Nominations of Klomp and Bai for HHS, Gadwood for IRS, De Mello for Tax Court

The committee will come to order. We meet today in executive session to consider favorably reporting the nominations of the following individuals. Gerard Chris Klump, to be Deputy Secretary of HHS. James Jim Gadwood, to be Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service. G. Bai to be Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services and Andrew DeMello to be a Judge on the US Tax Court. As is our usual process, members will have another opportunity this morning to offer their remarks on the nominees if they choose to. Members will be notified of the time and location as we conclude this hearing to conduct the vote uh uh on the nominees off the Senate floor. During last week's hearing, Mister Klump emphasized the importance of effective leadership and operational excellence at the Department of Health and Human Services, including aligning people, policy, technology, and resources around clear objectives and measurable results. I appreciated his commitment to ensuring that HHF if HHS effectively carries out its mission and empowers its talented workforce to address the pressing health challenges facing our country. Mister Gadwood discussed the important responsibility of the IRS Chief Counsel to provide taxpayers with timely guidance clear and principled legal advice and effective representation of the Internal Revenue Service. I was encouraged by his commitment to providing taxpayers with the certainty they need to comply with our tax laws while ensuring the Internal Revenue Code is administered fairly and consistently. Doctor Baye highlighted the need for rigorous evidence-based analysis to inform health policy and address the significant challenges facing our nation's health care system. I appreciated her focus on improving the value Americans receive from our health care system and her commitment to using sound research and analysis to inform policies that promote affordability, access, competition, and innovation. Mister DeMello spoke about the experience and exp and perspective he gained through his service at the IRS, including his work in the office of chief counsel and his service as acting chief counsel. He also emphasized the important role the United States Tax Court plays in providing taxpayers with an independent forum to resolve disputes. I welcomed his comment commitment to applying the law fairly and impartially, and to treating every taxpayer who appears before the court with patience, respect and even-handedness. Before closing, all nominees before the finance committee undergo significant vetting by congressional staff and each of the nominees here today, have met the committee's vigorous vetting standard. I'm voting in favor of each nominee and encourage my colleagues to do the same. And I now recogn recognize Ranking Member Wyden for his remarks.

Thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman. Today we vote on four Trump nominees who will operate at the heart of American health care and tax policy. Unfortunately, these nominees have displayed the same pattern of obstruction and misrepresentation that we have seen so often. Chris Klomp has been nominated to be the number two official at HHS. Last week I asked him to follow through on the commitment Robert Kennedy made to multiple Democrats and Republicans on this committee. Five months ago we were told that we would have a release of the details of the Trump sweetheart drug deals with Big Pharma. Since then, all we have received are excuses and misrepresentations. I laid out in writing each request I made to provide the facts to the American people. Until these details are made public, I will keep fighting to impede Mister Trump's Mister Klump's nomination. Late last week, parts of the agreement were made public through a Freedom of Information Act request. It confirmed what my investigators found. These agreements are chock full of goodies for big pharma, like fast-track approval for new drugs and tariff exemptions. What's missing from these disclosures? Any evidence, any evidence that patients and taxpayers are getting lower prices from big pharma. Financial analysts have concluded that these details are immaterial, to big pharma stock prices, which leads everybody, in my view, to a conclusion. These deals are a fraud. And Donald Trump and his accomplices are fleecing the American people while the corporate CEOs laugh all the way to the bank. During his confirmation hearing, Mister Klomp also tried to create the impression that he'll be the quote " adult in the room on vaccines". Yet as we sit here today, the vaccine chaos that we've come to expect from Robert Kennedy at HHS is continuing. Now, until yesterday, the CDC was refusing to provide access to s- COVID vaccines under the Vaccine for Children program. That's a vital program that protects millions of low-income kids. As a result, medically frail children have not been able to access vaccination, and parents have been denied the ability to make health care choices that actually work for the families of America. During his confirmation process, Robert Kennedy told the finance committee and I no fewer than thirty seven times that he would, and I quote, do nothing as HHS secretary that makes it difficult or discourages people from taking vaccines. That was a lie. A lie my Republican colleagues swallowed when they voted to confirm him. Mr. Klomp is complicit in these lies, despite the fact that he's tried very hard to convince people otherwise. My staff asked Mr. Klomp to confirm that CDC Director Schwartz would resolve this issue by the end of the week. I'm glad to hear that these vaccines are being distributed, but it shouldn't take a member of Congress or their staff intervening to get the vaccines to the people across the country who need them. fall season, I'm gonna be watching and watching closely for more games that delay or deny vaccines to those who need them. One last note on Mister Klump. At our hearing, my investigators revealed that he had manipulated his tax payments to avoid paying any tax into Social Security or Medicare in at least two of the last several years. Late last week, a federal court ruled that this tax maneuver is actually illegal. If this ruling is upheld, I expect Mister Klump as well as Secretary Besson and CMS Administrator Oz to pay back the taxes they owe to the American people. The other health care nominee the committee but will vote on this morning is G. Bai and has been working in the Trump administration while multiple reports containing false information got published. The nominee for this job is supposed to be the lead researcher for federal health c- health care and human services. But the nominee has refused in writing to acknowledge or correct the falsehoods in these reports she oversaw. This week, J. D. Van J. D. Vance, flanked by Oz and Klump, used one of those faulty reports to justify colluding with insurance companies to kick seven hundred and sixty thousand low- and middle-income Americans off their health insurance. In my view, that is one big red flag that a nominee is gonna prioritize the Trump administration's political narrative over honestly examining the realities of what Americans are experiencing with their health care. The committee is also gonna vote on the chief counsel for the IRS and a member of the tax court. These are positions of huge import, but the Trump administration's complete disregard for the law on tax matters relating to privacy and political interference is a grave concern. The IRS chief counsel nominee also works for a law firm that represents Donald Trump's private company. When my staff asked him whether he represented Trump's company, he refused to answer. I asked him at the hearing and got the same non-answer. Then I met with him in my office, still no answer. That level of secrecy and obstruction at a time when the IRS is trying to give the president a corrupt immunity deal, is in my view a whopping conflict of interest that should be disqualifying for him for a position of such import. as the IRS chief counsel. Neither of these nominees, mister Chairman, have convinced me that they'll follow the law ahead of orders handed down by Donald Trump, Scott Besant, or Frank Bisignano. Americans expect those who administer the tax code to be fair and impartial, and the current administration fails and fails utterly to meet those expectations. For that reason, I'm going to vote no on each of these nominations I urge my colleagues strongly to do the same and I yield back to you.

Thank you, Senator Wyden, and before I go on with the concluding uh business that we have, uh I just feel I do need to response respond with regard to the the uh allegations that have been made w with regard to mister Klump. Uh, I think it's very important to remember what I said in my opening statement, that is that every nominee before this committee goes through a very very thorough vetting process. Mister Klump did the same. He provided every document requested. He responded to every question raised. And the fact is that the allegation that he has manipulated his taxes or done something inappropriate is not justifiable and I don't believe that his sterling character should be uh questioned in that regard. He made a super-super decision on the um the The issue at stake here is the one, suit of as Senator Wyden has indicated, the claim he made about back to Brazil. that there is a disagreement in the law right now about what law is what the law requires and it is under litigation i can show you the social media tax

uh-huh

cases are looking at it in both directions that's klump he did have the taxes mister uh klump has indicated that once this matter is fully worked through the courts a matter of a year if it requires that he treat his taxes any differently than others have and other nominees in this committee have yes

mmm

then he will amend his tax returns but i think it's very clear that we make the record clear that he went through it thorough vetting that he followed the law that many others have followed, the issue is being litigated, if the issue is resolved in another in a different manner, then he will amend his tax returns. But I I think the allegations against his character are not justified.

Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about this, and normally we don't continue a discussion like this. But to me, if you're gonna run an agency like this, you ought to be setting an example. You oughta set an example for the American people that you're gonna live by the same kind of rules that everybody else does rather than look for a loot loophole. So I understand that there are discussions about legal issues and various proceedings are not we often debated but I think in this case, you want, and I said this with respect to the other individuals who were involved in it, you want these people actually leading the American people. One of the things the American people

We will. I just wanna make it clear that this is not a loophole issue. This is not a manner of trying to get around tax policy. It is following an established approach to tax policy that now is being challenged. And he's indicated he'll follow whatever the courts say will be done. But I think Americans want people want themselves to be able to follow the tax law and not be accused of uh uh seeking loopholes or anything like that. That's my point. I I just I don't agree with trying to uh under undermine the character of a person because they are following a established procedure that is followed by many others and has been followed by other nominees passed through this committee in terms of the interpretation of the tax code.

To the people, Mr. Chairman, the people who passed through this committee and did this, I blew the whistle on them as well and I'll continue to do it, because it's part of a bipartisan effort I've had over the years in tax policy. As you know, I've worked with a number of your colleagues to do it. I make sure that in every way possible, we're not setting an example, that there are one set of rules that are pretty cozy for people at the top and another for everybody else and uh I look forward to continuing the discussion.

Well, I'll just say we do have a disagreement. I disagree with your characterization, and I just want the record to show to show that. With that, I see that there are no other senators here who wish to make an opening statement. So procedurally, unless there's an objection, the committee will recess and we will convene on the floor at ten forty five, which is when the next vote will be called, to begin the vote on the nomination off the Senate floor. Without objection, that

Let me just make sure, because I think we're making a change that I want all of our colleagues, wasn't it one forty five and now you wanna make it ten forty five? Ten forty five.

I think it was ten forty five.

Oh alright, great.

Yes. So we will be we will be meeting at the floor at ten forty five and and members will be notified

Ten forty ten forty five it is.

uh to that effect. Without objection it is so ordered, and with that the committee stands in recess.