Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do I have 5 minutes?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since 1963, the month of May has helped the nation focus on the contributions and achievements of America's older citizens. Fewer people over the age of 65 require nursing home care and more are living on their own, with little or no outside help. Older Americans increasingly redefine modern maturity, re-shape cultural boundaries and dispel age-related stereotypes associated with getting older. They are leaders in our families, in our workplaces and in our communities. One of these leaders is a 76-year-old man from Mechanicsville, IA. John Sauer understands the value of helping others. Through his initiative, compassion and commitment, he has touched the lives of many in his community. Mr. Sauer began volunteering with the local seniors group in 1992. At that time, he responded to a request from a friend to help out with the group for a short time. Today, not only does he continue to volunteer in Cedar County, but he also serves seniors in six other counties as chairman of the advisory council of the Heritage Area Agency on Aging. Although Mr. Sauer has always been active in the community service, he took on many of his current activities after he retired from farming in 1994. At that time, Mr. Sauer became increasingly involved with county senior citizens groups. He joined the transportation board of the Cedar County Senior Citizens task force and began providing transportation for older people in his area who were unable to drive. Two or three times a week, Mr. Sauer drives seniors to and from doctor and hospital visits in Cedar Rapids and Iowa City, both 25 miles away from Mechanicsville. The service Mr. Sauer provides is invaluable to those people who otherwise would have no way to make those important visits. Mr. Sauer is also committed to serving the visually impaired. For 37 years, Mr. Sauer has been an active member of Lions Club International, a service organization recognized for their help to the blind and visually impaired. In 1994, Mr. Sauer became an Iowa district director for the organization. In that position, he traveled around the United States and Canada representing the state at various meetings and events for the service club. In addition, Mr. Sauer has volunteered in the Opthamology Department at the University of Iowa Hospitals for the past 4 years. He greets people from across the Midwest who come to the hospital for care and guides them to their appointments. Mr. Sauer says he enjoys volunteering at the hospital because he likes meeting new people from various locations. Mr. Sauer also enjoys learning new things. Three years ago, he became a member of the Eastern Iowa Mutual Insurance Board. Although his background was not in insurance, Mr. Sauer accepted the challenge of serving on the board and has enjoyed learning about the industry. He's also been active in the local schools, serving as a member of the school board and most recently on the school foundation. In addition, Mr. Sauer is an active member in his church and in the American Legion. A devoted family man, Mr. Sauer has been married to his wife Kathleen for 51 years. The couple has three children and five grandchildren. I want to thank Mr. Sauer for his contributions to the people of Cedar County. His initiative and compassionate concern for others is an example to us all that we should always be willing to contribute, no matter what our age.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. No.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for asking the question. I hope I can answer it. Remember, I have tried to conduct the work of the Finance Committee in a very transparent way and with open communication with everybody. So there will not be anything about this conference committee, except the specific negotiations, that will be kept from anybody. Last night there were some--well, yesterday over the course of the afternoon and evening there were three informal meetings, and they are going to continue this morning, probably in just a few minutes. There have not been any decisions made yet, but the normal give and take that has to be done before settling down to serious negotiation is done and out of the way. What I can best inform you about is that at the trail end of our visiting yesterday the Speaker of the House came to our meeting and he informed all conferees that he had instructed the House of Representatives that they would stay in session into the weekend until this conference report was adopted. That does not mean we have to be in on the weekend. There has to be a realization that there has to be a slot of give and take. There is good spirit about the conference at this point, and we will just have to work our way through it. That is all I can tell the Senator. I will be glad to keep him informed anytime he wants to ask, and even if he does not ask, I know I have a responsibility to keep him informed, and I will try to do that.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, is the Senator from Wyoming finished?

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak about something I have often spoken about in this Chamber. My colleagues have not heard me speak about this for a couple months. I try to follow on a very regular basis what is going on in the Defense Department because I want to make sure our defense dollars are spent wisely. I come to this Chamber today to explain my opposition to a Department of Defense nomination. This is the nomination of Dr. David Chu to be Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. On Friday, May 18, I placed a hold on Dr. Chu's nomination. It happens that Dr. Chu is a very talented person. Those people who know him may wonder why I have some question about him filling this position because he is so highly educated, holding a Ph.D. from Yale University. He has a very impressive resume, and he has an extensive management and analytical background. He is currently vice president at the prestigious Rand Corporation. In most ways, he is qualified for the position for which he has been nominated. I emphasize, he is qualified in most ways, but in a most important one--the matter of integrity--I am not 100-percent certain. I have some unresolved questions about Dr. Chu's approach to telling it like it is--one might say his honesty. I am hoping these can be cleared up through negotiations. My questions about Dr. Chu's integrity go back 20 years, I am sorry to say, to 1982, an incident I had that involved the Director of the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation. this is commonly called PA&E--program, analysis, and evaluation. PA&E was a very important office in the Pentagon in those days, and it was staffed with a very impressive cast of characters. It was set up in the 1960s to act as a devil's advocate for the Secretary of Defense. PA&E was supposed to help the civilian Secretary of Defense separate the wheat from the chaff. PA&E was supposed to ferret out questionable programs and help the Secretary eliminate those that were not necessary. From time to time, PA&E has to tangle with the brass at the Pentagon, and it took a very special person to do that. I think Secretary Rumsfeld is coming to grips with that very same problem right now. Over the years, PA&E developed a ruputation for being very hardnosed, but also being very smart. In the old days, PA&E put the fear of God in the harts and minds of admirals and generals worried about their pet projects. Over the years, PA&E earned a solid reputation and well-deserved respect. That is how it came to be known as the home for the famous Pentagon ``whiz kids.'' One of the modern-day whiz kids is one I came to know quite well--Franklin C. Spinney, Chuck Spinney for short. Chuck Spinney worked for Dr. Chu in PA&E's tactical air division, where he still works this very day. Chuck Spinney's immediate boss was Tom Christie. Tom Christie is another distinguished PA&E alumnus. President Bush has just nominated him to be the next Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. Tom Christie deserves a lot of credit for protecting Chuck Spinney. He provided a sanctuary where Chuck Spinney could speak freely. He provided an environment where Chuck Spinney could do the kind of work that PA&E had always done. Unfortunately, this kind of work became increasingly unpopular during the Reagan defense build-up. That's when I met Chuck Spinney--in the early stage of the Reagan defense build-up. I came to know him as the author of a very controversial report entitled ``The Plans/Reality Mismatch.'' The Plans/Reality Mismatch was an explosive piece of work. It was so explosive because it undermined the credibility of the Reagan defense build-up. Chuck Spinney's Plans/Reality Mismatch set the stage for an unprecedented hearing held in February 1983. This was a joint hearing between the Armed Services and Budget Committees that was held largely at my request. And Chuck Spinney, his Plans/Reality Mismatch, and stack of famous spaghetti charts were the centerpiece of the hearing. This was a hearing characterized by high drama. It was held in the Senate Caucus Room under the glare of television lights and intense media coverage. Chuck Spinney gained instant notoriety as the ``maverick Pentagon analyst.'' He appeared on the cover of the March 7, 1983 issue of Time magazine. My questions about Dr. Chu's integrity grew out of Chuck Spinney's Plans/Reality Mismatch. Leading up to the hearing, Dr. Chu withheld information about the Spinney report. He didn't tell us the whole story. He tried to keep it from me, Senator Gorton, and Senator Kassebaum. Mr. President, that's the bottom line: Dr. Chu was not forthright and honest with me. I laid out the entire matter in much greater detail in a letter I wrote to the chairman of the Budget Committee, my friend from New Mexico, Senator Pete Domenici. My letter to Senator Domenici is dated January 19, 1995. I wrote the letter because Dr. Chu was being considered as a possible Director of the Congressional Budget Office. I opposed his appointment to that position. My letter about Dr. Chu has remained a closely guarded secret for the past six years. Until recently, only Senator Domenici had seen the letter--and no one else. When I heard that Dr. Chu was being considered for a top-level post in the Pentagon, I shared the letter with the Director of White House Personnel. That was on March 8. Clearly, the existence of this letter has caused some heartburn in both the White House and Pentagon. It has generated a number of phone calls to my office. I continue to have strong reservations about Dr. Chu's nomination. When I was contacted by the White House about Dr. Chu, I made my position crystal clear: If Secretary Rumsfeld wants to make Dr. Chu the Under Secretary of Personnel and Readiness, then Secretary Rumsfeld will need a strong, independent Inspector General (IG). That's my position on the Chu nomination. One of the IG's toughest jobs is the investigation of allegations of misconduct by senior Pentagon officials. He will need a hard-nosed individual with plenty of hands-on experience to succeed at that job. I don't see the Pentagon moving in that direction--yet. Mr. President, I may have much more to say about Dr. Chu at a later date. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we know of the need to recognize the contribution of 22 million family caregivers in the United States. We know the need to encourage people to save for long-term care through tax credits for long-term health care. Following a hearing I held last month on long-term care, Senator Graham and I introduced legislation to do what this amendment creates. He and I worked jointly on a similar bill last year and pressed hard for its passage. As I stated at the hearing, I am committed to addressing the pressing financial long-term care challenges that accompany the retirement of the baby boom generation. However, I cannot support the inclusion of his amendment in the bill since it raises taxes on people to pay for it. I will be offering a second-degree amendment. I yield back my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, everything the Senator from Michigan said, I agree with. I would just do it in a different way. I would do it according to the budget resolution that was adopted. In that budget resolution, we fully protect Part A. It is a commitment on the part of this party, this Congress, and the President of the United States to only use Medicare money for Medicare, nothing else. That is what we will do. This amendment is not needed because of the budget and the planning on this tax bill. This issue comes up every time we are trying to spread out the tax reductions over the next 10 years. It is very basic to every decision we make that we not go into the Medicare trust fund. I ask Members not to vote for the amendment because it is not needed. I raise a point of order on germaneness. That point of order is based upon section 305(b)(2) of the Budget Act.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment is similar to one we did in another profession on another amendment that is being worked out. We accept this amendment, look favorably on it. I ask if we can have a voice vote. I yield back my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I do.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am not going to use my 1 minute. With this modification, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to; if not, then by voice vote.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 23, for purposes of conducting a business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business, as follows: Agenda Item No. 1--S. 507--To implement further the Act (Public Law 94-241) approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, and for other purposes. Agenda Item No. 5--Nomination of Patrick henry Wood III to be a Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Agenda Item No. 6--Nomination of Nora Mead Brownell to be a Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Agenda Item No. 7--Nomination of Lee Sarah Liberman Otis to be General Counsel of the Department of Energy. Agenda Item No. 8--Nomination of Jesse Hill Roberson to be Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management. Agenda Item No. 9--Nomination of J. Steven Griles to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet on May 23, 2001, to conduct a markup on the nomination of Mr. Alphonso R. Jackson, of Texas, to be Deputy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Mr. Richard A. Hauser, of Maryland, to be General Counsel of the Department of Housing and Urban Development; Mr. John Charles Weicher, of the District of Columbia, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and serve as the Federal Housing Commissioner; and the Hon. Romolo A. Bernardi, of New York, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for community planning and development.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 23, immediately following the committee business meeting to conduct a hearing. The committee will receive testimony regarding the administration's National Energy Policy Report.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on May 23, 2001, at 11:30 a.m., for a business meeting.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 23, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., on boxing.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, since 1963, the month of May has helped the nation focus on the contributions and achievements of America's older citizens. Fewer people over the age of 65 require nursing home care and more are living on their own, with little or no outside help. Older Americans increasingly redefine modern maturity, re-shape cultural boundaries and dispel age-related stereotypes associated with getting older. They are leaders in our families, in our workplaces and in our communities. One of these leaders is a 71-year-old man from Davenport, Iowa. Larry Sinclair understands the value of helping others. Through his initiative, compassion, and commitment, he has touched the lives of many in the Davenport community. Originally from Maine, Mr. Sinclair and his wife, Sylvia, moved to Davenport in 1959. A 33-year veteran of the Rock Island Arsenal, Mr. Sinclair became involved with helping seniors after his retirement. At the time, his mother in Maine was suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and the distance prevented Mr. Sinclair from helping his sister care for her on a regular basis. After hearing a presentation at church about respite assistance for caregivers, Mr. Sinclair decided it was time to get involved. Although he couldn't go to Maine to give his sister the respite she needed, he could provide help to caregivers in Davenport. For eight years, Mr. Sinclair volunteered up to 10 hours a week to provide relief to caregivers in the community. Although he is no longer actively involved in the program, he still keeps in touch with several of families that he worked with over the years. Mr. Sinclair's commitment to seniors in the community has been instrumental in the success of one of the few all-volunteer congregate meal sites in Iowa. Eleven years ago, Mr. Sinclair helped establish the meal site at his church. Every Tuesday, he and his wife spend the their day serving a meal to 25-30 seniors. Mr. and Mrs. Sinclair do everything from meal pick-up in the morning to clean-up in the afternoon. Although Mr. Sinclair has the formal title of meal site manager, he gives much of the credit to his wife. He says the two of them make a ``pretty good team.'' Mr. Sinclair also is highly active in the Great River Bend Area Agency on Aging. He has been a member of the agency's policy board for the past six years, serving as its president last year and vice president this year. As an Operation Restore Trust volunteer he makes presentations to various senior groups, nursing homes and assisted living facilities about Medicare fraud and abuse. He has served as a delegate to aging association meetings in Washington, DC, and he is a member of the agency's nutrition committee and services committee. In 1959, Mr. Sinclair became a charter member of the West Park Presbyterian Church and he is still actively involved in serving the congregation. Friends know that if they need help, Mr. Sinclair is the first one to call. He serves as an elder in the church and chairman of the committee that is responsible for programming church activities and fundraisers. Mr. Sinclair says he feels it is important for people like him, who have the time to help, to do what they can to keep the church growing for younger members. A devoted family man, Mr. Sinclair has been married to his wife Sylvia for 50 years. The couple has three daughters, four grandchildren and one great-grandchild. Mr. Sinclair stays physically active by walking with his wife three miles a day. In addition, he enjoys golfing and biking. With all of these activities, Mr. Sinclair's friends sometimes wonder if he is one of those people who just can't say no. But, Mr. Sinclair refutes that characterization, saying he chooses not to say no because he enjoys what he does. I want to thank Mr. Sinclair for his contributions to the Davenport community. His initiative and compassionate concern for others is an example to us all that we should always be willing to help others, no matter what our age.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana for his kind remarks. More important, I thank him for the cooperation that has been going on since day 1 of this year that we have been working together, bringing to culmination this vote and, eventually, a conference report that we hope will successfully pass the Senate a second time and go to the President with the largest tax cut for working men and women in our country. In addition to that, this is within the tradition of how the Senate Finance Committee works. I think I have served in the Senate when we had as many as 55 Republicans and as little as 42 Republicans; and in any of those circumstances, the products of the Senate Finance Committee, whatever party controlled it, for the most part, were overwhelmingly bipartisan. On the other hand, if it were not that way, there would not be much chance of getting a bill through this body with 100 Members of the Senate. I thank the number of people who voted for this bill on final passage. I am not sure I expected that large a number of votes. I expected a sizable number of Democrats, but many more voted than I anticipated. Quite frankly, I didn't expect to get every Republican vote, which we did in the final analysis. I thank all of my colleagues who voted for the bill. Those who didn't vote for it, I thank them very much for their cooperation in letting this come to final passage, even though they did not like it. So with passage of the RELIEF Act, I feel that struggling families will have more money to make ends meet. Parents and students will be able to more easily afford the cost of a college education. A successful businesswoman will be able to expand and hire more people. A father finally getting a good paycheck after years of work will be able to provide for his aging mother. A farmer won't have to worry about passing on to his children the family farm without selling half of the land, maybe, for estate taxes. The examples are endless, but the great benefits that we realize when we give tax relief to working men and women are great. I thank many members of the committee staff, both Republican and Democrat. Most of all, I think we have to thank the members of the Finance Committee--each one--for sitting through 10 hours of debate. Roughly a week ago now, we worked day and night to get that bill through. I thank my Finance Committee staff, Mark Prater, with me here, our chief tax counsel; and other tax counsels, including Ed McClellan, Brig Pari, Elizabeth Paris, who is here with me; Dean Zerbe, as well as Diann Howland. These individuals have been the workhorses of the committee, keeping the lights burning long into the night to make this final product the statutory language that it is and the perfection that statutory language must have. I also thank the entire staff support, particularly Gina Falconio, Leah Shimp, Jeanne Haggerty, and Carla Martin. Lastly, on my side, I thank Kolan Davis and Ted Totman, the committee staff director and deputy staff director, for riding herd on all of this work. This is a bipartisan bill. It would not have been possible without the close work and cooperation at the staff level. So as chairman of the committee, I have to appreciate and thank the minority staff for their good work, particularly Russ Sullivan, chief tax counsel; as well as Cary Pugh, Pat Heck, Maria Freese, Frank Rodriguez, and Mitchell Kent. In addition, I thank John Angell and Mike Evans for their time and hard work as leaders of the staff for the Democrats. Let me extend my thanks as well to a person who is not very public-- Lindy Paull and her staff at the Joint Committee on Taxation, who probably want to be known for their anonymity. They provide a great deal of extensive knowledge and guidance to this effort, particularly not only in writing but also in their analysis of the cost of legislation--what different policies add up to particular income into the Federal Treasury or less income into the Federal Treasury. Then I think we should not forget the Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, Mark Weinberger, and his staff for their assistance because even though they don't have a vote on Capitol Hill, there is a lot of expertise at the U.S. Department of Treasury that this committee--the Senate Finance Committee--has on a regular basis called upon for analysis for their opinions, and also to some extent to give us a view of the executive branch of Government as one more issue in consideration that we ought to have. My thanks also goes to Jim Fransen and Mark Mathiesen and their capable staff and legislative counsel for taking our ideas and drafting them into statutory language. Then, finally, as Senator Baucus has done, I thank people on his side of the aisle who worked so hard as leaders of the Senate Finance Committee or Senate Budget Committee. I also believe that we would not be here if we had not had a successful budget resolution passed to make room for this third largest tax cut in 50 years, the largest tax cut in the last 20 years. So I thank Senator Pete Domenici and his staff director, Bill Hoagland, and the entire Budget Committee staff for their assistance. They were assistants to me during this deliberation, as Senator Conrad was for Senator Baucus, but also that sort of leadership provided the budget resolution. This is a historical bill for historical times, and I am honored and privileged to be a part of it. Once again, as Senator Baucus has said so often, and I have said often, I hope this spirit of bipartisanship continues, as it has, as a tradition in the Finance Committee through our leadership but will also be a standard for other work we do in the Finance Committee; more importantly, that it is something which is contagious, and that there will be closer working relationships and more bipartisanship between all Senators and the products of the Senate. We go to conference now, and there again we are going to have to produce legislation that hopefully gets the same bipartisan support this bill did. If it is something a little less than that, it can't be much less. I don't want to be gambling that we will get 51 votes when we come to the floor of the Senate after the negotiations are done. I want to make sure that when we come to the floor, we come to the floor in a way that, before we bring the bill up, we have bipartisanship. The fact is there aren't a lot of Democrats voting for this bill. We can't take for granted the 62 people who have voted for it already. I wish we could. It would make for a very easy conference. We go there now to negotiate with the other body. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his willingness to work with us to craft a solution to a very real problem. He shares with the Ranking Member and I a long history of concern for American taxpayers struggling with the overwhelming expense and other demands of severely disabled relatives. As the Senator knows, Special Needs Trusts, also known as Supplemental Needs Trusts, are a common estate planning tool for assisting in the planning for the long- term financial needs of the disabled. The Senator and others have helped bring to our attention the fact that these trusts are unduly burdened by the current trust tax requirements of Section 1(e) of the Internal Revenue Code. We recognize that these Special Needs Trusts will receive some relief under the Relief Act of 2001, but that more help is necessary. Therefore, I commit myself to the Senator from Tennessee to work with him and others to craft a solution to reduce the income tax burden imposed on special needs trusts and, simultaneously, to improve the lot of affected disabled Americans.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I understand the concerns raised by the Senator from Arkansas and will attempt to address this issue in conference. taxation of special needs trusts for the disabled

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senators have modified their amendment considerably from its original language. We urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote aye. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Today.