[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14084-14085]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY BOARD NOMINEES

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on three 
nominees to positions on the Social Security Advisory Board. Two of 
these nominees--Alan Cohen and Lanhee Chen--are well suited for these 
positions, and that being the case I totally support their nominations.
  However, I plan to vote against the remaining nominee, Dr. Henry 
Aaron, whom the President ultimately intends to serve as chairman of 
the board. I wish to take a few minutes today to explain why I have 
reached this decision.
  Over the past decade or so, Dr. Aaron has spent most of his time and 
efforts focusing on health care issues and advocacy. Indeed, the vast 
majority of writings he offered in support of his nomination dealt with 
health care, not Social Security.
  When the Finance Committee considered his nomination, I specifically 
asked Dr. Aaron if he had performed any Social Security analysis over 
the past decade. He could not produce anything substantive along these 
lines.
  There is nothing wrong with focusing one's energies on health care 
instead of analyzing Social Security policy. However, given the 
specific focus of the Social Security Advisory Board, I am concerned 
about the extent to which Dr. Aaron has considered Social Security 
issues and analytical advances in the field over the past decade or 
more. It appears to me that Dr. Aaron's interests and skill set make 
him better suited for a position in the health care arena rather than 
advising on the current state of Social Security.
  Dr. Aaron has written about Social Security more extensively in the 
past, but his conclusions were predominantly normative. His most recent 
Social Security writings too often imply that anyone disagreeing with 
his conclusions is dead wrong and likely has adverse motives.
  In fact, this is a trend that pervades all of Dr. Aaron's writings. 
Far too often, in addition to reaching conclusions and making 
recommendations, Dr. Aaron finds it necessary to condemn potential 
critics, usually along partisan lines. Of course, I am not one to vote 
against a nominee simply because I disagree with their policy 
prescriptions or their analytical techniques. I generally believe in 
giving reasonable deference to the President on nominations, 
particularly those involving positions designed to provide advice to 
the President and his administration.
  The Social Security Advisory Board, however, is set up to provide 
bipartisan advice on Social Security issues to Congress and the Social 
Security Commissioner, as well as the President. Given all of the 
challenges facing Social Security, this type of advice is crucial. The 
board chair must be able to work toward gathering bipartisan consensus 
and avoid turning the Social Security Advisory Board into another 
platform for political division and partisan rhetoric. Therefore, it is 
necessary to consider Dr. Aaron's nomination from the perspective of 
bipartisanship.
  As I said, a nominee for board chair must demonstrate an ability to 
promote and garner bipartisan consensus. Unfortunately, the evidence 
does not convince me that Dr. Aaron would be able to set aside his 
partisan views and manage the board in a bipartisan fashion that aims 
at consensus in both analysis and conclusions.
  Throughout much of his writings, Dr. Aaron has, far more often than 
not, opted for partisanship over sound policy. This not only makes me 
question his ability to be bipartisan, it also leads me to question his 
judgment on policy issues.
  For example, he has recently advocated that the President disregard 
the Constitution and ignore the statutory limit on Federal debt. He has 
praised the President for ignoring the law by unilaterally deciding not 
to enforce provisions of the Affordable Care Act, identifying the 
administration's failure to enforce the law written by Congress and 
signed by the President himself as an act that, to quote Dr. Aaron, 
``adroitly performs political jiu jitsu on ObamaCare opponents.''
  He has written that the Independent Payment Advisory Board--the 
IPAB--an agency with virtually unchecked power to ration Medicare 
spending, should be given even broader authority.
  He has scolded States that have, fully within their rights, decided 
against expanding Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act rollout. 
Dr. Aaron used particularly vitriolic words to describe State officials 
who opted not to expand Medicaid, saying: ``Officials in many states 
have adopted a stance reminiscent of massive resistance, the South's 
futile effort to block implementation of the Supreme Court's decision 
banning school segregation.''
  When I asked Dr. Aaron a question at his confirmation hearing about 
the caustic nature of some of his comments, he alluded to writings for 
newspapers and op-eds as avenues in which

[[Page 14085]]

inclusion of politically charged rhetoric is the ``coin of the realm.''
  That may very well be the case, but that doesn't mean there is a 
place for it on the Social Security Advisory Board. I have serious 
concern about Dr. Aaron's ability to keep such rhetoric in check as he 
chairs the board that is by statute intended to exhibit impartiality.
  Once again, our Social Security system faces a number of fiscal and 
structural changes and challenges. If we are going to address these 
challenges, we need serious discussions that will lead to serious 
solutions, not more partisanship.
  Dr. Aaron has not convinced me that he is the one to help lead these 
types of discussions. For these reasons I intend to vote against this 
confirmation.
  Mr. President, 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. CRUZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cruz pertaining to the introduction of S. 2779 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CRUZ. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

                          ____________________