[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 104 (Thursday, June 4, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2713-S2714]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Michael Pack

  Madam President, the Senate nears a vote on the nomination of Michael

[[Page S2714]]

Pack to head up the U.S. Agency for Global Media. This typically is a 
job that doesn't get a whole lot of attention here on the Senate floor, 
but this time, I believe it should.
  This is yet another Trump nominee who appears to be covering up a 
whole array of sketchy financial wheeling and self-dealing, and 
apparently my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are just 
looking the other way, not interested.
  So here is the short version of the story. For more than a decade, 
Mr. Pack ran two entities--a nonprofit film organization and a for-
profit production company. His nonprofit raised millions of dollars 
under its tax-exempt status, and it pumped that money into his for-
profit production company, nowhere else. At a minimum, this looks to me 
like a serious, flagrant abuse of a taxpayer subsidy. Mr. Pack made 
false statements about this arrangement to the IRS. So as the ranking 
Democrat on the Finance Committee, I care greatly about that matter if 
one were to look at nothing else.
  When he was first nominated in the previous Congress, Mr. Pack got 
caught in these false statements by staff on the Foreign Relations 
Committee. When he was renominated in this Congress and submitted new 
paperwork, he made false statements about having made false statements. 
Truly astounding.
  Now there are a host of unanswered questions about Mr. Pack's murky 
financial dealings. Fortunately, Ranking Member Menendez is still 
trying to get to the bottom of this. Now, Ranking Member Menendez is 
doing his job by the book. He is doing his job. He has been in 
communication with the administration when it comes to the vetting 
process for the nominees and, every step along the way, has tried to do 
responsible vetting.
  Furthermore, the financial web of Mr. Pack is under investigation by 
the Attorney General of the District of Columbia. Why not wait to get 
the results of that investigation? Why rush to confirm a nominee before 
all the facts are before the Senate? This is a question over whether a 
nominee broke the law and ripped off taxpayers.
  When Democrats on the Senate committee of jurisdiction tried to 
investigate it, Mr. Pack told everybody to just go pound sand. So once 
again, we have a Trump nominee making a mockery of the Senate 
constitutional responsibility, and as far as I can tell, the Senate is 
just going to do nothing about it.
  (Mr. YOUNG assumed the Chair.)
  For my last few minutes, I just want to remind colleagues of the way 
things used to be. The way it used to be is both sides of the Senate 
took advice and consent seriously. For example, in 2009, Chairman 
Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley held up one nominee and wrote an 
exhaustive 12-page memo over a matter of $53 in local tax late fees and 
some sloppy paperwork. Another 2009 nomination, Ron Kirk, to be the 
U.S. Trade Representative, was held up for months over a tax matter 
involving some basketball tickets and a television he donated to his 
local YMCA. In 2010, another nominee was grilled in his hearing before 
the Finance Committee over a tax debt of $800.
  Senators on both sides of the aisle--both sides of the aisle--always 
tried to do a thorough vetting and tried to work on it together. In all 
three of these cases, which I remember as a member of the Finance 
Committee, the nominees answered the Senate's questions, paid what they 
owed, and that was that. The Senate did its job, and it was the right 
thing to do.
  I think as we move to the vote here in the Senate, we ought to start 
talking about one question, and that is this: What has changed in the 
Senate about the vetting process of these nominees? What happened to 
the old bipartisan commitment to advise and consent, to fully vet 
nominees? The majority has just rubberstamped and rubberstamped and 
rubberstamped some more. Trump nominees show a blatant disregard and 
disdain for the oversight process that historically has been central to 
the bipartisan work of this body.
  Now the President might be totally indifferent to the role and duties 
of the Senate, but I don't see any reason why Senators here, Democrats 
or Republicans, have to agree with that. It undermines the role of this 
Senate and the Congress as a coequal branch of government. The 
precedent of a bipartisan vetting process simply cannot withstand it.
  It has been said here before that the Federal Government doesn't need 
anybody so badly that the person should get a special set of rules. 
That, regrettably, is the way it seems to be for this nominee--a 
nominee whose finances are currently under investigation and, 
apparently, with the majority's support, is going to get confirmed 
because the majority has decided to essentially set aside years and 
years of bipartisan work, responsible work, to thoroughly investigate 
and vet those who are nominated to serve in our government.
  I am going to oppose this nomination, and I hope my colleagues will 
think about what is really at issue here, because what goes around 
comes around. Is the Senate going to get serious about the way matters 
used to be handled, particularly on the Senate Finance Committee, since 
we have a member of our committee in the Presiding Officer's chair? The 
Senate Finance Committee did it right, did it right for years, by the 
books, in a bipartisan fashion. That is not being used here; in fact, 
it is being tossed out the window. I think the Senate is going to 
regret it. I urge my colleagues to oppose the nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  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. GARDNER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I would like 3 minutes to close the debate 
on Michael Pack.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.