[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.