Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this week our majority leader is asking the Senate to vote on the nomination of Michael Pack to serve as Chief Executive of the U.S. Agency for Global Media.

Mr. Pack's nomination should trouble all of us in this Chamber. It raises the question of whether the U.S. Senate is committed to being the check and balance on the qualifications of those potentially vested with substantial responsibility into positions in our executive branch.

His nomination draws into question the challenge we have, the responsibility we have to ensure that only individuals of talent, experience, and of integrity serve America in the executive branch. Hamilton commented on this in the Federalist Papers. He said:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of [the Senate's] concurrence would have a powerful though, in general, silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon the spirit of favoritism in the President, and tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters.

Those words should resonate in this Chamber now. The individual who will come before us, Michael Pack, set up a nonprofit called Public Media Lab, or PML, apparently for the sole purpose to channel contracts to his for-profit operation known as Manifold Productions. Over a period exceeding a decade, he channeled $4 million from the nonprofit to the for-profit. Not a single contract went anywhere else--no other contracts.

Utilizing a nonprofit to launder for-profit contracts, in the process of which providing tax subsidies to your customers and advantage over your competitors, raises both ethical and legal issues. The legal issues, including potential criminal conduct, have not been resolved. Mr. Pack is, at this moment, under investigation by the attorney general of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Pack, in tax filings to the IRS in 2011 through 2018, did not accurately disclose a relationship between his nonprofit and his for- profit. When he was asked if, in fact, there were common officers between the two, he answered no when the answer was clearly yes. He did not disclose that his for-profit benefited from the setup of the nonprofit.

Mr. Pack did admit to the Committee on Foreign Relations that he made oversights; that is the term he used--``oversights.'' But he has refused to correct his tax filings.

Mr. Pack, when he was renominated in 2020, inaccurately stated in the records to the committee that his tax returns were complete and accurate. He has refused to provide critical documents to the committee and, in that sense, to the Senate to examine these significant issues. He has refused to provide the agreements between PML and Manifold, his nonprofit and his for-profit, to examine the propriety of the relationship. He has said simply that those documents are confidential and proprietary.

But we should realize that serving in the executive branch is a privilege. We asked for information so that we can exercise our constitutional responsibility. When an individual confronted with substantial ethical and legal issues simply says ``I will not provide them'' and if the Senate committee says ``That is OK,'' then we are failing in our constitutional responsibility to examine the qualifications of the individual. This is no light responsibility we bear in this Chamber. This is a very significant check and balance of the U.S. Constitution, which each and every one of us swore to uphold when we took our oath of office.

Mr. Pack, when he was president of the Claremont Institute, directed significant funds to his for-profit company for fundraising. His company is not a fundraising company; his company is a film company. So we have asked him to provide the details and documents related to that work to see if there was an inappropriate transfer of funds from a position of responsibility to the personal profit of Michael Pack. But Mr. Pack has refused to provide details. He has refused to provide documents related to that work.

In addition, he prematurely resigned from his role at the Claremont Institute, and it is shrouded in mystery. We do not know if the board found ethical issues. We do not know if they found criminal conduct because he has not responded to our request for documents related to his premature resignation.

Given the gravity of these issues, it makes sense, when he was renominated, that he would reappear before the committee to help clear up these concerns and these issues. Well, we have not had such a hearing.

To summarize, when an individual makes false statements to the IRS and refuses to correct them, when they make false statements to the committee, not in the first time before the committee but the second time before the committee, when they refuse to provide relevant documents to provide significant issues of ethical conduct or potential criminal conduct, when there is an active investigation into that potentially criminal conduct, then we should simply say to the President: Send us a different name.

This man may be well qualified, but he does not wish to provide the information necessary for the Senate to do its responsibility as a check and balance on potentially unfit individuals. To exercise advice and consent in accordance with responsibilities charged to us, we must insist on upholding the standards for records and documents and truthfulness to the committee. We must insist that outstanding investigations be completed when they involve potentially criminal conduct. We must insist that verifiably false statements be corrected. These are not high or exceptional standards; these are fundamental, basic, elementary responsibilities that we carry.

That is why I have written a resolution declaring that the Senate should not vote on a nominee who has made verifiably false statements to Congress or the executive branch and who refuses to correct those statements. Until those statements to both the Foreign Relations Committee and to the IRS are corrected, Michael Pack's nomination should be set aside. We should simply tell the President and exercise our responsibility, for which we have taken an oath of office, to send us someone else. This individual is not prepared to provide the information necessary for the Senate to proceed with his nomination. That is what we should be saying, and we should still be saying it at this late date. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing by supporting this resolution Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. Res. 604, which was submitted earlier today. I further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source