-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senate will vote shortly on the nomination of Scott Bessent for Treasury Secretary. I urge opposition to this nomination. Here is why. First off, nearly a million dollars in unpaid Medicare taxes. For the vast majority of Americans, paying Medicare taxes is automatic. They come straight out of every paycheck. Not so for individuals like Mr. Bessent. Those at the very top who operate under a different set of tax rules operate a different way.

Mr. Bessent comes from Wall Street. To opt out of paying his fair share into Medicare, he follows a tax dodge that is common among ultrawealthy hedge fund managers. They spend top dollar to get the best tax lawyers and accountants. They mash together loopholes and twist the law until--poof--Medicare taxes just disappear.

Mr. Bessent has avoided paying almost a million dollars in the 3 years of tax returns the Finance Committee has reviewed. There could be a lot more in other years.

Now the Treasury Department says what Mr. Bessent is doing is a violation of the law. The IRS has gone to court twice to close this loophole. It won both times.

We raised this with Mr. Bessent and urged him to pay what he owes. He said no. He is just going to wait out the appeals process, running down the clock in the hopes he doesn't have to pay.

So if Mr. Bessent is confirmed, the day that he is sworn in, the Treasury Secretary will be in violation of Treasury policy. Let me repeat that. If Mr. Bessent is confirmed, the day that he is sworn in, we will have a Treasury Secretary who is in violation of Treasury policy. It is an absurd double standard to maintain for the benefit of one individual with immense power. It also raises the question, Is he going to change Treasury's position on this issue, enriching himself and other Wall Street billionaires, or will the Treasury and the IRS continue to enforce its policy for all the taxpayers of this country except the sitting Treasury Secretary?

This was not the only tax issue identified in his returns. There were questionable losses from side businesses and a questionable debt writeoff.

We asked for documentation to prove that Mr. Bessent was following the law and paying what he owed. He didn't provide that either.

The reality is, what Mr. Bessent owes in Medicare taxes is a trivial amount compared to someone with his wealth. He could do the right thing and pay. He wouldn't even notice it.

It is routine for nominees that come through the Finance Committee to have to resolve the tax issues we spot in the vetting process. Mr. Bessent has refused that as well.

The second issue with the nomination: I have seen a number of nominees, and I can't recall meeting one in my time on the committee who was more unprepared. He struggled to answer basic tax policy questions in one-on-one meetings and in his committee hearing. For example, I asked him a simple policy question: Should wages be treated differently than wealth? This is a central question in the debate about taxes. When Senators talk about the unfairness of the tax system, this issue I asked him about is the center of the debate. It is a question of whether the ultrawealthy should get a better deal than the people who work for a living. Mr. Bessent fumbled, and after a bit, he basically just said: That is the way it is.

Senator Hassan asked the nominee about another important issue: research and development incentives--matters that both sides care about. I know the President of the Senate and I have talked about that research and development issue many times.

Senator Bennet asked about the unfairness of making cuts that will hurt working families and raise the cost of living, while Donald Trump is also running up deficits with the big tax breaks for the people at the top. Again, Mr. Bessent had no answer.

Senator Warnock and Senator Warren asked about the wastefulness of giving tax breaks to individuals with incomes over a million dollars, a billion dollars, 10 billion dollars. Mr. Bessent dodged.

Senator Lujan actually asked about Trump cutting Medicaid. It wasn't clear whether Mr. Bessent knew what Medicaid was.

Now, nobody expects nominees to be walking encyclopedias on every possible question under the Sun, but Mr. Bessent's performance was, in my view--having watching a number of nominees, a new low when it comes to basic policy issues that are going to be at the center of the debate and the center of his job if confirmed.

Even worse, I asked Mr. Bessent a simple question about the Trump tariffs: Who is going to pay them, I asked. Americans or foreigners?

Mr. Bessent responded with a convoluted academic answer that covered for Trump, who routinely distorts this issue and has routinely said falsely--Donald Trump says: Foreigners are going to pay--not people in Alabama, not people in Oregon, not people in America. And it is just untrue.

We are 1 week into Trump's second term, and already he is gunning for a trade war. That is going to clobber American consumers and small businesses, including a lot of farmers and ranchers.

If anybody out there was looking for evidence that Mr. Bessent would be a check on Donald Trump's worst instincts on tariffs and other economic policies, it is sure not looking good.

The third reason why I oppose this nomination is he is already ignoring congressional oversight.

I'll walk through the background on this. During the Presidential campaign, a longtime Trump adviser named Boris Epshteyn ran a quid pro quo scheme. He approached people who wanted Cabinet appointments, and he said he would push Trump to nominate them in exchange for payments adding up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Bessent apparently was among the people that Donald Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn spoke to, according to numerous news reports.

When the Finance Committee read about this scheme, it was clear we needed more information. We sent the Trump transition letters with a few key questions. We got no response.

I asked Mr. Bessent about it in our one-on-one meeting. He confirmed that Mr. Epshteyn spoke with him about payments for ``public relations''--a sleazy way for somebody in Trump's inner circle to pitch an obvious quid pro quo.

Mr. Bessent's story then changed in response to a written question. His new answer was that nobody ever asked him about payments in exchange for an appointment. And even though the committee knows there was an internal investigation into Epshteyn's conduct, Mr. Bessent still won't reveal who else in Trump's orbit he talked to about it.

So my point in bringing up this issue--because we have now heard a response to the question three different ways--is it has never been more important for the Senate to stand up and fight for congressional oversight.

Late on Friday night, a couple of nights ago, Donald Trump fired 17 inspectors general, the independent watchdogs that we rely on--that every Senator relies on, every Democrat, every Republican--to identify and combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the executive branch.

The Treasury Inspector General was reportedly one of the 17. Let that sink in. Here we are trying to get answers with respect to an individual nominated to be head of the Treasury Department and the Treasury Inspector General was reportedly one of the 17 who was just fired.

The midnight massacre, in my view, was obviously an illegal act by the Trump administration. My hope is--and I believe--the court will strike this down immediately.

Regardless of what happens next, it is obvious that the Trump administration wants to eliminate those people who are going to stand in the way of corruption and call it out.

As a major donor and Cabinet nominee, Mr. Bessent is volunteering to walk right into this culture of corruption that defines Trump and his administration. For him to be shirking oversight by Congress before he is even confirmed is just unacceptable.

Madam President, these are the reasons that I oppose this nomination.

Just picture what it is like to say to the people of Alabama, to the people of Oregon, all over the country--my colleague Senator Crapo--the rules don't apply to the Treasury nominee. They just don't. You the pay your Medicare taxes if you are everybody else--if you are a firefighter, a nurse or a teacher--but not if you are the new Treasury appointee who is violating rules that the Treasury Department has said he is violating.

Mr. Bessent has cheated on his taxes, according to Treasury policy. It would be a huge double standard, a major conflict of interest if he is confirmed and he can maintain his position that he doesn't have to pay Medicare taxes like everybody else in America. I already made the point that he was deeply unprepared on many of the big questions.

I will tell my colleagues, I don't even get the view that he did prep 101, which is to go out and talk to Senators about issues. He would have heard from Mr. Lujan that Mr. Lujan was going to be interested in matters like Medicaid. That kind of prep is the easiest part of the nomination process.

Mr. Bessent has already shown that he has little respect for congressional oversight. I think that this nomination is badly flawed. I hope that the Senate won't accept it.

I have been through a number of those flaws, starting with violating the policy requiring you to pay your Medicare taxes. This nomination is, in my view, an exhibit of what you shouldn't do before you come before the floor of the U.S. Senate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I often worked with Senator Crapo in a positive way, and I know we are going to do that in the future.

I want to make sure there is no confusion with respect to this Medicare tax issue. We had a number of nominees over the years who have actually dropped out, and they have owed less money than, in effect, Mr. Bessent would if he complied with Treasury rules.

If he is confirmed, on the day he is sworn in, he will be in violation of Treasury policy, and we will have established another double standard in the tax area that sends a message that if you are powerful, if you have accountants, if you have lawyers, you can basically figure out a way to not pay what you would pay if you were a firefighter or a teacher. I think that double standard is regrettable.

I continue to urge opposition to the nominee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source