, with reluctance and sadness, because he is
out of the mainstream and, really, an adversary of programs that assure
that safety net and basic fairness that is at the core of our great
democracy and our economic system.
I oppose his nomination to serve as Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, hardly the best known of agencies and not
necessarily the most glamorous or glitzy but among the most important.
His position is among the most consequential because he serves as an
economic adviser, as well as an allocator of funding throughout the
Federal Government and a leader on important social programs.
He has proved strongly antithetical to those programs that have made
America great: Medicare, Social Security, and other efforts, including
the Affordable Care Act, which are essential to our future.
He has broad responsibilities for our Nation's budget. He also has
important oversight responsibilities about Federal rulemaking--those
unglamorous, sometimes invisible regulations and rules that affect real
lives and livelihoods throughout this country. They establish rules of
the road in industry. They establish access for people to Federal
programs. They provide an essential means of achieving fairness in our
democracy--that important process that agencies use to enact
safeguards, for example, that keep our air and water clean and our
workplaces safe.
Congressman Mulvaney's positions on these vital issues are out of
step with American values, out of the mainstream of American popular
opinion, and out of the area of acceptability in terms of basic public
interest.
Our economic reality is characterized by one simple stark economic
fact: Burdens are falling hardest on the people who can least afford
them. I am not talking about people at the lowest rungs of income or
wealth but middle-class Americans who work hard and who have seen their
incomes stagnant over 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. Stagnating incomes
and stagnating futures destroy the American dream.
So the Federal Reserve, for example, has reported in 2014 that
average incomes have remained flat or fallen for all but the most
affluent 10 percent of American families. That is a staggering fact
about our economic system and its ability to deliver for Americans
generally. That is the context for this nomination. I consistently hear
from my constituents in Connecticut that income has failed to keep pace
with overall economic recovery. Even as Wall Street has risen,
Americans see nothing but stagnant income, sometimes falling economic
prospects. Things have gotten better, but good jobs are still out of
reach for far too many.
Retirement for increasing numbers of baby boomers makes it all the
more vital that we protect and strengthen our safety net. The safety
net is not the sole answer to larger challenges that must be solved by
robust economic growth. That has to be our priority--economic growth in
Connecticut and around the country. But increased opportunity depends
on growth for ourselves and for our children--my wife and my four
children and our way of life.
In fact, President Trump himself seemed to recognize this economic
fact, one of the few areas where we agree, because he pledged during
the campaign to keep our Nation's safety net firmly, irrevocably
intact--not to make any cuts to Social Security or Medicare. He pledged
and promised.
Now, who is his nominee to be head of the OMB, that crucial agency
with responsibility for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Mick
Mulvaney has an affinity for draconian budget cuts and far-right
positions that are completely out of step with this promise and pledge.
The President must have reversed himself or revoked his promise,
because Congressman Mulvaney has spent his entire political career
crusading against exactly these programs that keep millions of
Americans out of poverty. Social Security is one of the great
achievements of our American democracy. In fact, it is one of the
greatest achievements the world has known because it has allowed this
Nation to promise its people that they can avoid crushing poverty if
they simply work hard and if they contribute to this program that is a
form of insurance.
It is not a gift. It is not really an entitlement. It is an insurance
program. It makes us a humane and decent nation. We care for people who
have worked hard all of their lives and need to be protected so they
need not depend on their children or their grandchildren.
Congressman Mulvaney has called Social Security a ``Ponzi scheme.''
Tell that to the Social Security recipients

[[Page S1178]]

in Connecticut. Tell that to the working people of Connecticut. He is
out of step with working people and middle-class people who know that
Social Security does not contribute to the Federal budget deficit, and
it is not the Ponzi scheme that Congressman Mulvaney mischaracterizes
it as being.
It is fashionable on the far right to use that characterization,
suggesting it will run out of money unless severe restrictions are put
in place. He has championed those kinds of restrictions--means testing,
for example, and raising the retirement age. Those proposals are a
disservice to hard-working Americans who reach that retirement age
having been promised that they would receive Social Security when they
did or work hard to make Social Security work for them, without a means
test, without anybody asking them to fill out forms or disclose their
incomes and establish standards or tests that make them ineligible.
It is true that there are changes to these programs that may be
necessary. In fact, I proposed a plan for enhancing Social Security,
making it a stronger insurance program by raising the cap on the
payment of taxes that are due and other kinds of reforms that will more
properly allocate the burdens but not means-testing, not raising the
retirement age, which are radical and draconian favorites of the far
right. Lifting the payroll tax cap so the wealthiest Americans
contribute their fair share, as I have proposed, will keep this program
solvent for decades into the future.
The only reason to reject the commonsense changes I have proposed is
a political aversion to raising taxes on anyone at any time, even the
wealthiest individuals or the most powerful and profitable companies,
which is the mantra of people who have climbed the ladder and want to
raise it so that no one else has access to those top rungs. It makes no
sense to me that we would ask great sacrifices of our senior citizens
but do nothing about eliminating the loopholes that privilege some of
the most affluent people and the largest and most profitable companies
in the world.
We should not and must not use the Social Security trust fund as a
means to pay down the debt or reduce the deficit or gamble with the
hard-earned benefits 61 million Americans rely on during their
retirement. Those 61 million Americans, who come from all of the States
and all over the Nation, are represented in this Chamber, and they
deserve better than Mick Mulvaney's far-right radical ideas that would
restrict their Social Security. He fails to recognize this reality and
would prevent Social Security from continuing to flourish and provide
the stability so essential to this great Nation--already the greatest
Nation in the history of the world because of programs like Social
Security and Medicare.
Speaking of Medicare, Congressman Mulvaney's proposal for Medicare
also betrays the President's promise to leave Medicare intact. He has
been vocal, absolutely frank about his support for tearing down
Medicare, going as far as to say: ``We have to end Medicare as we know
it.'' Do we really have to end Medicare as we know it, tear it down,
destroy it? That is what Mick Mulvaney says. That betrays President
Trump's promise to keep Medicare intact.
Mick Mulvaney has also supported proposals to privatize this
lifesaving healthcare program by turning it into a voucher system,
which would effectively gut its promise of guaranteed health benefits.
A ``voucherized'' Medicare would be devastating for our Nation's
seniors. Many of them are already on fixed incomes. This plan would
allot them a fixed amount of funds--fixed funds to purchase all of
their health insurance, which would result in higher premiums and
increased out-of-pocket costs. Connecticut seniors deserve better than
Mick Mulvaney's efforts to restrict Medicare in such a disruptive and
destructive way.
Congressman Mulvaney's actions and statements on Medicare point to a
future budget director who has no intention of keeping the President's
promise to protect this crucial health program. This country counts on
its next budget director to prioritize facts and responsibilities and
the public interest above political games; to rely on real facts, not
alternate facts.
Our budget, our deficit, our national debt are, in fact, fact-bound
and fact-based. The world relies on real facts when it looks at the
American economy, and the people who work in that economy, whether they
are young or old, veterans or civilians, depend on real economic
growth. Yet Congressman Mulvaney's reckless approach to fiscal issues
has jeopardized this country's stability, causing real danger for the
sake of ideology. That approach in the Congress has led to uncertainty
and unpredictability, which are the bane of small- and medium-size
businesses, which are, in turn, the major job creators in our society
and economy.
Congressman Mulvaney's extreme views already have negatively impacted
the American economy. While in the House of Representatives, he led
efforts to leverage the threat of a government shutdown as a tactic to
push for specific demands, which included radical anti-choice policies,
measures antithetical to women's healthcare and the right of privacy,
including defunding Planned Parenthood.
As one of the most senior economic advisers to the President and the
head of OMB, he would have immense responsibility to influence this
administration and the President. His outright disregard for the harm
caused by a government shutdown--a tactic that jolts and jeopardizes
our economy and disrupts the lives of millions of Americans--should
itself alone disqualify him from this critical role within the Federal
Government.
He also sought government shutdowns as well to block the
implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which has helped so many
people in Connecticut receive the coverage and care they need. I could
spend a lot of time talking about the benefits people in Connecticut
have received from the Affordable Care Act. Its future is key to the
financial future of this country, but Mick Mulvaney has consistently
advanced misconceptions and mistruths about the nature and functioning
of this law.
Again, we can agree to disagree on policy, but misrepresenting the
truth and relying on alternate facts is exactly what the budget
director should not be doing. He is the one whom we rely on for real
facts about our economy and our budget.
Even more worrying was Congressman Mulvaney's archaic approach to
addressing the debt ceiling. In the face of all evidence, he flatly
stated that he did not believe this country would default on its debt
as a result of the failure to raise the debt ceiling. Economics 101:
The debt ceiling, if it is not extended--that means a default.
Experts across the political spectrum agree that a breach of the debt
ceiling, and consequently our Nation's full faith and credit, would be
catastrophic. I am absolutely unable to vote for someone who fails to
recognize that basic economic truth and takes this threat so lightly.
Finally, Congressman Mulvaney has demonstrated a near reflexive
hostility to Federal agencies and the important work they do. As with
so many of the President's nominees, unfortunately, he seems to be
hostile to the very mission and purpose of the agency he is going to
lead--whether it is the EPA or the Department of Labor or other
agencies where nominees have taken stands that, in effect, say: Let's
dismantle and destroy this agency. Yet they are the ones who are
supposed to be leading and inspiring its efforts.
I believe that government could be more efficient and responsive.
Waste ought to be eliminated. Fraud ought to be prosecuted. I am eager
to work with my colleagues on good-faith proposals to achieve these
goals.
Federal agencies remain vital to important public purposes that
people cannot achieve on their own. They cannot clean our air and water
on their own. They cannot ensure public safety through policing on
their own. They cannot make sure our national defense is strong on
their own. A whole myriad of functions depend on a functional Federal
Government. Commonsense rules that prohibit excessive pollution or
unsafe working conditions protect all of us.
As the head of OMB, which includes offices that oversee Federal
funding, he has a responsibility to make sure that rules are enforced
and that people are protected. Yet he has opposed the existence of the
Export-Import Bank, an

[[Page S1179]]

institution that is critically important to so many of our job
creators, big and small businesses in Connecticut and around the
country.
He opposed emergency funding for the victims of Hurricane Sandy,
despite the devastation caused by this terrible storm, which was
unleashed in Connecticut and nearby States.
He has questioned the need for government-funded research, despite
the myriad advances in science and medicine that have come from
government laboratories and research institutions.
His record shows that he would be the wrong person for this job,
harming our safety net and our fiscal stability. I oppose his
nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to Senator
Schumer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I yield my postcloture debate time to
Senator Schumer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. COONS. With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.