[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1202-S1203]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks 
on Thursday, February 16, there be 10 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, prior to the confirmation vote on Executive Calendar No. 16, 
Mick Mulvaney to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 
followed by up to 10 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the 
cloture vote on Executive Calendar No. 15, the nomination of Scott 
Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and 
if cloture is invoked, time be counted as if invoked at 7 a.m. that 
day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So for the information of all Senators, under the 
regular order, the Senate is scheduled to vote on the Pruitt nomination 
on Friday afternoon. All Members should plan to stay here Friday to 
complete consideration of the Pruitt nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of 
Representative Mulvaney to be the Director of the Office of Management 
and Budget because I have deep concerns about his record.
  I believe his far-right views are out of the mainstream and wrong for 
our Nation and wrong for the people of Michigan.
  In part, my vote against his nomination is due to his long-held 
public belief that we should balance the Federal budget on the backs of 
seniors and retirees who have worked their entire lives. Representative 
Mulvaney's policies would mean raising the retirement age, making deep 
cuts in Medicare, and driving up costs for seniors who already struggle 
to afford the care they need. These are policy proposals that Mr. 
Mulvaney would bring to the highest levels of government, if confirmed, 
and I fundamentally disagree with his approach to budget policy.
  While I disagreed with a number of Representative Mulvaney's 
positions when we served together in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
I entered his confirmation hearing with an open mind. I thought that in 
preparing for a role with broad jurisdiction over the Federal 
Government, he might have developed more nuanced views on some of these 
difficult issues. However, after speaking with Representative Mulvaney 
during our recent hearing and reviewing his responses to my colleagues, 
it is clear he will bring the same extreme views to the administration 
that he brought to the Congress.
  On Social Security, which is absolutely critical to seniors and 
families across the State of Michigan, Representative Mulvaney has 
repeatedly called for congressional action to raise the retirement age 
and reduce benefits. He has publicly called Social Security

[[Page S1203]]

a ``Ponzi scheme.'' When I asked Representative Mulvaney about his 
views during this hearing, he confirmed to me that raising the 
retirement age is a central piece of what he calls Social Security 
reform.
  I could not disagree more. Michigan workers have worked their entire 
lives and have contributed out of their paycheck to the Social Security 
trust fund. I simply cannot vote for someone who takes pride in telling 
these Michiganders--construction workers, nurses, autoworkers--that 
they need to spend another 5 years on their feet after a lifetime of 
hard work.
  Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, and labeling it as such shows 
callous indifference to Michigan families. Social Security is one of 
the most successful programs in our Nation's history. Confirming 
Congressman Mulvaney to lead the Office of Management and Budget is a 
direct threat to the financial security of millions of seniors and 
retirees.
  If you believe Mr. Mulvaney's proposals on Social Security are 
wrongheaded, just wait until you hear his views on Medicare. He has 
vowed to ``end Medicare as we know it.'' He has said the plans of House 
Speaker Paul Ryan, which called for drastic cuts to Medicare, didn't go 
far enough.
  During the first term of President Reagan, a saying entered into the 
public discourse as the newly elected President was staffing up his 
administration: ``Personnel is policy.''
  While President Trump said on the campaign trail that he opposes 
changes to Social Security and Medicare, personnel is policy. While the 
title of the job, ``Director of the Office of Management and Budget,'' 
might conjure up images of a bureaucratic backwater for many Americans, 
make no mistake, we are currently debating who will hold one of the 
most powerful positions in this new administration--and personnel is 
policy.
  Let's be clear. Congressman Mulvaney's nomination presents a direct 
threat to Medicare and to Social Security. While his positions on these 
critical programs are enough to warrant my ``no'' vote, let's examine 
how we might address other aspects of the Federal budget.
  We don't need to work at the Office of Management and Budget or be an 
accountant to know that President Trump's budget priorities simply do 
not add up. The Federal debt and deficit are serious issues, but we 
haven't seen one serious proposal from this administration on how we 
reach fiscal sustainability. It is the job of the OMB Director to help 
bring some sense to these proposals.
  What are the proposals? They include $10 trillion in tax cuts; $40 
billion on a border wall--with some kind of IOU from Mexico; 
drastically increasing defense spending; $1 trillion on infrastructure; 
and a campaign promise to never, ever touch Social Security and 
Medicare.
  It simply doesn't add up. Either President Trump is planning to grow 
our debt and deficit to dangerous levels or he is going to ask his 
advisers which of his many campaign promises he should break. Given 
Representative Mulvaney's belief that deficits can be solved by cutting 
benefits for seniors and slashing investments in basic science and 
research, he is not the person I want in the position of OMB Director.
  This role is also not just about expenditures and revenue. As a 
senior member of the President's economic team, you need a steady hand 
to help lead the government of the world's largest economy. Given the 
disarray that we are now seeing in the White House, I am convinced now 
more than ever that Representative Mulvaney is not that steady hand to 
help lead fiscal policy in this Nation.
  In 2013, Representative Mulvaney supported and helped lead the effort 
for a government shutdown. Let me repeat: He helped lead the effort to 
shut down the U.S. Government. More specifically, he helped lead the 
effort to shut down the government because the Senate would not agree 
to defund Planned Parenthood.
  In his confirmation hearing, he had a chance to explain this 
position. Our ranking member, Senator McCaskill, asked him flat out: Do 
you still believe that the 2013 government shutdown was good policy?
  His response: Yes, ma'am. It was polite, but wrong. Polite isn't 
enough. We simply cannot have these views in the highest levels of 
government.
  This spring, on April 28, funding for the Federal government expires. 
Critical programs, from childcare to scientific research, will halt 
unless there is an agreement in place. It is hard to have confidence 
that this administration will come to a reasonable agreement when their 
nominee for the highest budget position believes it is ``good policy'' 
to shut down the Federal Government.
  This will not be the first, or last, potential budgetary crisis the 
OMB Director could face. Sometime this summer, the U.S. Congress will 
need to address the debt ceiling in order to meet our previously 
agreed-to financial obligations. If we do not come to an agreement, the 
effects on the global economy will be devastating. We risk permanently 
downgrading our credit rating and setting off a worldwide financial 
crisis.
  Representative Mulvaney on many occasions has doubted the need to 
raise the debt ceiling. He has doubted that the U.S. Government should 
meet our financial obligations. This makes me doubt his very basic 
qualifications to serve as the Director of OMB.
  This is far beyond partisan politics. This is the fiscal health of 
our Nation that will be at stake--truly, the full faith and credit of 
the U.S. Government. If Congressman Mulvaney, as the highest ranking 
budget official in the Nation, is not going to advocate on behalf of 
this commitment, who will?
  I am also worried that Congressman Mulvaney simply lacks the ability 
to see how fiscal and financial decisions impact working people. He 
looks past them and doesn't give them a second thought. During his 
confirmation hearing, I offered Mr. Mulvaney the chance to explain why 
he did not pay payroll taxes for the nanny who took care of his 
children. To be frank, I was shocked by his response. To him, there was 
a ``differentiation,'' in his mind, between the employee who was 
spending 40 hours a week helping to raise his triplets and the 
employees who spent 40 hours a week in his law firm. To him, the white 
collar workers in his law firm were employees, and his nanny was not. I 
am shocked that Mr. Mulvaney did not realize that childcare is work, 
and it is some of the hardest, most important work there is. Whether a 
nanny, babysitter, or childcare provider, this employee mattered, and 
he looked past her and didn't give her a second thought--until he was 
nominated to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
  I don't believe my colleagues should give him the opportunity to 
advance his extreme positions on Medicare and Social Security and look 
past hard-working Michiganders. I will oppose Representative Mulvaney's 
nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.