[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1205-S1210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        Tribute to DeLynn Henry

  Mr. President, I want to talk about another Alaskan. She is a great 
Alaskan, an honorary Alaskan, but to all those who know her, a real 
Alaskan. So many people in my State know her. So many people in my 
State love her. I am talking about DeLynn Henry.
  When I got elected in 2014, I was looking for important members of my 
office to staff my office. As we all know on the Senate floor, the 
scheduler is probably the most important position. I asked around, and 
the unanimous response was to hire DeLynn Henry. That is what everybody 
told me. In Alaska, in DC, hire DeLynn Henry. She is a legend. She will 
make everybody feel at home.
  DeLynn had been the scheduler for former Senator Ted Stevens, a titan 
of the Senate since 1989. For the past two decades, she has met 
thousands of Alaskans. She has done the vitally important work of 
making sure that when Alaskans come to DC--to our embassy here, the 
Alaskan embassy--they feel welcome, they get to meet with their 
Senator.
  To many of us, including my wife Julie, DeLynn is like family. Her 
job, which she takes very seriously, is something she has done 
extraordinarily well--for me and for Senator Stevens--for decades. She 
is personal and kind. She does everything she can do to make sure that 
Alaskans feel welcome, part of our family, and feel at home. She has 
also raised two fine sons, Blake and Graham, and will soon be a doting 
grandmother.
  DeLynn has accepted a job as the scheduling coordinator for our new 
Secretary of Transportation. I am sad and happy for that. She will be 
leaving my office. She will be leaving a big hole in my office. We, and 
so many Alaskans, will miss her dearly, but we know she will be serving 
Secretary Chao's office with the same warmth and welcoming attitude she 
has served Alaskans for nearly 25 years.
  Thank you, DeLynn, for your years of service to Alaskans. You will 
always, always have a home with us.
  Mr. President, I rise in support of Congressman Mulvaney's 
confirmation to be OMB Director for many of the reasons that a number 
of my colleagues have come to the floor and mentioned. The Presiding 
Officer just talked about some of those reasons. My colleague and 
friend from Wisconsin did a few minutes ago, also. Those are two issues 
that don't get talked about enough here and, certainly, weren't talked 
about enough in the last 8 years; that is, economic growth and the 
overregulation of our economy.
  Again, it wasn't talked about a lot, but we had a lost decade of 
economic growth. The end of the Bush years and the entire Obama years 
never hit 3 percent GDP growth in 1 year--never. That is the first 
President in the history of the country not to do that.
  For thousands, millions of Americans the American dream was starting 
to disappear because nobody focused on the issue of growth. I think in 
November the American people voted and said: We are not going to give 
up on the American dream. We want growth. We want opportunity. Why did 
we have that lost decade of growth where the economy grew at an anemic 
1.5-percent GDP growth each quarter?
  I think this chart shows a lot of the reasons right here--the 
explosion of Federal regulations that have literally choked opportunity 
and economic growth in our country. Year after year--Democrat or 
Republican--this is

[[Page S1206]]

what we see. This regulatory overreach impacts all kinds of Americans, 
mostly small businesses. This is a big reason why this economy has been 
stuck in first gear.
  When I had my discussions with Congressman Mulvaney, we focused on 
this issue of growth, and we focused on this issue of overregulation. 
We haven't had an OMB Director in years who is focused like a laser on 
growth, like a laser on making sure we don't overburden our economy the 
way the Federal Government has done for decades. That is exactly what 
we need right now. We need growth. We need opportunity for Americans. 
We need the Federal Government to be a partner in opportunity, not an 
obstacle, as it is in so many States.
  For these reasons and because I believe the next OMB Director is 
going to be focused on these issues--opportunity for Americans and 
growth for our economy, which sorely needs it--I plan on voting for the 
confirmation of Congressman Mulvaney, and I encourage my colleagues to 
do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Congressman 
Mick Mulvaney to be the next Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, or OMB.
  Like many of President Trump's other nominees, my opposition to 
Congressman Mulvaney has less to do with his extreme rightwing economic 
views than it has to do with the hypocrisy and the dishonesty of 
President Trump. The simple truth is that Congressman Mulvaney's 
record, in many respects, is the exact opposite of the rhetoric that 
then-Candidate Trump used in order to get votes from senior citizens 
and working families. Now, if Candidate Trump had run his campaign by 
saying: I am going to cut your Social Security benefits if elected 
President, well, you know what, Congressman Mulvaney would have been 
the exact person that he should bring forth as OMB Director. If 
President Trump had said: I am going to privatize your Medicare; vote 
for me because I am going to privatize your Medicare--if that is what 
he had campaigned on, then Congressman Mulvaney would have been exactly 
the right choice for OMB Director. If Candidate Trump had said: I want 
to devastate Medicare, I want to make it harder for poor people to get 
the healthcare they need, and I want to threaten the nursing home care 
of millions of senior citizens--if that is what Candidate Trump had 
said, Mick Mulvaney would have been exactly the right and appropriate 
leader for the job.
  But those are not the words, that is not the rhetoric, and those are 
not the ideas that Candidate Trump raised during his Presidential race. 
In fact, Candidate Trump said exactly the opposite on May 7, 2015. We 
are all familiar with Mr. Trump's tweets. Here is a tweet that he made 
on May 7, 2015:

       I was the first and only potential GOP candidate to state 
     there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare and 
     Medicaid. Huckabee copied me.

  So you have Candidate Trump making it very clear that there would be 
no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  On August 10, 2015, Trump said:

       [I will] save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security 
     without cuts. [We] have to do it. . . . People have been 
     paying in for years, and now many of these candidates want to 
     cut it.

  On November 3, 2015, Mr. Trump said:

       I will save Social Security. I'll save medicare. . . . 
     People love Medicare. . . . I'm not going to cut it.

  On March 10, 2016, Mr. Trump said:

       I will do everything within my power not to touch Social 
     Security, to leave it the way it is . . . it's my absolute 
     intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not 
     increase the age and to leave it as is.
       It is my absolute intention to leave Social Security the 
     way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as is.

  It can't be much clearer than that.
  On May 21, 2015, Mr. Trump tweeted:

       I am going to save Social Security without any cuts. I know 
     where to get the money from. Nobody else does.

  On January 24, 2015, Mr. Trump said:

       I'm not a cutter. I will probably be the only Republican 
     that doesn't want to cut Social Security.

  Those are pretty strong statements. What he just told you, in no 
uncertain terms, can't be clearer than that. He doesn't want to cut 
Social Security. He doesn't want to cut Medicare and doesn't want to 
cut Medicaid. And you know what, millions of people actually believed 
what he said. They actually thought that Candidate Trump was telling 
the truth.
  But now that the election is over, President Trump has nominated a 
budget director, Mr. Mulvaney, who would cut Social Security, would cut 
Medicare, would cut Medicaid, and would threaten the entire security of 
millions of Americans.
  We just heard the exact quotes coming from candidate Donald Trump. 
Let's now hear the exact quotes coming from Congressman Mick Mulvaney 
about his views on these very same issues.
  On May 15, 2011, Congressman Mulvaney said on FOX Business News:

       We have to end Medicare as we know it.

  On April 28, 2011, Congressman Mulvaney said:

       Medicare as it exists today is finished.

  On August 1, 2011, Congressman Mulvaney said:

       You have to raise the retirement age, lower a pay-out, 
     change the reimbursement system. You simply cannot leave 
     [Social Security] the way it is.

  On May 17, 2011, Congressman Mulvaney said: ``I honestly don't think 
we went far enough with the Ryan plan'' because it did not cut Social 
Security and Medicare ``rapidly enough.''
  Just 2 years ago, Congressman Mulvaney voted against the budget 
proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price and House Speaker 
Paul Ryan, opting instead to vote in favor of an even more extreme 
budget by the Republican Study Committee. The budget that Congressman 
Mulvaney supported would have cut Medicare by $69 billion more than the 
Price-Ryan budget. It would have cut Social Security by $184 billion 
more, and it would have cut Medicaid by $255 billion more than the 
budget proposed by Chairman Price and House Speaker Ryan.
  In fact, Congressman Mulvaney made it clear during his confirmation 
hearing in the Budget Committee that he would advise President Trump to 
break his promises not to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 
During that hearing, Senator Corker called President Trump's campaign 
promises ``totally unrealistic'' and said that they ``make no sense 
whatsoever.''
  When Senator Corker asked Congressman Mulvaney if he would advise the 
President not to follow through on the campaign promises he made to 
seniors, this is what Congressman Mulvaney said:

       I have to imagine that the President knew what he was 
     getting when he asked me to fill this role. . . . I'd like to 
     think it is why he hired me.

  Whoa, what we have been discussing is precisely why so many people 
have contempt for what goes on here in Congress and what goes on in 
Washington, in general. What is going on here is that a candidate for 
President of the United States says one thing in order to get votes, 
but the day after he is elected, his tune dramatically changes, and he 
nominates a number of people to his Cabinet and to high-level positions 
within his administration who intend to do exactly the opposite of what 
he campaigned on. Once again, Congressman Mulvaney--and I believe he is 
exactly right--said:

       I have to imagine that the President knew what he was 
     getting when he asked me to fill this role. . . . I'd like to 
     think it is why he hired me.

  So the President hires somebody who has been one of the most vigorous 
proponents of cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare, and of cutting 
Medicaid after he ran his entire campaign telling the American people 
he would not cut Social Security, cut Medicare, and cut Medicaid.
  Outside of Capitol Hill, where real people live, it turns out, not 
surprisingly, that the overwhelming majority of Americans--be they 
Democrats, Republicans, or Independents--are opposed to cutting Social 
Security. In fact, according to an October 2016 survey by Public Policy 
Polling, 72 percent of the American people, including 51 percent of 
Republicans, ``support increasing, not cutting, Social Security 
benefits by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay more into the 
system.''

[[Page S1207]]

  As it happens, that is exactly the heart and soul of the legislation 
that I will soon be offering. Legislation that I will be offering will 
expand Social Security benefits, not cut them. It will do so by asking 
the top 2 percent to pay more in taxes, which, it turns out, is not 
only the right thing to do, but it is precisely what the American 
people want us to do. Various other polls have reached similar results. 
The people of our country--once you get outside the Congress and 
outside of the Republican caucus, in particular--the American people 
know that when millions of seniors, disabled veterans, and people with 
disabilities are trying to get by on $13, $14, $15,000 a year, you do 
not cut their benefits, while at the same time give hundreds of 
billions of dollars in tax breaks to the top 1 percent. That is not 
what the American people want.
  In my view, we don't need a budget director like Congressman 
Mulvaney, who believes that Social Security is a ``Ponzi scheme.'' We 
don't need a budget director who once voted to declare Social Security, 
Medicaid, and the U.S. Department of Education unconstitutional. He was 
in, I believe, the South Carolina State Legislature, State Senate. He 
actually voted on a vote--which got very few votes--in the South 
Carolina State Senate. He voted to declare Social Security, Medicaid, 
and the U.S. Department of Education unconstitutional. This is the 
person whom President Trump has nominated to become the head of OMB.

  So if you believe Social Security is unconstitutional, if you believe 
it is a good idea to cut benefits for people who will be living on 
$13,000 or $14,000 a year, I guess Mr. Mulvaney is your choice. If that 
is whom my Republican colleagues want to vote for, that is their 
business, but my job and the job of everybody is to make it clear to 
the American people that the Republicans are far more interested in 
cutting Social Security and in giving huge tax breaks to billionaires 
than they are in taking care of the needs of the American people.
  We need a budget director who understands that we have a retirement 
crisis in America today. Today, more than half of older Americans have 
no retirement savings. That is just an extraordinary reality. Over half 
of older workers in this country have zero in the bank. Think about 
what they are feeling when they hear people like Congressman Mulvaney 
saying: Hey, you got nothing now. You are going to try to get by on 
$12,000, $13,000 a year in Social Security, and we are going to cut 
those benefits.
  Today, more than half of older Americans have no retirement savings. 
More than one-third of senior citizens depend on Social Security for 
all of their income. One out of five senior citizens is trying to make 
ends meet on income of less than $13,000 a year. I will tell you, I 
hope people are able to sleep well, people who think it is appropriate 
to give tax breaks to billionaires and cut benefits for people who are 
trying to get by on Social Security checks of $13,000 a year.
  In my view, we don't need a budget director who believes that ``we 
have to end Medicare as we know it,'' nor do we need a budget director 
who has said that ``Medicare as it exists today is finished.'' Let's 
remember for a moment what things were like before Medicare was signed 
into law back in 1965. At that point, about half of all seniors were 
uninsured and millions more were underinsured. Today, thanks to 
Medicare, about 45 million seniors have health insurance, and the 
senior poverty rate has plummeted. Seniors are living healthier, longer 
lives. Thank you, Medicare.
  In my view, we do not need a budget director who supports cutting 
Medicaid by more than $1 trillion, threatening not only the healthcare 
of low-income people but also the nursing home care of millions of 
vulnerable senior citizens and persons with disabilities. There are 
millions of not just low-income families but middle-class families who 
today are getting help with the nursing home payments for their parents 
through Medicaid. If you make devastating cuts in Medicaid, you are not 
only going to take away health insurance from low-income Americans, you 
are going to put enormous economic stress on middle-class families who 
will now have to pay the full tab for the nursing home care of their 
parents.
  Finally, there is another issue; that is, Mr. Mulvaney's taxes. After 
Congressman Mulvaney was nominated to become the next OMB Director, it 
was revealed that he failed to pay over $15,000 in taxes for a nanny he 
employed from the year 2000 through 2004. Here is what Congressman 
Mulvaney wrote in response to a question I asked him on January 11:

       I have come to learn during the confirmation review process 
     that I failed to pay FICA and Federal and State unemployment 
     taxes on a household employee for the years 2000 through 
     2004. Upon discovery of that shortfall, I paid the Federal 
     taxes. The amount in question for Federal FICA and 
     unemployment was $15,583.60, exclusive of penalties and 
     interest which are not yet determined. The State amounts are 
     not yet determined.

  This is a very serious issue. As you will recall, 8 years ago Senator 
Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human 
Services after it was discovered that he failed to pay taxes for one of 
his domestic workers.
  On this issue, I agree wholeheartedly with Minority Leader Schumer, 
who said:

       When other previous Cabinet nominees failed to pay their 
     fair share in taxes, Senate Republicans forced those nominees 
     to withdraw from consideration. If failure to pay taxes was 
     disqualifying for Democratic nominees, then the same should 
     be true for Republican nominees.

  Mr. President, here is the irony: Over and over again, Congressman 
Mulvaney has sponsored and cosponsored legislation designed to prohibit 
people from serving in the government if they fail to pay their taxes. 
In 2015, Congressman Mulvaney voted for a bill in the House that 
stated: ``Any individual who has a seriously delinquent tax debt should 
be ineligible to be appointed or to continue serving as an employee'' 
of the Federal Government. Congressman Mulvaney cosponsored three bills 
when he was in the South Carolina State Senate that would have 
prohibited tax cheats from serving in the South Carolina State 
government. In other words, it looks like there is one set of rules for 
Congressman Mulvaney and another set of rules for everyone else.
  In light of this information and in light of Congressman Mulvaney's 
extreme rightwing record of attacking the needs of the elderly, the 
children, the sick, and the poor, I would urge all of my colleagues to 
vote no on this nomination.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I wish to oppose the confirmation of 
Congressman Mick Mulvaney as Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget. I respect Mr. Mulvaney's public service representing the people 
of South Carolina, who elected him to serve in the State legislature 
and in Congress. However, the question before us today is whether the 
Senate should confirm him to one of the most important economic 
positions in our government--a position that has major ramifications 
for global financial markets, the United States and New Mexico 
economies, and the jobs, health care, and retirement security of every 
American.
  Unfortunately, Representative Mulvaney's record shows a shocking 
willingness to put at risk the security of the public debt of the 
Nation and endanger essential Federal programs that New Mexicans depend 
upon. I want to underscore a few of Representative Mulvaney's previous 
statements made as a Member of Congress.
  First, he has supported playing chicken with the debt ceiling over 
partisan political issues, an action that would jeopardize the U.S. 
Government's ability to repay the public debt. If the debt ceiling is 
not raised, Federal officials have said that the revenue coming into 
the government would not be enough to cover its obligations--
potentially disrupting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans 
benefits, military payments, student loan payments, and many other 
government services.
  Despite these clear dangers, Representative Mulvaney voted no on 
raising the debt ceiling every time it came up for a vote in 2011, 
2012, and 2013. He claimed that risking disruption to Social Security 
and veterans benefits was ``a fabricated crisis.'' He went so far as to 
question the majority leader, claiming that, if the Senate chose to 
raise the debt ceiling, the majority leader ``should just quit and go 
home.'' I, for one, will be here to defend the full faith and credit of 
the United

[[Page S1208]]

States' public debt and protect essential government services that our 
sick, our elderly, and our veterans depend upon.
  Putting someone with such strongly held and reckless views into power 
at the OMB is an endorsement of policies that could cause another 
global financial crisis--devastating millions of American families. I 
cannot in good conscience support his nomination for this reason alone.
  Second, Representative Mulvaney is a founding member of the group of 
extreme House Republicans who forced the government to shut down in 
October 2013 over their blind opposition to the Affordable Care Act. In 
New Mexico, the impacts of the shutdown were felt immediately as our 
civilian employees were sent home from military installations, national 
parks and forests were closed to tourists, and countless other services 
were halted. The shutdown lasted over two weeks, and Representative 
Mulvaney and other members of his extreme wing of the House could have 
ended the shutdown at any time.
  Representative Mulvaney claims that he opposes wasteful government 
spending, but an analysis by Standard and Poor's found that the October 
2013 government shutdown cost $24 billion--$24 billion with nothing to 
show for it. Even Representative Mulvaney admitted that his shutdown 
hurt people. On October 16, 2013, he told CNN, ``Were people hurt by 
this? Sure.'' He admitted that, if you were one of the millions of 
people who relied on the shuttered services, his shutdown hurt you, but 
Representative Mulvaney showed little remorse. I stand by what I said 
at the time. Insisting on blind cuts or a government shutdown to prove 
a point isn't leadership.
  Third and finally, Representative Mulvaney is on record advocating 
enormous cuts to Medicare, and he is a proponent of Speaker Ryan's 
preferred voucher concept for Medicare. He also has long been hostile 
to Social Security and voted in the South Carolina State Senate to 
declare Social Security, along with Medicaid and the Department of 
Education, unconstitutional.
  Workers earn their Social Security benefits through a lifetime of 
paying into the Social Security system. And it is unfair to delay or 
cut the benefits they have paid into. Raising the retirement age to 70, 
as Representative Mulvaney has advocated, would cut benefits by nearly 
20 percent for all beneficiaries. Raising the retirement age would be 
hardest for those New Mexicans who work in jobs that require heavy 
manual labor, which becomes harder to do as we age. With all the 
challenges people have saving for retirement, especially as New Mexico 
continues to struggle to recover, the last thing we should do is raise 
the Social Security retirement age.
  In conclusion, Representative Mulvaney has demonstrated that he has 
no reservations about using a government shutdown or the public debt as 
bargaining chips. He has stated that he will push to eliminate Social 
Security for people under 70. He will slash Federal consumer 
protections and cut support for small businesses, labor rights, 
financial oversight, community health, and environmental protection. I 
have heard from many people and groups--a broad coalition of consumer, 
small business, labor, good government, financial protection, 
community, health, environmental, civil rights, and public interest 
organizations--who oppose the nomination. I stand with them. I strongly 
oppose Representative Mulvaney's nomination to be Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget and urge my colleagues to do so as 
well.
  Mr. SANDERS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. 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. MERKLEY. Mr. President, here we are on another evening, debating 
another Cabinet nominee, addressing the question that Hamilton put 
before us, which is whether an individual is of fit character to serve 
in a particular post. This effort, this advice and consent 
responsibility held by the Senate, is one that was anticipated by our 
Founders to be used rarely because the very existence of this power, 
they felt, would ensure that a President would nominate people who are 
appropriately suited to the post they would hold. So I do find it 
troubling the number of times I have come to the floor in these last 
few weeks to speak about a nominee and consider whether they are fit 
and to find that perhaps the individual is lacking.
  Tonight we are considering the nomination of Congressman Mick 
Mulvaney to head the Office of Management and Budget. This is a 
powerful organization, and it is a very important position. It plays a 
critical role in the oversight and management of our Federal budget. It 
plays a critical role in determining what gets funded and what doesn't 
get funded. So with that in mind, it is important that we have a robust 
debate about this position and about this nominee.
  To break that down a little bit, the Office of Management and Budget 
puts together the budget for the President. In doing so, they take the 
vision our President has articulated, and they build it into a roadmap 
to accomplish that vision because where you spend money affects what 
actually happens as we pursue programs here in the United States of 
America.
  It is the Director of the OMB who works to make sure the various 
pieces of the Federal Government are working together like gears that 
mesh cleanly together and do not conflict. It is the Director of the 
OMB who helps to determine the cost of proposed legislation, which can 
advance or doom any particular proposal. It is the position of the OMB 
Director to review the impact of proposed regulations, and that can 
also have a significant impact.
  I come to this conversation with a number of concerns, and the first 
is the position of the nominee on Social Security. For 82 years, Social 
Security has provided for the American people, and it has helped our 
Nation prosper.
  On the third anniversary of the Social Security Act, in 1938, 
Franklin Roosevelt pointed out: ``Men and women too old and infirm to 
work either depended on those who had but little to share, or spent 
their remaining years within the walls of a poorhouse.''
  That is not the vision we have today. Thanks to Social Security, our 
seniors have a basic income to see them through their golden years. 
They can live out their lives in relative comfort and security, rather 
than, as Franklin Roosevelt put it, ``within the walls of a 
poorhouse.''
  In 2016, roughly 61 million Americans received over $900 billion in 
Social Security benefits. That is a huge injection into our economy, 
and it is spent almost immediately on fundamental goods. Nearly 9 out 
of 10 Americans older than 65 receive Social Security benefits, and for 
one-quarter of our Social Security beneficiaries, including both those 
who are single and those who are married, Social Security accounts for 
virtually their entire income. That would be many millions--more than 
15 million Americans who would definitely be struggling in the most 
difficult fashion financially if Social Security didn't exist.
  Retired workers and their dependents account for about 71 percent of 
the benefits paid. Funds also go to disabled workers. Disabled workers 
and their dependents account for about 16 percent of the benefits. 
Survivors of deceased workers account for another 13 percent or roughly 
one-eighth of the benefits paid.
  Simply put, Social Security assists our retired workers, our disabled 
workers, and the survivors of our deceased workers. It is one of the 
best ideas America has ever put forward, but Congressman Mulvaney 
doesn't agree. He sees Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. Let me 
explain what a Ponzi scheme is. A Ponzi scheme is something where the 
incoming amount raised immediately pays for the benefits of somebody 
who paid in money previously.
  We actually have a Social Security trust fund, which is the 
difference between Mick Mulvaney's description of Social Security and 
what we actually have. If we made no changes, no changes at all to 
increase the lifetime of the trust fund, it would continue to be able 
to pay 100 percent of the benefits through 2034 and roughly three-

[[Page S1209]]

quarters of all benefits currently promised ever after. That is if we 
make no changes.
  If we make small changes, our Social Security trust fund is solvent 
for decades and decades into the future. Certainly, I think we should 
aspire to that vision of a trust fund that has a 75-year horizon, a 
full solvency.
  The issue that Congressman Mulvaney raises, the idea he raises for 
changing how we adjust Social Security, however, isn't one of 
increasing the amount of wages that are subject to Social Security tax; 
it is not one of putting premiums on the income earned through 
nonwages, which is primarily income raised by wealthier Americans. 
Instead, it is to say to folks: Just retire later.
  When you are a white-collar worker and you work in an office that is 
nicely air-conditioned and you have had full healthcare benefits 
throughout your entire life, maybe when you get into your sixties, you 
say, ``Well, maybe I could keep working a little longer,'' but the 
reality for a huge percentage of Americans who work difficult jobs, who 
work jobs where their bodies wear out, they don't have the choice of 
simply saying: I will retire in another 5 years, because they literally 
have developed so many issues and challenges that it is impossible to 
do the same kind of work they did in their twenties and their thirties 
in their sixties.
  So that strategy of moving the goalpost on American workers, many of 
whom are decades already into the work they are doing, doesn't fulfill 
the promise and the vision of the Social Security Program.
  While Social Security is a great idea, moving the retirement age to 
age 70--which Mick Mulvaney advocates for, from his view as someone who 
comes from a job that perhaps isn't as arduous as many jobs in 
America--is a bad idea.
  This vision continues on into Medicare. Like Social Security, 
Medicare is also a generational promise, a lifeline for countless 
Americans since President Johnson signed it into law now more than five 
decades ago. Over 55 million Americans rely on Medicare for their 
health and their financial security. Roughly, 46 million are older 
Americans, 9 million are younger Americans with disabilities or certain 
illnesses.
  While this program has worked incredibly well, our nominee wants to 
``end Medicare as we know it.'' Those are ominous words for the 55 
million Americans relying on Medicare. He also believes we have to 
raise the retirement age.
  He told Bloomberg News in 2011: ``You have to raise the retirement 
age, lower a payout, change the reimbursement system.''
  The problem with raising the retirement age is the same problem we 
have with Social Security. For American workers working hard in many 
types of jobs, their bodies are worn out. I used to have folks come to 
my townhalls and say: Senator, I am just trying to stay alive until I 
get to age 65, and they would tell me how they had multiple diseases 
and they were choosing between which disease to treat or how they had a 
single significant problem, but they were deciding to skip their pills 
every other day or cut their pills in half or perhaps go a week without 
their pills at all or how they were choosing not to go to the doctor 
when they developed a difficulty because they were afraid they wouldn't 
be able to afford the payment. That is not a healthcare system, but 
Mick Mulvaney wants to say to those folks: Oh, you reached age 65, too 
bad. I am providing this healthcare program another 5 years into the 
future. That is simply wrong, but more than wrong, it is also in direct 
contradiction to the promises made by President Trump during his 
campaign.

  The contrast is incredibly stark between the President's promise to 
Americans that unlike so many of the folks in his party, he would not 
be the one to promote tearing down Medicare and Social Security. He 
would not be the one to promote advancing the retirement age so people 
who are struggling have to struggle for another 5 years. So it is a 
poor fit between this individual and the office and the promises made 
to the American people.
  Another concern I have is in regard to Congressman Mulvaney's 
advocacy for shutting down the economy. He seems very comfortable 
playing Russian roulette with our economy. He and a group of other 
House Members brought our government to a screeching halt in 2013 
because they wanted to defund the Affordable Care Act. What is the 
Affordable Care Act? The Affordable Care Act has enabled 20 million 
Americans to gain access to healthcare that they didn't have 
previously.
  In my home State of Oregon, the Affordable Care Act has enabled about 
one-half million people to gain access to healthcare, both through 
expansion of Medicaid, known as the Oregon Health Plan, and also 
through the healthcare exchange and marketplace where you can compare 
one policy to another, shop for the policy that best fits your family, 
and those of modest means get credit to help pay for those policies so 
they can actually afford them. It is an affordable care plan that 
provides for a healthcare set of benefits--benefits such as the ability 
to keep your children on your policy through age 26, benefits such as 
not having an annual limit or a lifetime limit on your policy so that 
when you do get seriously ill, you don't run out of healthcare partway 
into treating your disease. It is the Affordable Care Act that ends 
gender discrimination in the insurance marketplaces. It is the 
Affordable Care Act that says if you have a preexisting condition, you 
can still get insurance.
  I was at a fundraising walk for a woman who had a family member with 
multiple sclerosis. It was a fundraiser for multiple sclerosis. She 
said: Senator, this year is so different from last year. That was the 
year before the Affordable Care Act was implemented. I asked: How so? 
She said: A year ago, if your loved one was diagnosed with MS and they 
had insurance, you knew there was a good chance that your insurance was 
going to run out at the end of the year or they would hit a lifetime 
limit, and they wouldn't be able to pay for the care they needed. She 
said: If you didn't have insurance, you now have a preexisting 
condition that would prevent you from ever getting insurance.
  She went on to say that the difference between last year and this 
year, because of the Affordable Care Act, is that now members in the MS 
community--those who had the disease and their family members who were 
supporting them all out at this fundraising walk--now knew their loved 
one would have the peace of mind that they would get the care they 
needed. This is what a healthcare system is all about, peace of mind, 
but Mick Mulvaney wanted to tear away that peace of mind. He proceeded 
to support a 16-day government shutdown that cost our country $24 
billion--and to what purpose? To rip peace of mind away from 20 million 
Americans.
  Back in 2015, he threatened to do it all again. The damage he had 
done--the $24 billion he had stolen from the American Treasury in the 
context of damaging the government with that shutdown--he was ready to 
do it all again in order to make sure Planned Parenthood never gets a 
dime from the government. To be clear, not a single dime from the 
government goes to Planned Parenthood for abortions. In fact, the 
organization that has done more to decrease abortions than any other in 
our country is Planned Parenthood. The government funds go for 
different purposes. They go to Planned Parenthood to do cancer 
screenings, breast cancer screenings, prostate cancer screenings, and a 
whole host of fundamental basic healthcare. They are the healthcare 
provider for 2.5 million American women. Just as he was ready to 
recklessly shut down the government to rip healthcare away from 20 
million Americans in 2013, he was ready to defund these essential 
healthcare clinics serving 2.5 million Americans in 2015. That is a 
sign of someone who has lost their policy foundations and is acting in 
an irresponsible and unacceptable manner.
  Let's talk a little bit about the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau. The CFPB was in response to a big problem in America, which was 
that we had no one looking out to shut down predatory financial 
practices. It was the responsibility of the Federal Reserve, but the 
Federal Reserve had their conversation on monetary policy up in the 
penthouse--the top level, if you will. That is what the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve paid attention to.

[[Page S1210]]

They took the responsibility for consumer protection and put them down 
in the basement, and they locked the door and threw away the key.
  Folks kept coming to the Federal Reserve saying: Hey, there is a 
major concern here. We have these predatory mortgages that have these 
teaser rates, and they are going to destroy the families who get those 
mortgages. They are going to destroy their dream of homeownership and 
turn it into a nightmare. People went to the Federal Reserve and said: 
By the way, we now have these wire loans, where there is no 
documentation of income and people are being sold these loans that they 
have no hope of repaying. In addition, we have another predatory 
practice called steering payments, which are kickbacks to originators. 
So they are getting kickbacks to steer people into subprime loans with 
high interest rates rather than prime loans that they qualify for. What 
happened? The Federal Reserve ignored all of that. That is the 
foundation for the collapse of our economy in 2008.
  So along comes Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren, as an advocate, 
not yet a Senator, comes to this body and said: We need an agency whose 
mission is to look out and stop predatory financial practices, a 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and we got it done.
  What does Mick Mulvaney say about this effort to stop predatory 
financial practices? He says it is a ``sick, sad joke.'' So I asked him 
about this in committee. I said: Really? This is an agency that finally 
is watching out for working families so they are not prey to predatory, 
fraudulent practices. And he said: Yes, ``a sick, sad joke.''
  I said: You know, they have returned funds to 27 million Americans. 
What other agency has fought for Americans in that fashion--returned 
funds to them from folks who were operating in a predatory fashion, to 
27 million Americans. I didn't change his view by raising that.
  I said: You know, this agency, to those 27 million people, has 
returned $12 billion. There was $12 billion returned to people who were 
cheated; isn't that a good thing? But I didn't persuade him.
  He said: You know, I don't like the way this agency is set up. I want 
it to be a commission rather than an individual who heads it, and I 
want the funds to be appropriated annually by Congress.
  I can tell you exactly why he wants those provisions, because that is 
the way Congress, at the behest of Wall Street, can step on the airhose 
that supplies the oxygen to CFPB. They can stop the CFPB from 
functioning as a guardian, as a watchdog for consumers in America by 
simply defunding it.
  We have a President who ran on the principle of taking on Wall 
Street, but Mick Mulvaney doesn't want to take on Wall Street. He wants 
to do their bidding, to be able to shut down this agency that is 
finally fighting for financial fairness for working families. Wait. We 
have a President who said he is going to fight for working families. 
Mick Mulvaney should be backing the CFPB. He should be expanding the 
CFPB. He should be championing the CFPB, but, no, he wants to tear it 
down. That is deeply disturbing.
  I see my colleague, the Senator from Hawaii, who is prepared to make 
remarks. I am going to wrap up my remarks.
  There are more concerns that I have about the policy perspectives and 
how out of sync this nominee is with the promises the President made to 
fight for working Americans, the promises he made to take on Wall 
Street, the promises he made to protect Social Security, the promises 
he made to strengthen Medicare, not to tear it down. So for all these 
reasons, I find Mick Mulvaney is not the right person to fill this 
post, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against confirming him in 
this capacity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                 Orders for Thursday, February 16, 2017

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., 
Thursday, February 16; that following the prayer and pledge, the 
morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved 
to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use 
later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that 
following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session, as 
under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.