[Pages S389-S391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Scott Bessent

  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.

[[Page S390]]

  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.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of the confirmation of Mr. Scott Bessent, who has been 
nominated to serve as Secretary of the Treasury.
  Over the weekend, the Senate voted with broad bipartisan support to 
advance Mr. Bessent's nomination. In fact, 15 of my Democrat colleagues 
joined Republicans in advancing Mr. Bessent's nomination.
  Despite Mr. Bessent's prolific experience and qualifications, which 
cannot be disputed, a few detractors frame their policy preferences--
and I emphasize ``policy preferences''--as if they are compliance 
issues with regard to his taxes.
  Let me be clear: Mr. Bessent followed all applicable law and met the 
Finance Committee's longstanding and rigorous diligence standard. The 
Finance Committee has the most rigorous standards for vetting nominees 
of any committee in this Congress, including looking at their past tax 
returns and having tax experts come in and evaluate their tax returns 
with us.
  His diligence matched that which has applied to nominees in previous 
administrations. Contrary to what you heard, he provided extensive 
supporting material for all of the attacks on him, including more than 
3,000 pages' worth. And he and his staff spent countless hours with 
Republican and Democrat Senate Finance Committee members and staff 
going over all of these allegations and all of these claimed failures 
to pay taxes.
  He has gone further by not only divesting all of his business ties, 
which is no small task, but by publicly committing that if there is any 
change in the law in the future on these policy arguments, that he 
would comply with those changes in the law.
  But let me state this again as clearly as it can be said: Scott 
Bessent paid his taxes. I have heard it said twice on this floor that 
he did not pay his taxes. Experts have gone over his tax returns, and 
he has complied with standard, prevailing interpretations of the Tax 
Code every time.
  The issue here is that the IRS wants to change the interpretation of 
the Tax Code. But the IRS doesn't get to decide what our Tax Code says; 
Congress does. And Congress has not made the changes that the IRS wants 
to see.
  Even in the face of that, arguing that he should have done what the 
IRS wanted him to do--in fact, they didn't even say they wanted him to 
do it; they said it to other taxpayers, and other taxpayers have taken 
the IRS to court over this issue--but Mr. Bessent has said if the IRS 
prevails and changes the Tax Code, the interpretation of the Tax Code, 
he will comply.
  But the argument that he has not complied with longstanding tax 
policy and interpretation is false. I don't know anybody who can go 
through a more rigorous standard than what we put him through in the 
Finance Committee.
  As for the nominee, Mr. Bessent has worked for the last three decades 
as one of the sharpest minds in the global finance industry. He has 
decades of academic, professional, and leadership experience relevant 
to the position of Treasury Secretary. His performance at the committee 
was stellar. His background and training are tailor-made for this role. 
And he has the demeanor and character to be an effective Secretary.
  Mr. Bessent is committed to restoring the prosperity and opportunity 
experienced under President Trump's leadership. This includes ensuring 
that we avert an over $4-trillion tax hike on the American people if 
the Trump tax cuts are allowed to expire, which he rightly described at 
his nomination hearing as a pass-fail exercise. There should be no 
question that we will extend these tax cuts.
  I have also heard it argued on this floor here today that this is 
just a tax cut for rich billionaires. The reality is that the vast 
majority of it--the vast majority--of this tax cut goes to everyday 
people, to people making less than $400,000 a year. And the $400,000 is 
computed by $200,000 per individual so a married couple could equal the 
$400,000 level. The vast majority of those tax cuts, however, go to 
people in the lower- and middle-income tax brackets. The tax cuts that 
we are talking about gave tax cuts to every single solitary income 
cohort in the Tax Code and the greatest tax cuts went to those in the 
lower- and middle-income categories.
  It would be terrible if we did not extend these tax cuts. Yet Mr. 
Bessent is attacked for saying he supports extending these tax cuts. It 
doesn't make sense.
  I look forward to working closely with him to make sure that we 
extend the policies that benefited Americans of every income bracket 
and enabled families and businesses to get ahead.
  I should also say that under this tax policy, when it was passed, the 
richest in America paid a greater percentage of the overall tax burden 
than they had before.
  Yet he is attacked for wanting to extend these tax cuts that will 
hammer every single tax-paying American if they are allowed to expire. 
If qualifications--and I might add, character--are one of the tests for 
supporting a nominee, voting to confirm Mr. Bessent is one of the 
easiest that we could take.

  In previous Congresses, many of my Republican colleagues and I have 
voted for candidates we considered to be qualified to serve as Treasury 
Secretary, even when they were nominated by Democratic Presidents and 
we disagreed with many of their policy positions. Mr. Bessent's 
candidacy ought to enjoy similar bipartisan support.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join with me 
in confirming his nomination. He is the right person for this job, and 
I commend President Trump in making such an excellent selection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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

[[Page S391]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for just 15 seconds.
  I am going to state again, Mr. Bessent went through the most rigorous 
evaluation of his tax returns that anybody in America has ever faced. 
He passed the entire test every time. He has paid the taxes he has owed 
under the U.S. Government's Tax Code.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to complete my brief remarks before the vote that is scheduled tonight.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.