Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill on removing federal law enforcement officers convicted of felonies. Under my bill, any federal law enforcement officer, who is convicted of a felony, would have to be removed from his or her position immediately. Mr. President, my colleagues must be wondering why the Senator from Iowa is offering this legislation. Law enforcement officers convicted of felonies are removed immediately. That's just common sense. Right? Unfortunately, Mr. President, common sense does not always prevail in the federal bureaucracy. Common sense is in short supply at one very important place in the Pentagon--the office of the Inspector General or DOD IG. In October 1999, the Majority Staff on my Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts issued a report on the DOD IG. I placed the Majority Staff Report in the Record on November 2, 1999. The Majority Staff Report substantiated allegations of misconduct by senior officials at the Defense Criminal Investigative Service--or DCIS--between 1993 and 1996. DCIS is the criminal investigative branch in the DOD IG's office. I would like to remind my colleagues that Mr. Donald Mancuso was the Director of DCIS between 1988 and 1997. Today, Mr. Mancuso is the Deputy DOD IG. He may be a candidate for nomination as the next DOD IG. Some of the allegations examined in the Majority Staff Report concerned one of Mr. Mancuso's top deputies--an agent by the name of Mr. Larry J. Hollingsworth. The Hollingsworth case is the driving force behind my bill. Mr. Hollingsworth was the Director of Internal Affairs at DCIS from April 1991 until his retirement in September 1996. In July 1995, after a fellow agent recognized Mr. Hollingsworth's photo in a law enforcement crime bulletin, Mr. Hollingsworth was apprehended. His home was searched, and he confessed to filing a fraudulent passport application. Mr. Hollingsworth was convicted of a felony in U.S. District Court in March 1996. The authorities who investigated Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes believe that he committed about 12 overt acts of fraud between 1992 and 1994. Mr. President, can you imagine that? While he was hammering rank and file agents for minor administrative offenses as head of the Internal Affairs unit, Mr. Hollingsworth was deeply involved in a criminal enterprise of his own. The State Department agents who investigated the case were troubled by Mr. Hollingsworth's actions. From past experience, they know passport fraud is usually committed in furtherance of a more serious crime. But that crime was never discovered. While the full extent of Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes remain a mystery, this case has helped to shed a whole lot of light on Deputy IG Mancuso. Mr. Mancuso personally approved a series of administrative actions that kept a convicted felon in an employed status at DCIS for 6 months. Mr. Hollingsworth confessed to passport fraud in July 1995. He was convicted in March 1996 and then confined in jail. All this time--for 14 months, Mr. Mancuso kept Mr. Hollingsworth in an employed status at DCIS until September 19,1996. Mr. President, September 19, 1996 was the magic day. That was Mr. Hollingsworth's 50th birthday. That was the very first day he was eligible to retire. On that day, he retired with full law enforcement benefits and Mr. Mancuso's blessing. Mr. Mancuso's generosity will eventually cost the taxpayers a big chunk of money. The Office of Personnel Management--OPM--estimated Mr. Hollingsworth's annuity will cost the taxpayers at least $750,000.00 through the year 2008. This is money Mr. Hollingsworth should never collect had Mr. Mancuso exercised sound judgment under the law. Mr. Mancuso could have removed Mr. Hollingsworth in March 1996 after conviction or maybe even sooner. Instead, Mr. Mancuso chose to personally protect Mr. Hollingsworth until he reached his 50th birthday and could retire. Mr Mancuso shielded Mr. Hollingsworth from the law for at least 6 months. Under the law--5 U.S.C. 7513(b), Mr. Mancuso was authorized to remove Mr. Hollingsworth after conviction--if not sooner. Mr. President, I underscore the words authorized. DCIS was authorized but not required to remove him. Under the law, DCIS was granted discretionary authority to decide when--or if--to remove him. Mr. President, too much discretionary authority in a place so short on common sense can lead to mistakes. The Hollingsworth case was a big mistake. If my bill had been in effect in 1996, Mr. Hollingsworth would have been removed within 30 days of conviction. My staff has consulted with OPM on this legislation. OPM offered some constructive comments on how to strengthen it. Those ideas are now in the bill. OPM was unaware of any other instance where a federal law enforcement agency had kept a convicted felon in an employed status for 6 months after conviction. However, OPM could not guarantee that this would never happen again. The intent of my legislation should be crystal clear: To ensure that personnel management decisions--like those taken by Mr. Mancuso in the Hollingsworth case--are never repeated again. Over the past 10 months, my staff has spoken with many rank and file law enforcement officers about the special treatment given to Mr. Hollingsworth. Rank and file agents are universally disgusted by what happened. They feel--as I do--that law enforcement officers, who are convicted of felonies--should be removed from their posts immediately. They don't want their badges tarnished by having one of their own, who committed a felony, remain on the job--as Mr. Hollingsworth was allowed to do. That undermines morale in the ranks. In closing, I would like to quote from a letter Mr. Mancuso wrote--on official DOD stationery--to Judge Ellis on April 29, 1996. Judge Ellis was preparing to sentence the convicted felon, Mr. Hollingsworth. Mr. Mancuso's statements to Judge Ellis were absurd. They were outrageous. This letter shows that Mr. Mancuso was totally blind to the seriousness of Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes. In the letter, Mr. Mancuso asked the judge to consider extenuating circumstances. He told the judge that Mr. Hollingsworth had taken a half day's leave to file the fraudulent passport application. Mr. Mancuso praised the convicted felon for this unselfish act. Can you believe that? This is what Mr. Mancuso said to Judge Ellis, and I quote: ``Mr. Hollingsworth could have come and gone as he pleased,'' but he ``took leave to commit a felony.'' In Mr. Mancuso's mind, the use of personal leave to commit a felony was a sign of moral excellence. Mr. Mancuso concluded with this telling remark: To this day, there is no evidence that Mr. Hollingsworth has ever done anything improper relating to his duties and responsibilities as a DCIS agent and manager. Mr. Mancuso's statement to Judge Ellis was misguided for two reasons: First, incredible as it may seem, Mr. Mancuso--a sworn law enforcement officer and current Deputy DOD IG--feels that it is OK for law enforcement officers to commit crimes so long as the agents are off duty. Second, Mr. Mancuso's assertion about ``no evidence'' is flat wrong. It's inaccurate. On February 1, 2000, my staff discovered a DCIS file containing information that refuted Mr. Mancuso's assertions to Judge Ellis about no evidence. It shows that in August 1995, both DCIS and the State Department did, in fact, have evidence that Mr. Hollingsworth had engaged in criminal activity at his desk in DCIS headquarters. How could the Pentagon's top criminal investigator be so blind to evidence? This file also contains other important revelations about Mr. Mancuso's misconduct in the Hollingsworth case. It contains documents that indicate Mr. Mancuso was communicating with defense attorneys during the criminal court proceedings against Mr. Hollingsworth. For example, it contains a FAX transmittal memo addressed personally to Mr. Mancuso from the defense attorney. Attached was a motion to dismiss charges against Mr. Hollingsworth. But there was no court date stamp or attorney signature on the document. And there were handwritten notes on it. This was a rough draft. Mr. President, this really bothers me. Mr. Mancuso--the director of a federal law enforcement agency--was furnished with a rough draft of a motion to dismiss felony charges that the U.S. Attorney was attempting to prosecute. That is unethical conduct. The file contains other damaging documents. They suggest that the current Director of DCIS, Mr. John Keenan, returned 11 confiscated handguns to the convicted felon--Mr. Hollingsworth--in direct contravention of a federal court judgment and statutory law. DCIS allegedly returned the guns to Mr. Hollingsworth on September 23, 1997, while he was still on supervised probation. This reckless act could have put a probation officer in harm's way. We also learned that Mr. Hollingsworth was under investigation by the IRS in November 1983 for perjury. That very same month--November 1983, he was hired by DCIS to be the agent in charge of the Chicago Field Office. The IRS concluded Mr. Hollingsworth had ``committed perjury during rebuttal testimony.'' On December 5, 1983, the IRS referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney in New Orleans for prosecution. Mr. President, how could DCIS hire Mr. Hollingsworth under such questionable circumstances? I don't understand it. Mr. President, Mr. Mancuso went to extraordinary lengths to protect a convicted felon. By doing what he did, Mr. Mancuso violated a trust that goes with the high office he occupies. He violated the trust that goes with the badge and gun he carries. In our democracy, when those sacred trusts are violated, our only protection is the law. In this case, the law provides too much discretionary authority. It leaves the door wide open to abuse by irresponsible bureaucrats. We need to close that door. My bill will close the loophole that Mr. Mancuso exploited in such a crafty way. Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. If there is a 5-minute limit on morning business speeches, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 9 minutes.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Kansas wants to speak, but if I can take a couple minutes to respond to some things the Senator from Montana stated, I think I should do that. I yield to the Senator from Kansas such time as he might consume. I should wait until the Senator from Montana is on the floor before I give my response to him. I yield Senator Brownback such time as he consumes.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, these are very interesting discussions. I think that for a long, long period of time people at the grassroots of America have understood there should not be a policy that hurts people who join in bonds of matrimony. Everybody realizes that the strength and foundation of our society is the family. The husband and wife are the strength of our society and the foundation of our society. We have legislation before us that finally will end the penalty against people who marry and get hit with a higher level of taxation rather than two people who aren't married and filing separately making the same amount of income. Basically, we are talking about the issue of fairness--in this case, fairness within the Tax Code; economic fairness for people who are married. For about 30 years, our Tax Code has been penalizing people just because they happen to be married. This is, of course, a perfect example of how broken our Tax Code is, and perhaps is an example that can be given with many other examples of why there ought to be a broader look at greater reform and simplification of the Tax Code. That debate is for another day. Even though 70 percent of the people in this country feel the Tax Code is broken and ought to be thrown out, there is not a consensus among the American people whether a flat rate income tax, which about 30 percent of the people say we ought to have, or a national sales tax, which about 20 percent of the people say we ought to have, should take the place of the present Tax Code. I use those two percentages to show there is not much of a consensus of what should take its place and therefore probably not enough movement being reflected in the Congress for an alternative to the present Tax Code. Therefore, we find ourselves refining the Tax Code within our ability to do it--a little bit here and a little bit there. One of the most outstanding examples of something wrong with our Tax Code is that people pay a marriage penalty, pay a higher rate of taxation because they are married as opposed to two individuals filing separately. As with the earnings limitation that discriminated against older Americans, a bill was recently signed by the President of the United States. This unfair marriage penalty needs to be dumped, as well. I applaud my side of the aisle because it took a Republican-led Congress to repeal the Social Security earnings limit, but the President of the United States was very happy to sign that Republican- led effort. To be fair to the other side, it eventually did pass unanimously. It is the same Republican-led Congress that is taking the lead in repealing the marriage penalty tax. I listened to a number of comments from the minority side yesterday. I came away with the conclusion they want the American people to believe that the other side of the aisle is for getting rid of the marriage penalty tax. Of course, the minority party had control of the Congress for decades and never once tried to repeal it. Even more interesting, I am afraid we could be victims of the old bait-and-switch routine. For instance, as this bill was being considered in the Senate Finance Committee, an amendment was offered by the minority to delay any marriage penalty relief until we fixed Social Security and Medicare. That is a ``manana'' type of amendment, meaning if we wait to do these other things tomorrow before we have a tax cut, we are never going to have a tax cut. We may see that amendment again on the floor of the Senate. Remember, in committee, all of the Democrats voted for delay until Social Security or Medicare was fixed, and all the Republicans voted to fix the marriage penalty tax now. We all know neither the administration nor the Democratic side have comprehensive proposals to fix Social Security and Medicare. I have to admit, I am participating with two or three Democrats on a bipartisan effort to fix Social Security, but the administration has refused to endorse that bipartisan effort. There are also bipartisan efforts in the Senate to fix Medicare, but the White House has not endorsed those bipartisan efforts. Saying that Social Security and Medicare ought to be fixed before we give some tax relief, and particularly tax relief through the marriage penalty tax, is like saying you don't want a tax cut. I am sorry to say at this late stage of this Congress, I don't think we will see from the Clinton-Gore administration any efforts to fix these problems this year in a comprehensive way. When they say we ought to fix Social Security or Medicare first, it is a manana approach--put it off until later; that day will surely never come if we follow that scenario. The national leadership of the unions in America, the AFL-CIO leadership, put out their marching orders in a legislative alert making these very same arguments that I am sure is only coincidental. They urge that the marriage penalty relief should be delayed until these other problems--presumably Social Security and Medicare--are solved. My friends on the other side of the aisle say they are for marriage penalty relief but only some time in the unknown future. That is, in fact, Washington, DC, doubletalk that continues to make the American people more cynical about whether Congress is ever determined and willing and committed to deliver keeping our promises. Delaying this tax relief means no tax relief at all. I hope taxpayers across the country will let their Senators know they have had enough of this doubletalk and that they will demand real action now, and sooner or later we will get this bill brought to a final vote. Another misguided argument used yesterday is that under the majority bill married couples get a tax cut but single mothers with kids wouldn't get one. This is a complicated aspect of the bill, but the argument is not correct. Senators making these arguments repeated it, bringing emphasis to it, as if something new has been discovered, that some kind of smoking gun had been discovered. Unfortunately, for those Members' arguments, the statements are inaccurate. An important part of our bill repeals the alternative minimum tax for over 10 million people. Many helped in that provision will be single mothers. There is something much more interesting about this argument; that is, the alternative that presumably will be offered by the other side of the aisle is the bill that flatout, without question, doesn't help single mothers at all. But that isn't even the most important point. That important point is, if a single mother chooses to eventually get married--and since marriage is the foundation of our society, I think we all agree that this is a good move, both for the mother and the children--then, under our bill, she will not be penalized for being married. There will not be a higher rate of taxation just because that single mother gets married. Under current law, if she continues to work after being married, the Government is going to slap her and her husband with a big tax increase. It is that sort of very bad situation our bill will eliminate. In addition, it is important to note the alternative, from our friends on the other side of the aisle, discriminates against stay-at- home moms. Why should we have proposals before us indicating, if you decide you want to stay at home and raise your kids, spend full time doing it--probably the most important economic contribution you can make to American society, and you are not going to get paid for it, but it is a great contribution to American society. It might not be much of an economic contribution to the family because there is no income going to come as a result of it, but it is good for American society for kids to have parents who are able to be at home with them. So if you decide to stay at home with the kids, you are going to be discriminated against under the alternative from the Democrat side of the aisle. That proposal only helps two-earner couples. It not only doesn't help those single mothers over whom the other side of the aisle cries crocodile tears frequently, it hurts those families where one parent decides to stay at home with the children. I hope all of you stay-at- home parents out there listening understand what the Democratic alternative would do to your families. It seems to me we should be helping people get married, encouraging marriage--it is the solid foundation of our society --not penalizing them for doing it. So, I hope we can get this bill to discussion without cloture. Obviously, there is a legitimacy for amendments from the other side of the aisle. There is even probably legitimacy for amendments from our side of the aisle. There ought to be agreement to those amendments. It is really time for the gridlock to be over, to move to this bill, to get to a final vote. Now is the time to pass this very important reform, and I urge the Members of this body to come together on amendments, on limitations on discussions, and do what is right by passing this legislation. Before I yield the floor, if I could do something for the leader: I ask unanimous consent the debate only continue on the marriage tax penalty until 5 p.m. today, with the time equally divided, and the majority leader recognized at the hour of 5.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself 5 minutes. First of all, I think there is a very general proposition about the Tax Code. I want to relate it to the philosophy of higher taxation on the part of the Democratic Party members; and that is, that the higher the marginal tax rate, the worse the marriage tax penalty is. We have in 1990 the drive for increasing taxes by Senator Mitchell when he was majority leader. That increased marginal tax rates at that particular time. Then we have had the highest tax increase in the history of the country, which was the one that was passed within 7 months after the Clinton administration was sworn in in 1993, in which we still had two higher brackets put into the Tax Code. Remember, that tax increase passed with 49 Democrats for it, and all Republicans and a few Democrats against it. It passed by Vice President Gore breaking the tie. Remember that we have a much worse tax penalty now than we did under the tax policies of the 1980s, when we had two brackets, 15 and 28 percent. The extent to which the marriage tax penalty is worse now than before is a direct result of higher marginal tax rates promoted by the other side of the aisle. I also have to make a point in reference to what the Senator from Montana said today, as well as what he had said yesterday; that is, his accusation that the tax bill that reduces the marriage tax penalty before us is further evidence of the majority party trying to benefit higher income people. The Senator should be aware that his Democrat alternative actually benefits more higher income people than the bill that is before us by the Republican Party. I hope he will take a look at the distribution tables that show his bill helps more higher income people than the bill we are trying to get passed. We have also heard arguments that this legislation does not end the marriage tax penalty in every way. This legislation ends the marriage tax penalty in the standard deduction and the 15- and 28-percent rate brackets and reduces it for virtually every family that suffers from the marriage tax penalty. This is the largest attack on the marriage tax penalty since its inception in 1969. For many working couples, those in the 15-percent and the 28-percent tax bracket, which would be up to about $127,000 under this bill, this legislation effectively ends the marriage tax penalty. For those couples in higher income brackets, this legislation provides a significant reduction in the marriage tax penalty. It is correct that this bill does not end all marriage tax penalties in the Tax Code. There are over 60 instances of the penalty in the code. This bill is about hitting the marriage tax penalty where it hits hardest--in the middle income tax brackets, the standard deduction, and the earned-income tax credit. There is also talk about the bill before us resulting in more Tax Code complexity. Our bill is simpler than the Democrat alternative. Our legislation eliminates the marriage tax penalty in the standard deduction and the 15-percent and 28-percent rate brackets. How could this be more simple? I hope we can have further discussion of these disagreements because I am convinced we can soundly overcome the arguments of the other side of the aisle. I yield the floor. The Senator from Texas may use whatever time she needs or is available.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thought the Senator yielded the floor. I would like to speak now if the Senator has yielded the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill on removing federal law enforcement officers convicted of felonies. Under my bill, any federal law enforcement officer, who is convicted of a felony, would have to be removed from his or her position immediately. Mr. President, my colleagues must be wondering why the Senator from Iowa is offering this legislation. Law enforcement officers convicted of felonies are removed immediately. That's just common sense. Right? Unfortunately, Mr. President, common sense does not always prevail in the federal bureaucracy. Common sense is in short supply at one very important place in the Pentagon--the office of the Inspector General or DOD IG. In October 1999, the Majority Staff on my Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts issued a report on the DOD IG. I placed the Majority Staff Report in the Record on November 2, 1999. The Majority Staff Report substantiated allegations of misconduct by senior officials at the Defense Criminal Investigative Service--or DCIS--between 1993 and 1996. DCIS is the criminal investigative branch in the DOD IG's office. I would like to remind my colleagues that Mr. Donald Mancuso was the Director of DCIS between 1988 and 1997. Today, Mr. Mancuso is the Deputy DOD IG. He may be a candidate for nomination as the next DOD IG. Some of the allegations examined in the Majority Staff Report concerned one of Mr. Mancuso's top deputies--an agent by the name of Mr. Larry J. Hollingsworth. The Hollingsworth case is the driving force behind my bill. Mr. Hollingsworth was the Director of Internal Affairs at DCIS from April 1991 until his retirement in September 1996. In July 1995, after a fellow agent recognized Mr. Hollingsworth's photo in a law enforcement crime bulletin, Mr. Hollingsworth was apprehended. His home was searched, and he confessed to filing a fraudulent passport application. Mr. Hollingsworth was convicted of a felony in U.S. District Court in March 1996. The authorities who investigated Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes believe that he committed about 12 overt acts of fraud between 1992 and 1994. Mr. President, can you imagine that? While he was hammering rank and file agents for minor administrative offenses as head of the Internal Affairs unit, Mr. Hollingsworth was deeply involved in a criminal enterprise of his own. The State Department agents who investigated the case were troubled by Mr. Hollingsworth's actions. From past experience, they know passport fraud is usually committed in furtherance of a more serious crime. But that crime was never discovered. While the full extent of Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes remain a mystery, this case has helped to shed a whole lot of light on Deputy IG Mancuso. Mr. Mancuso personally approved a series of administrative actions that kept a convicted felon in an employed status at DCIS for 6 months. Mr. Hollingsworth confessed to passport fraud in July 1995. He was convicted in March 1996 and then confined in jail. All this time--for 14 months, Mr. Mancuso kept Mr. Hollingsworth in an employed status at DCIS until September 19,1996. Mr. President, September 19, 1996 was the magic day. That was Mr. Hollingsworth's 50th birthday. That was the very first day he was eligible to retire. On that day, he retired with full law enforcement benefits and Mr. Mancuso's blessing. Mr. Mancuso's generosity will eventually cost the taxpayers a big chunk of money. The Office of Personnel Management--OPM--estimated Mr. Hollingsworth's annuity will cost the taxpayers at least $750,000.00 through the year 2008. This is money Mr. Hollingsworth should never collect had Mr. Mancuso exercised sound judgment under the law. Mr. Mancuso could have removed Mr. Hollingsworth in March 1996 after conviction or maybe even sooner. Instead, Mr. Mancuso chose to personally protect Mr. Hollingsworth until he reached his 50th birthday and could retire. Mr Mancuso shielded Mr. Hollingsworth from the law for at least 6 months. Under the law--5 U.S.C. 7513(b), Mr. Mancuso was authorized to remove Mr. Hollingsworth after conviction--if not sooner. Mr. President, I underscore the words authorized. DCIS was authorized but not required to remove him. Under the law, DCIS was granted discretionary authority to decide when--or if--to remove him. Mr. President, too much discretionary authority in a place so short on common sense can lead to mistakes. The Hollingsworth case was a big mistake. If my bill had been in effect in 1996, Mr. Hollingsworth would have been removed within 30 days of conviction. My staff has consulted with OPM on this legislation. OPM offered some constructive comments on how to strengthen it. Those ideas are now in the bill. OPM was unaware of any other instance where a federal law enforcement agency had kept a convicted felon in an employed status for 6 months after conviction. However, OPM could not guarantee that this would never happen again. The intent of my legislation should be crystal clear: To ensure that personnel management decisions--like those taken by Mr. Mancuso in the Hollingsworth case--are never repeated again. Over the past 10 months, my staff has spoken with many rank and file law enforcement officers about the special treatment given to Mr. Hollingsworth. Rank and file agents are universally disgusted by what happened. They feel--as I do--that law enforcement officers, who are convicted of felonies--should be removed from their posts immediately. They don't want their badges tarnished by having one of their own, who committed a felony, remain on the job--as Mr. Hollingsworth was allowed to do. That undermines morale in the ranks. In closing, I would like to quote from a letter Mr. Mancuso wrote--on official DOD stationery--to Judge Ellis on April 29, 1996. Judge Ellis was preparing to sentence the convicted felon, Mr. Hollingsworth. Mr. Mancuso's statements to Judge Ellis were absurd. They were outrageous. This letter shows that Mr. Mancuso was totally blind to the seriousness of Mr. Hollingsworth's crimes. In the letter, Mr. Mancuso asked the judge to consider extenuating circumstances. He told the judge that Mr. Hollingsworth had taken a half day's leave to file the fraudulent passport application. Mr. Mancuso praised the convicted felon for this unselfish act. Can you believe that? This is what Mr. Mancuso said to Judge Ellis, and I quote: ``Mr. Hollingsworth could have come and gone as he pleased,'' but he ``took leave to commit a felony.'' In Mr. Mancuso's mind, the use of personal leave to commit a felony was a sign of moral excellence. Mr. Mancuso concluded with this telling remark: To this day, there is no evidence that Mr. Hollingsworth has ever done anything improper relating to his duties and responsibilities as a DCIS agent and manager. Mr. Mancuso's statement to Judge Ellis was misguided for two reasons: First, incredible as it may seem, Mr. Mancuso--a sworn law enforcement officer and current Deputy DOD IG--feels that it is OK for law enforcement officers to commit crimes so long as the agents are off duty. Second, Mr. Mancuso's assertion about ``no evidence'' is flat wrong. It's inaccurate. On February 1, 2000, my staff discovered a DCIS file containing information that refuted Mr. Mancuso's assertions to Judge Ellis about no evidence. It shows that in August 1995, both DCIS and the State Department did, in fact, have evidence that Mr. Hollingsworth had engaged in criminal activity at his desk in DCIS headquarters. How could the Pentagon's top criminal investigator be so blind to evidence? This file also contains other important revelations about Mr. Mancuso's misconduct in the Hollingsworth case. It contains documents that indicate Mr. Mancuso was communicating with defense attorneys during the criminal court proceedings against Mr. Hollingsworth. For example, it contains a FAX transmittal memo addressed personally to Mr. Mancuso from the defense attorney. Attached was a motion to dismiss charges against Mr. Hollingsworth. But there was no court date stamp or attorney signature on the document. And there were handwritten notes on it. This was a rough draft. Mr. President, this really bothers me. Mr. Mancuso--the director of a federal law enforcement agency--was furnished with a rough draft of a motion to dismiss felony charges that the U.S. Attorney was attempting to prosecute. That is unethical conduct. The file contains other damaging documents. They suggest that the current Director of DCIS, Mr. John Keenan, returned 11 confiscated handguns to the convicted felon--Mr. Hollingsworth--in direct contravention of a federal court judgment and statutory law. DCIS allegedly returned the guns to Mr. Hollingsworth on September 23, 1997, while he was still on supervised probation. This reckless act could have put a probation officer in harm's way. We also learned that Mr. Hollingsworth was under investigation by the IRS in November 1983 for perjury. That very same month--November 1983, he was hired by DCIS to be the agent in charge of the Chicago Field Office. The IRS concluded Mr. Hollingsworth had ``committed perjury during rebuttal testimony.'' On December 5, 1983, the IRS referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney in New Orleans for prosecution. Mr. President, how could DCIS hire Mr. Hollingsworth under such questionable circumstances? I don't understand it. Mr. President, Mr. Mancuso went to extraordinary lengths to protect a convicted felon. By doing what he did, Mr. Mancuso violated a trust that goes with the high office he occupies. He violated the trust that goes with the badge and gun he carries. In our democracy, when those sacred trusts are violated, our only protection is the law. In this case, the law provides too much discretionary authority. It leaves the door wide open to abuse by irresponsible bureaucrats. We need to close that door. My bill will close the loophole that Mr. Mancuso exploited in such a crafty way. Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this important legislation today with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerrey, and Senator Bryan. This bill represents an important step toward ensuring patients receive safe, quality health care in our nation's hospitals and healthcare facilities. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report released last fall indicates that nearly 44,000 to 98,000 people die or are seriously hurt in hospitals every year. That is equivalent to having three jumbo jets filled with passengers crash every two days. Should we be safer flying in an airplane than going to a hospital for routine surgery? Take the case of Gary Masiello, who lost his daughter when her breathing tube was accidentally disconnected. Nine months later he lost his wife in another hospital when she choked on her medication. He no longer has the confidence that he or his family are safe when entering the hospital. The case of Betsy Lehman, a Boston Globe health reporter, is yet another example of how medical mistakes can lead to death. She received a drug overdose in 1994 during her chemotherapy treatment. Ironically, even one of the contributors to the IOM report was touched by a medical error. Mary Wakefield, while she was preparing the report, discovered that her 83 year old mother was operated on the wrong hand. Today, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerrey, Senator Bryan, and I are introducing a bipartisan bill to make patient safety a national healthcare priority. We recognize that mistakes happen, and that in our complex healthcare system, problems will occur. But in a country that is the leader in healthcare research, technology, and advancement, we should be able to do much, much better when it comes to patient safety. We are not here today to point the finger or to blame. We are here to provide a solution to this disturbing problem--a problem we think is preventable. Our legislation establishes a reporting and patient safety program for hospitals and other healthcare providers that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which would include virtually every healthcare facility in the United States. Billions of federal tax dollars go to these programs. The taxpayers deserve to know that the healthcare system they invest in provides safe, high-quality care. This bill extends confidentiality protections to ensure that providers will report without risk of retaliation by trial lawyers. By creating a safe environment, this bill will foster reporting and corrective action plans in hospitals and healthcare facilities across the country. Our legislation will improve patient safety and give providers the tools they need to address medical mistakes before patients are harmed. These errors are not intentional by any means, but they are preventable. So, I ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill to ensure that medical errors become a thing of the past. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this important legislation today with my colleagues, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerrey, and Senator Bryan. This bill represents an important step toward ensuring patients receive safe, quality health care in our nation's hospitals and healthcare facilities. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) Report released last fall indicates that nearly 44,000 to 98,000 people die or are seriously hurt in hospitals every year. That is equivalent to having three jumbo jets filled with passengers crash every two days. Should we be safer flying in an airplane than going to a hospital for routine surgery? Take the case of Gary Masiello, who lost his daughter when her breathing tube was accidentally disconnected. Nine months later he lost his wife in another hospital when she choked on her medication. He no longer has the confidence that he or his family are safe when entering the hospital. The case of Betsy Lehman, a Boston Globe health reporter, is yet another example of how medical mistakes can lead to death. She received a drug overdose in 1994 during her chemotherapy treatment. Ironically, even one of the contributors to the IOM report was touched by a medical error. Mary Wakefield, while she was preparing the report, discovered that her 83 year old mother was operated on the wrong hand. Today, Senator Lieberman, Senator Kerrey, Senator Bryan, and I are introducing a bipartisan bill to make patient safety a national healthcare priority. We recognize that mistakes happen, and that in our complex healthcare system, problems will occur. But in a country that is the leader in healthcare research, technology, and advancement, we should be able to do much, much better when it comes to patient safety. We are not here today to point the finger or to blame. We are here to provide a solution to this disturbing problem--a problem we think is preventable. Our legislation establishes a reporting and patient safety program for hospitals and other healthcare providers that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which would include virtually every healthcare facility in the United States. Billions of federal tax dollars go to these programs. The taxpayers deserve to know that the healthcare system they invest in provides safe, high-quality care. This bill extends confidentiality protections to ensure that providers will report without risk of retaliation by trial lawyers. By creating a safe environment, this bill will foster reporting and corrective action plans in hospitals and healthcare facilities across the country. Our legislation will improve patient safety and give providers the tools they need to address medical mistakes before patients are harmed. These errors are not intentional by any means, but they are preventable. So, I ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill to ensure that medical errors become a thing of the past. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am happy to join Senator Chafee in introducing the sense-of-the-Senate amendment to urge the Senate to pass S. 662, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. This bill was originally introduced by the late Senator John Chafee, who dedicated much time and energy to this important legislation. It is with great honor that we carry with his efforts for passage of this critical legislation. I would like to submit for the Record a letter I received from an Iowan. Her story illustrates the urgent need for passage of this bill. Barbara Morrow of Evansdale, Iowa, was diagnosed in January 1995 with breast cancer after being screened by the CDC Early Detection Program. Because she had no insurance and no money, she had little hope of finding medical care to treat her disease. After exhaustive efforts, she was able to secure medical treatment from doctors willing to perform charity care. Unfortunately, in January 1999, she learned that her breast cancer had spread to her lungs. She returned to the same doctor who treated her earlier. For 14 months, she has been receiving chemotherapy and is alive today. Ms. Morrow owes more than $70,000 for treatment she has received. She pays what she can each month to the hospital where she receives her care. The bills cause great worry and she considers stopping treatment to stop the bills. She is a mother and a grandmother and she wants to live. It is urgent that Congress pass S. 662 to allow women to receive the treatment they need to beat this disease. We have an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of thousands of women and mothers across the Nation. I urge your support for this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter sent to me by Barbara Morrow be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we often hear about some of the things that are wrong with intercollegiate athletics and how they sometimes detract from the top priority of our colleges and universities, which is educating students. Let me point to an example of how excellence in undergraduate education and excellence in intercollegiate athletics can go hand-in- hand, and it's from my home state of Iowa. Iowa State University is experiencing one of its most successful years ever in intercollegiate athletics. This year, Iowa State made history by being the first university in the Big 12 Conference or its predecessor conferences--the Big 8 and the Southwest Conferences--to win four basketball trophies in one season-- both men's and women's regular season and conference tournament championships. Both teams earned ISU record-high seedings in the NCAA Tournament, the men took a second seed and the women took a third and both did well in the tournament. The men advanced to the ``Elite Eight'' and the women to the ``Sweet Sixteen'' after an ``Elite Eight' appearance last year. Marcus Fizer became the schools' first-ever consensus first-team All- American, and Stacy Frese and Angie Welle of the women's team were also All-America selections. Stacy Frese drew this honor for the second year in a row. The Cyclone wrestling team--led by two-time NCAA champion and tournament MVP Cael Sanderson--finished second in the nation. The women's gymnastics team won its first-ever Big 12 Conference Championship. These are just a few of Iowa State's 450 student-athletes, young people who are getting an education while exhibiting their special athletic skills. And just how are they using this opportunity? Here are some examples from last year because the final stats from this year aren't in, but I'm told they will be similar--or even better. Of the 450 student athletes 168, or 40 percent, made the Athletic Department's Academic Honor Roll for maintaining a ``B'' or better GPA and nearly 100 earned academic All-Big 12 recognition. This year, basketball player Paul Shirley, who majors in mechanical engineering, and Stacy Frese, a finance major, are again Academic All- Americans. Iowa State student-athletes also lead the Big 12 in the most important statistic--their graduation rate. They are No. 1 in the Big 12 regarding their four-year graduation rates and No. 1 regarding their six-year graduation rates two of the past three reporting periods. Iowa State student athletes are also No. 1 in terms of overall graduation rate for student-athletes who stay in school for their entire eligibility with 9 of out 10 student athletes getting their degree. We are all very proud of the Cyclones this year for what they have done in competition, and in the classroom. I hope I have the opportunity to come to the floor and offer the same statistics and facts next year. Go Cyclones!

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of myself and the senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to clarify that water and sewage service laterals are included in the definition of contributions in aid of construction (CIAC). The bill clarifies current law by specifically stating that ``customer service fees'' are CIAC. It maintains current treatment of service charges for stopping and starting service (not CIAC). Because this is a clarification of current law, the effective date for the bill is as if included in the original legislation, which is section 1613(a) of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. The need for this legislation is brought about because the Department of Treasury has issued proposed regulations to provide guidance on the definition of CIAC. Despite the fact that Congress specifically removed language concerning ``customer services fees'' in its amendment in 1996, the Department added the language back into the proposed regulation specifying that such fees are not CIAC. They then defined the term very broadly to include service laterals, which traditionally and under the most common state law treatment would be considered CIAC. The Senator from Nevada and I, along with many of our colleagues here in this chamber, worked hard over the course of a number of years to restore the pre-1986 Act tax treatment for water and sewage CIAC. In 1996, we succeeded in passing our legislation. It was identical to pre- 1986 law with three exceptions. Two of the changes were made in response to a Treasury Department request. The third removed the language dealing with ``service connection fees'' primarily because of potential confusion resulting from the ambiguity of the term. The sponsors of the legislation were concerned that the IRS would use this ambiguity to exclude a portion of what the state regulators consider CIAC. As part of our efforts, we developed a revenue raiser in cooperation with the industry to make up any revenue loss due to our legislation, including the three changes. This revenue raiser extended the life, and changed the method, for depreciating water utility property from 20 year accelerated to 25-year straight-line depreciation. As a consequence of this sacrifice by the industry, our CIAC change made a net $274 million contribution toward deficit reduction. It is my belief that the final revenue estimate done by the Joint Committee on Taxation on the restoration of CIAC included all property treated as CIAC by the industry regulators including specifically service laterals. In an October 11, 1995 letter to me, the Joint Committee on Taxation provided revenue estimates for the CIAC legislation. A footnote in this letter states, ``These estimates have been revisited to reflect more recent data.'' The industry had only recently supplied the committee with comprehensive data, which reflected total CIAC in the industry including service laterals. I urge my fellow Senators to join with us in supporting this clarification of current law.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf a constituent of mine, Jose Pinales. His family and friends call him Lupe, and a private relief bill is his only hope to avoid being separated from the people and the country he loves. Lupe was brought to the United States sixteen years ago, when he was two years old, by his uncle, Miguel Landeros. Mr. Landeros, now a U.S. citizen, never formally adopted Lupe. Not until recently did Lupe learn that he was not a U.S. citizen, when he tried to enlist in the United States Marines, to serve what he believed was his country. The United States is the only country Lupe knows. It's the country he loves, and wishes to serve. Lupe grew up reciting the pledge of allegiance to the United States along with the rest of the children in his class at Jefferson Elementary School. He is now a Senior at Fort Madison High School in Iowa, and works part-time as he prepares to graduate this spring. This young man has almost completed a milestone in his life and has a dream of joining the United States Marines upon graduation. It wasn't until Lupe sought to fulfill this dream did he learn that not only was he not a U.S. citizen, but he was in possible danger of being forced to go to Mexico, a country where the people and customs are foreign to him. He doesn't even speak the language. Faced with Lupe's plight, the generous people of Fort Madison have rallied together asking for our support in passing a private relief bill for him. My office has been inundated with letters and petitions from citizens imploring us to allow Lupe to fulfill his dream and serve our great nation and not be forced to a country he doesn't know. Lupe is a fine example of what an American citizen should be. His love and respect for his country are to be admired and rewarded. So, I ask you to join me and the citizens of Iowa, and allow Jose to serve his country by supporting this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of myself and the senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to clarify that water and sewage service laterals are included in the definition of contributions in aid of construction (CIAC). The bill clarifies current law by specifically stating that ``customer service fees'' are CIAC. It maintains current treatment of service charges for stopping and starting service (not CIAC). Because this is a clarification of current law, the effective date for the bill is as if included in the original legislation, which is section 1613(a) of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996. The need for this legislation is brought about because the Department of Treasury has issued proposed regulations to provide guidance on the definition of CIAC. Despite the fact that Congress specifically removed language concerning ``customer services fees'' in its amendment in 1996, the Department added the language back into the proposed regulation specifying that such fees are not CIAC. They then defined the term very broadly to include service laterals, which traditionally and under the most common state law treatment would be considered CIAC. The Senator from Nevada and I, along with many of our colleagues here in this chamber, worked hard over the course of a number of years to restore the pre-1986 Act tax treatment for water and sewage CIAC. In 1996, we succeeded in passing our legislation. It was identical to pre- 1986 law with three exceptions. Two of the changes were made in response to a Treasury Department request. The third removed the language dealing with ``service connection fees'' primarily because of potential confusion resulting from the ambiguity of the term. The sponsors of the legislation were concerned that the IRS would use this ambiguity to exclude a portion of what the state regulators consider CIAC. As part of our efforts, we developed a revenue raiser in cooperation with the industry to make up any revenue loss due to our legislation, including the three changes. This revenue raiser extended the life, and changed the method, for depreciating water utility property from 20 year accelerated to 25-year straight-line depreciation. As a consequence of this sacrifice by the industry, our CIAC change made a net $274 million contribution toward deficit reduction. It is my belief that the final revenue estimate done by the Joint Committee on Taxation on the restoration of CIAC included all property treated as CIAC by the industry regulators including specifically service laterals. In an October 11, 1995 letter to me, the Joint Committee on Taxation provided revenue estimates for the CIAC legislation. A footnote in this letter states, ``These estimates have been revisited to reflect more recent data.'' The industry had only recently supplied the committee with comprehensive data, which reflected total CIAC in the industry including service laterals. I urge my fellow Senators to join with us in supporting this clarification of current law.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf a constituent of mine, Jose Pinales. His family and friends call him Lupe, and a private relief bill is his only hope to avoid being separated from the people and the country he loves. Lupe was brought to the United States sixteen years ago, when he was two years old, by his uncle, Miguel Landeros. Mr. Landeros, now a U.S. citizen, never formally adopted Lupe. Not until recently did Lupe learn that he was not a U.S. citizen, when he tried to enlist in the United States Marines, to serve what he believed was his country. The United States is the only country Lupe knows. It's the country he loves, and wishes to serve. Lupe grew up reciting the pledge of allegiance to the United States along with the rest of the children in his class at Jefferson Elementary School. He is now a Senior at Fort Madison High School in Iowa, and works part-time as he prepares to graduate this spring. This young man has almost completed a milestone in his life and has a dream of joining the United States Marines upon graduation. It wasn't until Lupe sought to fulfill this dream did he learn that not only was he not a U.S. citizen, but he was in possible danger of being forced to go to Mexico, a country where the people and customs are foreign to him. He doesn't even speak the language. Faced with Lupe's plight, the generous people of Fort Madison have rallied together asking for our support in passing a private relief bill for him. My office has been inundated with letters and petitions from citizens imploring us to allow Lupe to fulfill his dream and serve our great nation and not be forced to a country he doesn't know. Lupe is a fine example of what an American citizen should be. His love and respect for his country are to be admired and rewarded. So, I ask you to join me and the citizens of Iowa, and allow Jose to serve his country by supporting this legislation.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, March 22, 2000, at 2:00 p.m., in Dirksen 226.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. for a hearing regarding the Department of Energy's Management of Health and Safety Issues Surrounding DOE's Gaseous Diffusion Plants at Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Piketon, Ohio.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2000. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss legislation regarding the appraisal process to make it fair for cabin owners and taxpayers.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nomination of Mr. Thomas N. Slonaker to be Special Trustee for American Indians. The hearing will be held in the Committee room, 485 Russell Senate building. The hearing will be preceded by a business meeting to mark up S. 1586, Indian Land Consolidation, and S. 1315, Oil and Gas Leases on Navajo Allotted Lands.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., to receive testimony on the Constitution and campaign reform.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to hold a joint hearing with the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs to receive the legislative presentations of the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Retired Officers Association, American Ex-Prisoners of War, AMVETS, and the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, March 22, 2000, at 10:00 a.m., in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 22, 2000, at 2:00 p.m. in open session, to receive testimony on tactical aviation issues.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 22, 2000, at 2:30 p.m., on NASA management.