[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1179-S1183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Andrew Puzder

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, on December 8, Donald Trump nominated 
Andrew Puzder to serve as Secretary of Labor. He was scheduled to come 
before the HELP Committee tomorrow for his confirmation hearing. There 
is some reporting suggesting that he is having some second thoughts, 
and I sincerely hope that is true. The reasons Mr. Puzder is a terrible 
choice for this job are literally too numerous to cover fully, but I 
will at least give it a start.
  If you work for a living, the Labor Secretary is very important to 
you. This person is responsible for protecting the interests of 150 
million American workers. He will be the person responsible for 
enforcing the law that ensures that employers actually pay workers for 
every hour they work and setting the standards to prevent workplace 
injuries and even deaths.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Puzder is not the kind of person the American 
people can trust to stand up for workers. Since 2000, Mr. Puzder has 
served as the CEO of the billion-dollar company CKE Restaurant 
Holdings. You may know it better as the parent company of Carl's Jr. 
and Hardee's. These two fast-food chains are known for paying very low 
wages to workers. Mr. Puzder has a long record of cheating workers out 
of overtime. He has paid out millions of dollars to settle claims when 
he was caught cheating. We are not talking about isolated incidents. 
They reflect the kind of business Mr. Puzder built. Mr. Puzder is a 
frequent political pundit and commentator who has vocally opposed 
higher minimum wages. He has also strongly opposed new overtime 
protections that would give 4 million workers an estimated $1.5 billion 
raise in a single year.
  Mr. Puzder also delights in expressing personal disdain for his 
workers. He bragged in his very first memo as CEO. He wrote that he 
wanted ``no more people behind the counter unless they have their 
teeth.'' Ha, ha. He said he would like to replace his workers with 
robots because ``they are always polite, they always upsell, they never 
take a vacation, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or 
discrimination case.''
  The Senate has an obligation to hear from those who are best 
qualified to

[[Page S1180]]

tell America about Mr. Puzder's suitability to be Labor Secretary and 
to stand up for American workers--his own workers. That is why many of 
us asked the chairman of the HELP Committee to include Mr. Puzder's 
workers in his confirmation hearing. When the chairman refused to do 
so, we just went ahead and convened our own forum to allow those 
workers a chance to speak.
  Seventeen Senators attended. Those 17 Senators heard from Laura 
McDonald, who worked as a general manager at Carl's Jr. in Tucson, AZ, 
for 20 years. For years, she was forced to work extra hours without 
pay. Employees like Laura are the subject of a major lawsuit against 
Mr. Puzder's company, CKE, regarding unpaid overtime.
  Those 17 Senators heard from Lupe Guzman, who is a single mother who 
has devoted the last 7 years of her life to Carl's Jr. in Las Vegas, 
NV. She has worked the graveyard shift for rock bottom wages. Seven 
years of loyalty, and Lupe is still paid so little that she is on food 
stamps to feed her kids. Lupe sat in front of the U.S. Senate and wept 
openly about her terrible treatment at the hands of Mr. Puzder's 
company.
  The Senators also heard from Roberto Ramirez, who has worked in the 
fast food industry for over 20 years, mostly at Carl's Jr. in Los 
Angeles, CA. He worked regularly off the clock at Carl's Jr., meaning 
they didn't pay him. Roberto even had a full paycheck stolen by his 
manager.
  For every Laura, Lupe, and Roberto, we found dozens of workers who 
were afraid to speak out about the terrible conditions at CKE. We 
compiled some stories from folks brave enough to speak up into a 20-
page report detailing firsthand accounts of the men and women who work 
for Mr. Puzder. Those stories are horrifying, and I will read some of 
them later today.
  Mr. Puzder's company has a truly atrocious record of treating his own 
workers terribly. Indeed, he has dripping disdain for people who work 
for a living. This alone disqualifies him to be Secretary of Labor.
  But there is more. In recent weeks, it has come out that Mr. Puzder 
employed an undocumented immigrant in his household for years, and he 
didn't pay taxes on that employee. Yep, you heard that correctly. The 
Trump administration, which bellows about building a wall and pounds 
its chest about ripping millions of families apart with a deportation 
force, threatens millions of DREAM Act kids with deportation, has no 
problem putting a guy in charge of the Labor Department who cheats on 
his taxes and employs undocumented workers. The hypocrisy of that is 
pretty stunning, even for the Trump administration.
  And then there is the controversy over alleged spousal abuse. Over 25 
years ago, Mr. Puzder's first wife appeared on an episode of Oprah 
Winfrey in a show about spousal abuse. I have watched the episode in 
which she appeared, as I believe every Senator should. I found it 
extraordinarily troubling.
  Alongside his company's poor record of treatment of female employees, 
his highly explicit and sexualized ads, and his snide comments about 
sex discrimination, there is ample evidence that Mr. Puzder is a 
terrible choice to head the agency charged with ensuring that women and 
men are treated fairly in the workplace.
  I understand that no matter who President Trump picks to run the 
Labor Department, I am probably going to have a lot of issues with that 
person, but this is different. Andrew Puzder should not be the Labor 
Secretary. And if you ask the Senators in this body--Republicans and 
Democrats--if you ask them behind closed doors with the cameras turned 
off, you will have a hard time finding people who think this divisive 
nomination is good for the country.
  It has been suggested that Mr. Puzder is ``tired of the abuse'' that 
he has received during this confirmation process. Well, I think the 
workers at his companies are pretty tired of the abuse they have 
received while being at the mercy of an employer who doesn't care about 
them at all and who goes out of his way to squeeze them out of every 
last dime. That is literally the opposite of what we need in a Labor 
Secretary.
  I was prepared to question him on these issues tomorrow, but I hope 
it is true that he will withdraw his nomination before then.
  Mr. President, I also rise today to express many concerns over the 
appointment of Congressman Mulvaney as Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget and to urge my colleagues to seriously consider 
these issues before voting to confirm him.
  One of the best ways to understand what a nation stands for is to 
look at its budget. It is all right there. The budget tells who counts, 
it tells who gets a chance, and it tells who gets cast aside.
  The OMB Director prepares the President's budget. He safeguards the 
President's promises by turning them into real commitments backed by 
your tax dollars.
  During the campaign, President Trump promised over and over again 
that he would protect Medicare and Medicaid. He didn't imply it; he 
didn't drop hints about it. No, he made the clearest, plainest possible 
promise. He said: ``I am not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.''
  But since the election, he has done a complete 180. He put up a 
transition team website that just dripped with code words for cuts, 
saying that he would modernize and maximize flexibility for these 
programs. Gone were the unambiguous promises to protect Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  Then he started nominating people who have made it their life's work 
to gut Medicare and Medicaid. His Secretary of Health and Human 
Services has proposed cutting more than $1 trillion from these 
programs, and now his nominee for OMB Director is someone who wants to 
cut Medicare and Medicaid to the bone.
  Congressman Mulvaney has voted to increase the retirement age for 
Medicare. Hey, you have paid into that program with decades of hard 
work? Too bad, just keep waiting.
  He also wants to privatize Medicare, and he wants to slash and burn 
his way through Medicaid--a program that is a lifeline for millions of 
people--for parents of people in nursing homes, for people with 
disabilities, for premature babies.
  In his confirmation hearing, Congressman Mulvaney was asked whether 
he would set aside his rightwing ideology to fulfill the President's 
campaign promises to protect Medicare and Medicaid. The Congressman 
could not have been clearer in his response: Forget all of that. Nope, 
not interested. Mulvaney is still a true believer in Medicare and 
Medicaid cuts, and whenever he has the President's ear, he will 
continue to advance his own radical ideas for burning down these 
indispensable programs.
  President Trump also promised that he would not cut Social Security. 
He guaranteed it. Here is his quote--many times: ``We're going to save 
your Social Security without making any cuts,'' he said.
  Here was his closer on that: ``Mark my words.''
  OK. Nice words. But he could have picked someone--anyone--to run his 
budget, and instead he picked Congressman Mulvaney--one of Congress's 
most partisan crusaders against the Social Security program. He wants 
to raise the retirement age to 70. Heck, this is a person who calls 
Social Security a Ponzi scheme, and, boy, he is not messing around, 
either.
  During his confirmation hearings, Congressman Mulvaney doubled down 
on his promise to rob American workers and retirees by gutting Social 
Security. When pressed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham about 
whether he would urge President Trump to reconsider his promise not to 
cut Social Security, hey, Mulvaney said that he absolutely would.
  Is this just a mistake? Did President Trump just pick Congressman 
Mulvaney by accident? The Congressman certainly doesn't seem to think 
so.
  At his hearing he said: ``I have to imagine that the President knew 
what he was getting when he asked me to fill that role.''
  Yes, Mulvaney himself believes he is being brought in to push for 
cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
  Trump reverses his promise, a second person determined to cut 
Medicare and Medicaid makes it into a key government role, and who will 
pay the price? America's seniors, that is who.
  Apparently, Congressman Mulvaney isn't satisfied with cutting 
benefits for

[[Page S1181]]

Americans who have worked and paid into the program for their entire 
lives. When it comes to abandoning American workers and families, for 
him, that is just the beginning.
  He has also called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ``a sick, 
sad joke.'' Maybe he should spend a little more time talking to his 
constituents and a little less time talking to bank lobbyists.
  The CFPB has helped thousands of people in every State--including 
dozens of people in Congressman Mulvaney's own district--recover 
unauthorized fees on their credit cards and checking accounts. It has 
helped them to correct errors on their credit reports. These are 
students, seniors, servicemembers, and veterans, who may have spent 
months haggling with their bank or student loan servicer over a wrong 
charge, only to get quick and complete relief after they went to the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  In total--the agency has only been up for about 5\1/2\ years now--it 
has forced the largest banks across this country, many of those who 
have been out there cheating consumers, to return nearly $12 billion 
directly to the people they cheated. That is $12 billion that was 
stolen by big banks, by payday lenders, by debt collectors, and is now 
back in the pockets of the people who rightfully earned it.
  The only sick, sad joke is that Congressman Mulvaney thinks we should 
turn the big banks loose to prey on American families once again.
  Under Congressman Mulvaney's budget, Americans who have been cheated 
and scammed by huge financial institutions will just be cast aside. 
Families who work hard for every dollar, only to have some ruthless 
corporation steal their savings right out from underneath them, will be 
cast aside. And the millions of Americans who have worked for decades 
planning to collect Social Security or Medicare when they retire will 
be told to just wait four more years. They will be thrown straight to 
the curb. None of that--none of that--is what America stands for.
  That is just the stuff that directly contradicts the President's 
campaign promises. The stuff that is totally in line with the 
President's campaign promises is genuinely scary too.
  On the campaign trail, Donald Trump stated that he ``may cut the 
Department of Education.'' Will Congressman Mulvaney stand up for 
students? Unlikely.

  Congressman Mulvaney's record shows that he is fine building a 
Federal budget that crushes students who are trying to get a college 
education. Students already pay too much for student loans, and 
Congressman Mulvaney's solution is to force students to pay more. He 
supports forcing more college students to borrow more money from 
private banks that charge sky-high interest rates without any of the 
basic protections Federal student loans have. He clearly wants to let 
private banks and Wall Street squeeze as much cash out of hard-working 
students as humanly possible to build their profits. In fact, 
Congressman Mulvaney wants to help these giant banks out even more by 
taking a sledgehammer to the Federal student loan program and making 
Federal loan terms lousy for students. That is why he repeatedly voted 
to eliminate subsidized student loans for low-income students and why 
he helped block legislation to allow borrowers to lower their monthly 
payments by refinancing their student loans to lower interest rates. 
Not only has he voted to increase the interest rates the government 
charges students, he has also voted to cut Pell grants to poor college 
students. If Congressman Mulvaney had his way, millions more hard-
working students would be shoved even deeper into debt at the start of 
their working lives just because they couldn't afford the high cost of 
college. Under his budget, students will just be cast aside.
  In his confirmation hearing, Congressman Mulvaney also said he is 
``in lockstep'' with Donald Trump's plans to grow military spending, 
but he said he would pay for that increase in funding with deep cuts to 
domestic programs that working men and women around the country depend 
on--programs that could easily include Head Start, which provides 
opportunities for low-income children; the disaster aid, which supports 
families in crisis after a hurricane or tornado; or resiliency programs 
to protect America as worldwide climate changes.
  Listen to that again. The children who attend Head Start can stay 
home so Donald Trump can divert more money to military spending. The 
people who get buried in a 100-year snowstorm can stay buried so Donald 
Trump can divert more money to military spending. The people who live 
near coasts and rivers and streams can be washed away by rising oceans 
and other waterways so Donald Trump can divert money to military 
spending--and this nominee, Congressman Mulvaney, is in lockstep to 
make it happen.
  Under President Trump's new one-in, two-out Executive order, it is 
Mr. Mulvaney who would have discretion to give each agency a regulatory 
budget and to approve any proposed regulations that increase that 
budget. The order is supposedly designed to make life easier and to 
make government work better, but Congressman Mulvaney isn't interested 
in making government work better, and he is certainly not interested in 
making life easier. In fact, he has spent his entire political career 
working to cripple the agencies that protect American families--
American workers, American consumers, and American small businesses. 
Nowhere is this clearer than in his attacks on the Federal agencies 
that protect consumers, that preserve our environment, and that help 
keep our country safe. He has worked to starve agencies of the 
resources they need to do their jobs, voting to cut funding to law 
enforcement, voting to gut the Social Security Program, and voting to 
completely defund the organization that provides critical legal 
services to low-income American children, families, seniors, and 
veterans.
  But it is not enough for him to starve agencies to the breaking 
point. He has also supported radical bills to stop agencies from 
issuing regulations that keep our air clean, our food safe, and our 
economy from suffering another devastating financial crisis. 
Congressman Mulvaney wants to require agencies to adopt a bill that 
imposes the least costs on big businesses, even when those costs are 
about making sure companies don't cut corners by cheating, poisoning, 
and killing people. Look, if it is cheaper for a corporation to kill 
you than it is for the corporation to redesign the product or clean up 
their mess, Congressman Mulvaney stands with the corporation. I am sure 
he would be willing to say something nice at your funeral about how 
your contribution helped give the corporation record profits.
  If all that wasn't bad enough, Congressman Mulvaney is ready to rock 
and roll on secret money in politics. Washington is already awash in 
dark money, but that is not enough for Congressman Mulvaney. He has 
worked to open the doors even wider to secret spending in politics. 
Over and over, he has voted to shield the identity of political donors, 
keep them secret. For example, he opposed a rule that required 
corporations applying for government contracts to disclose their 
political contributions. Again, just think about that one for a minute. 
He doesn't want corporations that bid for government contracts to be 
forced to tell when they give money to help targeted government 
officials. We already have a problem with money in politics. Mulvaney 
just wants to make it worse.
  Congressman Mulvaney's record shows one thing. He will make sure our 
Federal Government works well for giant corporations and billionaires 
who don't like to play by the rules, and he will cast aside the rest of 
the public to do that. That is definitely not what our Nation stands 
for.
  I understand Democrats and Republicans have different priorities when 
it comes to the Federal budget. I get that, but when one person wants 
to slash Social Security for American retirees, to cut Medicare for 
senior citizens, to gut health benefits for low-income families, to 
drive up the cost of paying for college, and to gut programs that help 
families in crisis and low-income children, all in the name of making 
life even easier for giant corporations and billionaires--well, I think 
it is clear that his priorities do not include the safety and security 
of millions of Americans. That is a priority that should be at the top 
of all of our

[[Page S1182]]

lists in the Senate, Republican and Democratic.
  I will stand with the Americans whom Congressman Mulvaney will cast 
aside as Budget Director, and I will vote no on his nomination.
  Mick Mulvaney wants to slash benefits under Medicare, Medicaid, 
Social Security, and countless other programs. These are just numbers 
to him, but behind those numbers are real people. Real lives are at 
risk with every decision he will make as the Budget Director. So what I 
want to do is take the time I have remaining and share the stories of 
just a few of the people who would be affected.
  Lea from Plymouth wrote to me, worried that Congressman Mulvaney 
would cut Social Security for her and for others in Massachusetts. Lea 
had an interesting suggestion. Here is what she wrote:

       I have just sent off an email message to Representative 
     Mulvaney regarding his spearheading of the cutting of Social 
     Security benefits.
       I challenged him and many of his colleagues to do this: 
     Live on an income like mine--of $1,219.80--for one month.
       Having received my first increase of $2.50 in several 
     years, it was offset by a Medicare cost increase of $11.50. 
     Do the math.
       I hope you and the other Democratic members of both houses 
     fight like hell to raise our benefits.
       We are definitely in for a bumpy ride for the next 4 years. 
     As the saying goes . . . ``it ain't going to be pretty!''
       Thank you for listening.

  Thank you, Lea. Thank you for writing.
  I also heard from Janneke from Williamstown, who is worried about 
several nominees working to cut Social Security. Here is what Janneke 
had to say:

       It is terrifying to consider either of these nominees, 
     Price or Mulvaney, being confirmed for the position to which 
     they have been nominated. They will work to undo, not to 
     strengthen, social security. This is a profoundly disturbing 
     possibility.
       I urge you to do everything you can to oppose their 
     confirmation!

  Thank you, Janneke. I will. I will keep fighting for your hard-earned 
benefits.
  Janet from Florence also reached out to me. She shared the inspiring 
stories of her and her husband, and then she told me how worried she is 
that cuts to Social Security and Medicare could be coming under 
Congressman Mulvaney's watch. Here is what she wrote:

       I am 60 years old and have always been employed--in higher 
     education jobs where I worked hard and long for modest wages, 
     frequently the case in women-dominated professions.
       My husband is a childcare worker who works with infants and 
     toddlers. The work we do is meaningful and makes a societal 
     contribution.
       At 60 and 64, we have always lived like graduate students. 
     We shop at the Goodwill, cook from scratch, bring our lunch, 
     and drive old cars--and bike and walk. We will each be 
     working until age 70, or longer, if our health permits. This 
     is fine. We are fortunate to live as we do. But with market-
     based retirement funds and with family members needing our 
     support, we need Social Security, which is NOT BROKEN, to 
     remain, and be strengthened. And we need access to health 
     care, for ourselves, children, and grandchildren.
       This is a plea from the fading middle class to oppose the 
     Price and Mulvaney nominations. We--and people far less 
     fortunate than we are--need your stout support.

  Thank you, Janet. Thank you and your husband for all you do for your 
community. I promise I will do my best to protect your benefits.
  I have received hundreds of these types of letters--letters from 
constituents who are scared that cuts to Medicaid and Medicare could 
endanger their basic ability to survive, letters from constituents who 
have seen how important these services are to thousands across the 
State and millions across the country, constituents who aren't sure 
where to turn and whom to blame. They just know they cannot afford to 
lose these benefits, like a woman from Somerville, who wrote to me 
about the work she does as an intensive care coordinator. Here is what 
she had to say:

       I am an Intensive Care Coordinator through Riverside 
     Community Care, a statewide human service agency that 
     delivers crucial mental health services to at-risk youth. In 
     my program, the Guidance Center Community Service Agency, we 
     specifically provide Child Behavioral Health Initiatives 
     (CBHI) services to youth in Cambridge, Somerville, Medford, 
     Malden, Waltham, Woburn, Wilmington, and other northern 
     towns.
       I am extremely nervous that the new presidential 
     administration will attack Medicaid and put our programs in 
     jeopardy.
       If you're not familiar with the CBHI wraparound model, I 
     can briefly explain why these services are so important. One: 
     we serve youth in poverty. Two: our services are community 
     based, so we go to the homes of the families we're serving, 
     so they don't need to rely on transportation. Three: we are a 
     form of outpatient care that prevents youth who are suicidal/
     homicidal from needing hospitalization. Or, if they are 
     hospitalized, helping the family develop a plan for when 
     they're discharged. Four: Although the child with mental 
     health diagnosis is our identified client, the services 
     benefit the whole family. We understand that taking care of 
     children with special needs is taxing, so we identify 
     resources and services for parents as well. Five: we work 
     with state departments like Department of Children and 
     Families, Department of Health, and Department of 
     Developmental Disabilities. Six: our model works. I myself 
     rarely close a case without having had at least one goal 
     (identified by the family) met and there are growing 
     statistics about the benefit of having us in place.
       I hope you can bring this argument where it needs to go to 
     ensure that we have a future here in Massachusetts.

  I want to say on this one: Thank you. Thank you for writing, and 
thank you for the work you do.
  I am doing my best to bring this story. This is a story everybody in 
the Senate should listen to. It is a story about how we reach out to 
those who most need us and provide the kind of care they need.
  Thank you. Thank you for your work, and thank you for writing.
  I also received a letter from an occupational therapist from 
Massachusetts. She told me all about the important work she has been 
doing and how Medicaid has been crucial to that work. Here is what she 
had to say:

       As a constituent and occupational therapy practitioner, I 
     am writing to you to express my concerns about a major 
     restructuring of the Medicaid program.
       Medicaid is an essential safety net program for the most 
     vulnerable in our society. In 2015, 39% of children received 
     health insurance either through the Childrens Health 
     Insurance Program or through Medicaid. More than 60 percent 
     of nursing home residents are supported primarily through 
     Medicaid. Additionally, Medicaid provides health care 
     services and long-term services and supports to more than 10 
     million people living with disabilities, and 1 in 5 Medicaid 
     recipients receive behavioral health services.
       Restructuring of the Medicaid program through per capita 
     caps or block granting and significant cuts to the Medicaid 
     program would jeopardize the long-term health and 
     independence of current Medicaid beneficiaries. Thus I urge 
     extreme care and caution when considering a major 
     restructuring of the program or other significant changes, 
     waiver of mandatory services, or dramatic cuts.

  Thank you for all the work you do, and thank you for writing and 
making this important point about who uses Medicaid and how critical it 
is to the basic support services that we provide.
  Another constituent wrote to me about the amazing work that she does 
in the Boston area for those with severe mental illness and how 
Medicaid and Medicare help these people. Here is what she had to say:

       I work with people with severe Mental Illness in the 
     greater Boston area. A majority of my patients receive their 
     therapy and medication through Medicaid and Medicare. Even 
     the thought of losing coverage heightens their anxiety. If 
     coverage is reduced or co-pays raised, they stand to lose not 
     only therapy and group interventions but also the medication 
     which is essential to avoiding higher levels of care. Given 
     the high rate of co-occurring physical and mental health 
     issues, the general health of my patients will be severely 
     compromised with any reduction in access to care.
       Nearly 1 out of 3 people covered by Medicaid expansion live 
     with a mental health or substance use condition and people 
     with marketplace insurance plans have fair and equal mental 
     health coverage. With this coverage, people have access to 
     mental health services that support recovery.
       As a constituent, I would like you to keep in mind that 
     Medicaid or insurance marketplace plans are helping all of 
     those who struggle with mental illness who, with accessible 
     supports, can lead healthier lives.

  Again, thank you for the work you do, and thank you for writing. It 
is a powerfully important point.
  Congressman Mulvaney wants to slash these programs. That is why I 
will be voting against his nomination.
  I also received more personal stories from people like Michael from 
Acton, who told me about his son. Here is what he wrote:

       My particular concern is the attack on the ACA and Medicaid 
     and Medicare.
       My biggest worry is my 27 year old son, Adam, who was born 
     with microcephaly. He

[[Page S1183]]

     is a very loving person with a great smile, but functions 
     roughly at the level of a 12 month old. He currently lives in 
     a group residence and goes to a day habilitation program 
     during the week. Both of these programs are funded in part by 
     Medicaid. If Medicaid funds are cut, I worry that the day-hab 
     program will not be able to continue or, at the least, will 
     operate at a much reduced level. This would seriously degrade 
     the quality of Adam's life. I worry what will happen at his 
     already understaffed residence.
       As it is, the staff at Adam's residence and day-
     habilitation programs are paid very little wages to do very 
     tough jobs. Because of this, there is already a constant 
     problem of finding enough people to staff these. . . . jobs 
     if they are paid less or have to do even more work because of 
     lower staffing levels[.]
       The prospect of what is coming scares me. What will my 
     son's life be like?

  Thank you for writing, Michael. I appreciate it. I will be out there 
fighting for Adam. I hope we can get a lot of people in the Senate to 
do that as well. Thank you.
  We also heard from Daniel Mumbauer, who is president of the High 
Point Treatment Center in Massachusetts. Daniel has experienced 
firsthand how Medicaid funds can change the lives of thousands of 
people in Massachusetts alone. This is what Daniel wrote:

       On behalf of High Point Treatment Center, I am writing to 
     urge and request your support in protecting the Affordable 
     Care Act and preserving Medicaid expansion in the 115th 
     Congress.
       High Point served over 30,000 individuals last year. We 
     provide substance use disorder and mental health services to 
     adolescents and adults.
       Recent health insurance data show that Americans with 
     mental health and substance use disorders are the single 
     largest beneficiaries of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid 
     expansion. Nearly one in three who receives health insurance 
     coverage through Medicaid expansion either has a mental 
     illness, a substance abuse disorder, or both. By repealing 
     the Medicaid expansion, this population of vulnerable 
     Americans would be left without access to lifesaving 
     treatment, driving up costs in emergency department visits 
     and hospital stays.
       I am also writing to urge your support for the protection 
     of the Medicaid program from proposals to restructure 
     Medicaid as a block grant or capped program. These proposals 
     would reduce federal investment in Medicaid and leave 
     millions of Americans without access to needed mental health 
     and addictions treatment in our communities. Please work with 
     your colleagues to protect our nation's most vulnerable 
     patient population and preserve their access to treatment.

  Thank you, Daniel. Thank you very much for writing, and thank you for 
the work you do.
  Congressman Mulvaney wants to eviscerate health programs that would 
help Michael's son and the thousands who are treated at the High Point 
Treatment Center. That is exactly the opposite of what we should be 
doing.
  I have also heard from many constituents worried about losing their 
Social Security benefits under the new administration, like Kensington 
from Hatfield, who is terrified that his mother, who depends on Social 
Security, will lose her benefits. Here is what he wrote:

       Last night scared me for the first time. My mother is 69 
     and depends on Social Security for her income and has severe 
     COPD and relies on medicare and medicaid for prescriptions 
     and medical supplies to help her breath[e]. She was crying 
     and is afraid of losing everything and that she will die. I 
     know it's extreme thinking, but without her medicine and 
     income it is unfortunately the truth. I didn't know what to 
     say to comfort her and that scared me! What can I say to ease 
     her mind and let her know that she will be OK. Will she be 
     OK?

  Thank you, Kensington, for your note. Your mother is right to be 
worried, and that is why I am fighting this nomination.
  I have so many more stories--many, many stories--that I could read, 
but I am running out of time here.
  I want to say that Mick Mulvaney is dangerous to the American people, 
and he is dangerous to the Federal Government. He will slash programs 
right and left without worrying about the living, breathing people whom 
he is hurting in the process. That is why I will be voting against his 
nomination as Director of the Office of Management and Budget and why I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Let's make sure that Mick Mulvaney never ends up as the head of the 
Office of Management and Budget, never is in a position to put together 
a budget to cut Medicare and cut Medicaid. Let's make sure that we keep 
our government, our Medicare, our Medicaid, and our Affordable Care Act 
working for the American people. That is what I will keep fighting for.
  Mr. President, I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, every day we continue to set new records 
for how long it takes for the new President to get his Cabinet in 
power--in office--and the responsibility to carry out the things that 
the President said that he wanted to do when he was elected.
  In the great history of confirming people, from the Garfield 
administration in the 1880s until Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, the 
entire Cabinet in that whole period of time was confirmed on the first 
day. Now we are in the longest period in the history of the country 
since George Washington was President to try to get a Cabinet in place, 
not to mention all of the other jobs that go along with confirming the 
Cabinet. It is a good thing and no wonder that a few years ago the 
Senate looked at the numbers of people we had taken responsibility to 
confirm and said: Now, which of those do we really have to confirm and 
which of those would we only confirm if someone in the Senate believes 
we have to have a hearing on that level of person and that agency at 
that time?
  We tried to streamline a process that we all know needs to be 
streamlined, but with only a couple of exceptions, every nominee so far 
has been the most dangerous nominee of all time for whatever job it 
is. There must be fill-in-the-blank speeches back there somewhere that 
go from one to the next: This would be the worst person who could ever 
possibly hold this job.

  In the case of Congressman Mulvaney, it appears to be because he 
wants to try to do things that allow our entitlement programs to 
survive; he wants to do things that allow the deficit at some point to 
be eliminated. And no matter what point that is, that point would be 
too early for some of our friends on the other side.
  Interestingly, as we talk about the Affordable Care Act, which has 
turned out to be very unaffordable for almost any family on the 
individual market and many families who had insurance that worked for 
them before--the Affordable Care Act cut Medicare in the plan by $500 
billion over 10 years. We hear speaker after speaker on the other side 
say: We would never do anything to cut Medicare. I argued vigorously 
against those cuts when they occurred.
  As we move forward, I think we ought to be very thoughtful that we 
restore the cuts in areas where clearly it is not working the way 
people thought the Affordable Care Act would work. The person in charge 
of the numbers, the person in charge of the balance sheet, the person 
who calculates the costs should be someone with the capacity to do 
that. The President has decided, and the Senate, when finally allowed 
to vote, will determine that person is Mr. Mulvaney.