[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.

                          ____________________