[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1226-S1229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the
following nomination, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Mick
Mulvaney, of South Carolina, to be Director of the Office of Management
and Budget.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 10 minutes of debate equally divided.
The assistant Democratic leader.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this may be one of the most important
votes in this new session of the Senate relative to the Trump
administration. It is a Cabinet position most people are not aware of,
except if you work here. It is the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget.
This individual has the authority to write the President's budget, to
establish priorities, and to review Federal spending governmentwide. It
is a big job. It is an awesome responsibility. The way it is executed
will not only lead to an accounting of our Federal expenditures, but it
will have a direct impact on America's economy.
The choice of Congressman Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina for this
job is wrong. It is wrong based on his record in the House of
Representatives. He was a founding member of the Freedom Caucus in the
House of Representatives. That is a group which led to the resignation
of Speaker Boehner and continues to tie the House of Representatives
into knots. Why? Because they have certain tactics they believe are
credible tactics, which Congressman Mulvaney signed up for. Let me give
one of them.
They think closing down the government is a good way to get people's
attention. Well, they are right. It sure gets attention. But it does it
at the expense of innocent people across America--taxpayers, those who
are receiving critical programs, and Federal employees who are waiting
for their paychecks. Congressman Mulvaney signed up for that.
Once every year or so we have to decide to lift what is called the
debt ceiling, which is the indebtedness of the United States, the full
faith and credit of our government--really, the credibility of our
government when it comes to financing. Congressman Mulvaney, who wants
to head the Office of Management and Budget, has said we can default on
our national debt, and it really won't cause that great of a problem.
That is just the beginning of some of his bizarre views.
He said he wants to end the Medicare program as we know it. He calls
Social Security a Ponzi scheme. He has called for a 25-percent
reduction in reimbursement for Medicaid; that is health insurance for
children, the disabled, and the elderly in America. He also has
questioned whether the United States as a government should continue to
invest in medical research.
I am not making this up. This man who wants to set the priorities for
the Trump administration and deliver the budget for America's future
questions whether our Federal Government should invest in medical
research.
When it came to paying for natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy--
and it happens to every State--he decided that instead of coming to the
rescue of people in an emergency, we would have to cut entitlement
programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--as well as military
spending, in order to pay for disasters. That is how shortsighted he
has been, and President Trump has chosen him to write the budget for
America.
I just have to say that his priorities as a founding member of the
Freedom Caucus disqualify him for this job, in my consideration. The
fact that he would repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement
and leave some 30 million insured Americans without the promise of
healthcare security for their families is another indication of an
extreme point of view which should not be defining our government in
Washington.
I have no doubt Republicans are going to march in lockstep, with
maybe one exception. Senator McCain has said he is going to vote
against him. I think they will end up giving President Trump his man as
head of the Office of Management and Budget. But we are in for a battle
royal over the values in America. You can judge that values of a nation
not by political speeches but by our budget.
Congressman Mulvaney will cut some of the most basic and fundamental
programs of our government, would endanger our economy by questioning
the full faith and credit of the
[[Page S1227]]
United States, and is prepared to shut down the government to get his
way. That is not a responsible course when it comes to budgetmaking in
a great nation like America.
I will be opposing the nomination of Mick Mulvaney to be head of the
Office of Management and Budget.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, when I woke up this morning I was
remembering some of the Old West stories about catching the culprit and
hanging him. Then we got a little more sophisticated out West, and we
said: You know, we need to give that person a fair trial and then hang
him.
Sometimes I feel like these Cabinet position hearings are exactly
that. They let the person ask questions. They ask very leading
questions. I am not sure anybody listens to the answers. Then they have
to answer a whole bunch of questions. I am not sure anybody reads the
answers to those questions, and if they do, any time you read
something, there can be a certain bias that is built into it. I am
sorry that is happening to Cabinet after Cabinet after Cabinet
position.
Traditionally, a President has gotten the Cabinet that he wanted,
often in the first week that he was in. Some of them got it on the
first day they were in.
This is a key position for the President. But we have to remember
that he doesn't get to make any final decisions. He gets to recommend
to the President and make a presentation to the President on what there
ought to be, and then the President presents a budget.
Looking back over the last 8 years, we have voted on the President's
budget. For 7 years, the President got zero votes. That means his
budget did not go into place. In the eighth year, he got one vote. I am
hoping that Representative Mulvaney can do a considerably better job
than that in outlining what our needs are, presenting it to the
President, and getting some agreement so that we can get this country
on a plan to where we can quit increasing the $20 trillion debt burden
which faces us because of the 8 years of anemic economic and policy
growth we have had.
With unprecedented attempts to delay the new Cabinet, Senate
Democrats have ensured the President has been without an OMB Director
longer than any other President in the past 40 years. The reason I use
40 years is that is as long as that position has been in place.
According to Senate records, from President Jimmy Carter to President
Obama, the longest it ever took to approve a first budget director for
new Presidents was 1 week--1 week. We are now in week 4 and with little
movement. As Majority Leader McConnell said last week, this is the
slowest time for a new Cabinet to be up and running since President
George Washington--and that was last week that he said that.
It is vital we fill this position. I am hopeful Mr. Mulvaney and the
OMB will ensure that the taxes of hard-working Americans sent to
Washington are spent in the most effective and efficient way. The
Federal Government has not been currently focused on making sure hard-
working taxpayers get the best deal for their money. A new OMB Director
focused on responsible budgeting can help ensure the duplication of
government programs and agencies is discovered and it is addressed.
This will help the Federal Government to be more accountable and more
effective.
I remember walking over to the inauguration next to the new Senator
from Maryland, who talked to me about Mulvaney and said that he was
kind of impressed that the two of them had agreed on some budgetary
principles. That was a bit of a shock to me.
The Government Accountability Office every year outlines tens of
billions of dollars in savings that can be achieved through various
efficiency measures. OMB can play an important role in ensuring that
spending programs don't duplicate each other. That is what Mulvaney is
excited about. Additionally, reforming and consolidating these programs
can ensure they focus on real needs and be managed with an eye toward
real results.
Several years ago, Congress passed a law requiring the administration
to list all Federal programs on a central governmentwide website, along
with related budget and performance information, maybe saying how many
people work there and how many customers they serve. Unfortunately,
when the program lists were put online, GAO reviewed the information
and discovered that the inventory, in their own words, was ``not a
useful tool for decisionmaking.'' That has to change. Mulvaney can
change that. Even if the government can't answer that question, we can
find strong evidence that the numbers are on the rise, and Mr. Mulvaney
will be able to play a crucial role in taming the unchecked growth of
the Federal Government.
To conclude, I have full faith in Representative Mulvaney. That is
why I am asking you today to take my word for his capability. I do take
my word very seriously. Please support Representative Mulvaney for this
important position and get this position onboard so we can do the work
that we are supposed to do--one of which is to get a budget from the
President by today. That is not going to be possible because he doesn't
have anybody to do the budget yet. Then, we can get on with the
business of this country. We have been working on some bipartisan
budget processes that we can do. We will get that done, too, with his
help, with the President's help, and with help from both sides of the
aisle. We badly need it.
I ask for support for Representative Mulvaney.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of Representative
Mick Mulvaney to serve as Director of the Office of Management &
Budget, OMB. Representative Mulvaney's radical views regarding the
fundamental role of government in our society make him philosophically
ill-suited to run OMB. I will list a number of those views.
Social Security--In May 2009, Representative Mulvaney was a member of
the South Carolina State Senate and voted to declare that Social
Security is unconstitutional. He also wants to raise the retirement age
to 70. Raising the retirement age to 70 would cut earned benefits by
nearly 20 percent for all beneficiaries. With all the challenges people
have saving for retirement, the last thing we should do is raise the
Social Security retirement age.
Medicare--Representative Mulvaney is on record advocating enormous
cuts to Medicare and is a proponent of Speaker Ryan's preferred
``premium support,'' i.e., voucher, concept for Medicare. ``Premium
support'' is a euphemism for privatizing Medicare. Representative
Mulvaney said on Fox News, in April, 2011. ``We have to end Medicare as
we know it.'' And he indicated that he wants to raise the eligibility
age to 67.
Medicare guarantees comprehensive health insurance coverage for
almost 50 million Americans. Only 2 percent of elderly Americans are
uninsured; nearly 50 percent were before Medicare was signed into law.
Debt ceiling--Representative Mulvaney appears willing to jeopardize
the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. He claims that
breeching the debt ceiling would not automatically trigger a default on
Treasury debt; he calls such concern ``a fabricated crisis.''
Representative Mulvaney believes the Treasury would be able to
``prioritize'' payments and avoid a default.
His ``pay China first'' policy is contrary to the opinion of several
recent Treasury Secretaries, would be impossible to execute from a
logistical standpoint, and is based on a 1985 Government Accountability
Office report the agency has since walked away from. The Treasury
Department lacks legal authority to establish ``priorities'' with
respect to paying the Nation's obligations. Each law obligating funds
and authorizing expenditures stands on an equal footing, so the
Department has to make payments on obligations as they come due.
Debt limit brinksmanship is expensive. According to the Bipartisan
Policy Center, the 10-year cost to taxpayers of the 2011 debt limit
standoff was $18.9 billion because of the increased interest rates on
U.S. securities issued in 2011. On August 5, 2011, Standard & Poor's
downgraded the long-term credit rating of the U.S. government for the
first time in history, from AAA to AA+.
Government shutdowns--Representative Mulvaney believes that shutting
[[Page S1228]]
down the Federal Government is an acceptable way to do business. He
stated on CNN that shutting down the government over funding the
Affordable Care Act was ``worth it'' in October 2013 and embraces the
term ``shutdown caucus.'' In a September 2015 Atlantic article, he
argued that shutting down the government is important becauset it is
what ``the base of the (Republican) party wants.''
Standard & Poor's determined that the October 2013 government
shutdown cost $24 billion.
Federal workers--Representative Mulvaney has sponsored numerous bills
attacking the Federal workforce, including many that freeze Federal
workers' pay. Federal workers have already ``contributed'' over $180
billion to deficit reduction through pay freezes and other measures. He
has sponsored the Federal Workforce Reduction Through Attrition Act,
the most recent version of which caps the Federal workforce at 90
percent of its current level. A previous version would have mandated
that ``agencies do not appoint'' for 3 years ``more than one employee
for every three employees retiring or otherwise separating from
government service.''
Women's reproductive health--in September 2015, Representative
Mulvaney spearheaded a letter signed by 38 House Republicans--all men--
opposing any legislation to fund the government that also continues to
fund Planned Parenthood. In an August 2015 email to the Washington
Post, Representative Mulvaney wrote that, if the Congress were to shut
down the Federal Government over Planned Parenthood funding, ``so be
it.''
Science and climate change--in a Facebook post from last September,
quoted in Vox, Representative Mulvaney questioned the need for
government funded research ``at all'' in the context of doubting the
scientific consensus that the Zika virus causes microcephaly.
Representative Mulvaney disputes the overwhelming scientific
consensus on climate change. During the Budget Committee's nomination
hearing, when Senator Kaine asked Representative Mulvaney about human-
caused climate change, Representative Mulvaney replied, ``I challenge
the premise of your fact.''
The Union of Concerned Scientists opposes Representative Mulvaney's
nomination, writing:
He has backed legislation to change the regulatory process
in ways that would give an even stronger influence to
industry, increase political interference and undermine
science-based decision-making . . . Too often, the voices
of people who will be hurt the most by rolling back science-
based safeguards are drowned out by industries. The next OMB
director needs to enact science-based laws in a timely
manner, with a focus on ensuring benefits for all Americans.
Not surprisingly, Koch Industries has been a primary donor to
Representative Mulvaney's campaigns and his PAC.
Regulations--Representative Mulvaney's voting record has been hostile
to regulatory efforts to improve health, safety, and consumer
protections. This is especially alarming because as OMB Director,
Representative Mulvaney will oversee the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs. Representative Mulvaney has voted to curtail
regulations regarding debit cards, medical devices, public swimming
pools, excessive executive compensation, consumer financial protection,
energy exploration, investment advisers, mortgage lenders, and so on.
House Republican budget plans--the last time House Republicans
brought a full budget resolution to the House floor, Representative
Mulvaney voted against it because it wasn't extreme enough. He
supported the Republican Study Committee, RSC, budget instead.
Provisions of the most recent version of the RSC budget include: No. 1,
a 10-year $261 billion cut to Social Security by cutting cost-of-living
adjustments, COLAs, increasing the retirement age to 70, and
``increasing means-testing''; No. 2, $662 billion in cuts to Medicare
by changing the program into a ``premium support'' model, i.e.,
``voucher-izing,'' increasing the eligibility age, and phasing in
means-testing; No. 3, $1.6 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the
Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, which would be combined into
one block grant program; No. 4, $925 billion in savings by repealing
the Affordable Care Act exchanges; and No. 5, $2.2 trillion in cuts to
undefined ``other mandatory'' spending. Notably, the budget would not
raise one dime in new revenue from the Nation's wealthiest individuals
and largest corporations.
``Nannygate''--Representative Mulvaney failed to pay FICA and Federal
and State unemployment taxes on a household employee for the years 2000
to 2004. Representative Mulvaney admitted that the nanny in question
worked full time--40 hours a week--for 4 to 5 years.
Representative Mulvaney said that he didn't believe he owed payroll
and unemployment insurance taxes on his nanny because ``she simply
helped [my wife] with the children. We considered her a babysitter.''
This is despite the fact that, as the owner of several small
businesses, he knew to pay these taxes for his other full-time
employees.
As a State Senator in South Carolina, Representative Mulvaney
sponsored the following three bills: No. 1, to prohibit candidates from
the ballot for the State legislature if they had not paid all Federal
and State income taxes over the past 10 years; No. 2, to prohibit
candidates from the ballot for State office if they had not paid all
Federal and State income taxes over the past 10 years; and No. 3, to
prohibit the governor from appointing anyone who had not paid all
Federal and State income taxes over the past 10 years.
Representative Mulvaney voted for H.R. 1563, Federal Employee Tax
Accountability Act of 2015, which authorizes ``the head of an agency to
take personnel actions against an agency employee who willfully failed
to file a required tax return or willfully understated federal tax
liability.'' It is worth noting here that Federal workers have a lower
percentage of tax noncompliance than the general public--a 3.1 percent
delinquency rate versus 8.7 percent. And Representative Mulvaney
sponsored the Spending Reduction Act of 2011, which would have made
people with ``seriously delinquent tax debts'' ineligible for Federal
employment.
Representative Mulvaney is the wrong choice to run the OMB,
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I know Mick Mulvaney. We served
together for 6 years in the House of Representatives. I have always
found him to be a straight shooter. And he was a champion of budget
transparency. I also respect him for taking on some budget fights even
when they were not popular with his Republican leadership. We worked
together to ensure honest budgeting when we joined in efforts to
prevent the use of overseas contingency operations funding as a slush
fund for unlimited Pentagon spending.
I have deep concerns, however, about many of the positions that Mr.
Mulvaney has taken over the years on matters vital to the Nation.
He has proposed radical measures that would undermine our fundamental
safety net. He has said, ``We have to end Medicare as we know it.'' And
he criticized Congressman Paul Ryan's already harsh budget because it
did not cut important programs like Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid fast enough.
Mr. Mulvaney has taken too cavalier an attitude toward the threat of
default on U.S. Government obligations. He called the need to raise the
debt ceiling a ``fabricated crisis.'' And he has repeatedly introduced
legislation to prioritize payment of obligations to bondholders--who
are often foreign--over other government obligations, including those
to our veterans--in effect paying China first. At his confirmation
hearing, he did not indicate that he has changed his view. The failure
of the U.S. Government to pay its debts would wreak havoc on the
economy.
Similarly, Mr. Mulvaney has been far too flippant about budgetary
confrontations. He was a leader of a group threatening to shut down the
government in order to defund Planned Parenthood, saying, ``If we can
do that while still funding the rest of the government, fine. If we
cannot, and there is a lapse in appropriations, so be it.'' And when
asked if the 2013 government shutdown fight over Obamacare was worth
it, he said it was.
Mr. Mulvaney has shown too great a willingness to eliminate
government functions that protect consumers or help create jobs.
Speaking of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, he said, ``I
don't like the fact that CFPB exists.'' And he referred to legislation
[[Page S1229]]
reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank as ``a piece of crap.'' Those were
his words.
At his hearing, he did not appear to have a grasp of the size of the
Federal workforce, and that it is smaller than any time during the
Reagan administration. He did not seem to realize that the share of the
population employed in the Federal Government is at the lowest point on
record, since reliable data first became available shortly before World
War II. These are fundamental facts the OMB Director should know.
Because of these concerns, I will be unable to support Mr. Mulvaney's
nomination.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is a key player
in setting the Nation's economic policy. The Director of OMB produces
the President's budget, enforces funding laws that Congress enacts, and
oversees the regulations that protect Americans' health, safety, and
environment through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
If the Senate confirms Mr. Mulvaney, I will watch with great interest
how he reconciles his past positions with his new responsibilities
representing the administration and the American people. I hope that he
will respect the hard-working Federal employees who serve our Nation.
In his new position, I do believe that his personal relationships with
Members of Congress will prove useful, and I will look for areas where
we can work together.
Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I yield back the time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time is yielded back.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Mulvaney
nomination?
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second?
The clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 68 Ex.]
YEAS--51
Alexander
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Cassidy
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Shelby
Strange
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--49
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Donnelly
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the
nomination, I move to table the motion to reconsider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table.
The motion was agreed to.
____________________