[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.