Schumer Floor Remarks on the Upcoming Vote to Confirm Rep. Mick Mulvaney for Director of OMB

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer today delivered remarks on the Senate floor outlining his concerns over confirming Representative Mick Mulvaney to the Office of Management and Budget. Below are his remarks:

Mr. President, I’ll have more to say later today on the circumstances surrounding Gen. Michael Flynn’s resignation as National Security Advisor, but this morning I rise to speak about the nominee on the floor, Rep. Mulvaney to be Director of OMB.

Each nominee that comes before this body seems to be another indication of a Cabinet whose ideology is so far removed from the American mainstream and whose ethical conduct is more questionable than any other in our nation’s history.

Rep. Mulvaney is a walking demonstration of both shortcomings in this cabinet.

First, on his views, which are way out of touch with average Americans

Rep. Mulvaney has been a consistent, ideological warrior against crucial social safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare.

He’s said it as plain as day, “We have to end Medicare as we know it…Medicare as it exists today is finished.”

That’s from his mouth—and President Trump appoints this man to be head of OMB, one of the most powerful agencies in the government.

Not only has he advocated for cutting benefits, he wants to jack up the retirement age for Medicare to 67…and for Social Security, he wants to raise it to 70.           

Mr. President, after the confirmation of Rep. Price to lead HHS last week – the confirmation of Rep. Mulvaney will be the launch of week two of the Republican war on seniors.

Mr. President, let’s be clear: these are fringe positions that are way out of touch with how most Americans feel about these programs.

And just some proof, when our Republican colleagues go back home to campaign, not one of them says that they want to raise the age to 70. I don't see Republican ads saying that. They say they're going to protect Medicare. Well, where are they now? You can't go home and campaign one way and then vote for Rep. Mulvaney who wants to do the opposite and hurt our seniors, a war on seniors.

Literally tens of millions of Americans rely on these programs and don’t want to see their benefits cut. Millions more are on the cusp of retirement and know that it’s deeply unfair to move the goalposts on qualifying for these programs -- changing the rules in the middle of the game. To hurt those who have spent their whole lives working and are now looking forward to receiving Social Security and Medicare.

That’s not what most Americans voted for, whether they pulled the lever for Sec. Clinton or Mr. Trump.

Candidate Trump promised that he was “not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.”

But then he turns around and nominates a man for the OMB who has relentlessly argued the opposite. He nominates a Secretary of Health and Human Services who has also argued that. So if people think that Donald Trump is going to be a defender, I saw the AARP ads, I'd like those ads to mention the nominations of Reps. Mulvaney and of Price. If people think that President Trump is going to be a defender of Social Security and Medicare, these nominees seem to indicate a far different approach.

Candidate Trump didn’t run as a far-right conservative; he ran as a populist, against both establishments. But both Rep. Mulvaney and Price were plucked out of the conservative wing of a very conservative House caucus and will be placed in charge of the budget of the United States and every American’s health care -- where they can effectively wage the war on seniors they’ve been plotting throughout their careers.

And unfortunately, both the OMB Director and the Secretary of HHS have hundreds of ways that don't go through the Congress of undercutting Medicare and Social Security—Medicaid  in particular. They can undercut them in a whole variety of different ways, and given their ideology and given their career, that's just what they will do.

Mr. President, the nominations of these two men are exhibits A and B that President Trump plans to run his Administration from the hard-right rather than follow through on the populist rhetoric that defined his campaign—and frankly is what elected him.

If he had run on the campaign views of his nominees, especially these two, he might have gotten 100 electoral votes.

Second, on ethics.

Again this cabinet is not only challenged on their views so far away from what the average American believes, but it is the most unethical cabinet that I have ever seen nominated, at least in my lifetime.

Rep. Mulvaney is unfortunately another example of a cabinet that is far too compromised by potential conflicts of interest and other ethics challenges.

It has been disclosed that Rep. Mulvaney neglected to pay $15,000 in taxes on a household employee. A similar revelation sunk the nomination of a former member and leader in this body, Sen. Tom Daschle.

Senator Daschle was attacked by the Republican side on this issue relentlessly. He withdrew his nomination.

Unlike Sen. Daschle, Rep. Mulvaney has not withdrawn his nomination and we haven’t heard a peep out of the Republican side—on the same very similar transgression that was disqualifying at least to our Republicans for Representative Daschle. Nor has the nominee for the Secretary of Labor withdrawn his nomination. He has a similar situation. The fact that the Republican majority is proceeding on both of their nominations is a dangerous abandonment of public ethics.