[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10645-S10647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TRIBUTE TO KEN CUNNINGHAM

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity at the 
end of a Congress to express may gratitude and best wishes to Ken 
Cunningham, a long-time friend and staffer who has been like family to 
my wife Barbara and me for more than 25 years and left my staff a few 
months ago.
  He served me in a number of positions during those years, including 
chief of staff general counsel, legislative director, and legislative 
assistant--sometimes juggling multiple positions at once. I used to 
joke with him about all the titles that he had accumulated.
  But now faced with growing family obligations, he has left my staff 
to set up his own government relations firm.
  After 2 years working for former Congressman Tom Tauke, Ken joined my 
new Senate staff in 1981 to handle several legislative and regulatory 
areas initially focusing on commerce, telecommunications, 
transportation, and agriculture. In fact, my very first Senate 
legislative victories came with Ken's help on the 1981 farm bill.

[[Page S10646]]

  Ken and his wife Sherry lived near Barbara and me, so he and I would 
drive to and from work together. We got to know each other well during 
those commutes and quickly became good friends. It was clear that my 
new staffer possessed sound judgment, integrity, a strong work ethic, 
and a passion for serving our constituents.
  He worked many years in the Senate before it became popular around 
here to talk about the need for a ``family friendly'' schedule. And yet 
Ken found the time and energy to earn his law degree at the Georgetown 
Law Center. But I knew that I could always count on him to make the 
necessary sacrifices to get the job done here in the Senate no matter 
how long the hours. He probably set an office record in the early 
eighties during the crunch time of an ending Congress. As he juggled 
several pending legislative issues, he took only 7 hours of sleep for 
the entire week.
  As some know, the devastation of the farm crisis of the middle 
eighties so discouraged me that I almost did not run for reelection. 
But Ken, like me, grew up farming. He, too, had friends back home and 
was likewise crushed by their suffering. He worked tirelessly to help 
me fight for every bit of relief and assistance possible to help rural 
Americans through that tragic time.
  As partial testament to his effectiveness, when I did decide to run 
again, and we did some polling, my highest approval ratings came from 
farmers and their families. And while the farm crisis led to the defeat 
of many Midwest legislators, I was reelected by a wide margin.
  My good friend, former Senate majority leader, Bob Dole, has called 
Ken Cunningham the smartest staff man on Capitol Hill, and said that I 
am lucky to have him. Given the number of staffers Senator Dole has 
known over the decades, that is indeed a remarkable compliment. But Ken 
has proven time and again that he deserves that reputation.
  Ken has always been quick to grasp the complex. He possesses 
incredible discernment and political instincts. He has an intense 
competitive spirit.
  And he is tenacious--almost as tenacious as me. He probably learned 
that from me.
  Given these positive traits, combined with his understanding of 
Senate legislative rules and procedure, Ken can be either a great ally, 
or a most formidable opponent.
  Let me give you an example.
  Ken's expertise and qualities proved crucial in reversing a 
devastating tax legislation defeat handed to us by the House of 
Representatives, led by then-Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer, 
during consideration of the 1997 reconciliation bill.
  Chairman Archer and big oil had long despised tax incentives for 
ethanol, one of America's few energy independence success stories, and 
the source of billions of dollars of income and thousands of jobs for 
rural Americans and farmers.
  By using reconciliation to kill these tax incentives and thus 
creating tax savings that protected other popular programs, Chairman 
Archer had devised and executed a plan to kill these tax incentives 
that were procedurally and politically virtually impossible to stop. He 
rammed it through his committee and then rammed it through the full 
House of Representatives.
  Pro-ethanol allies in both the House and the Senate faced what seemed 
like one of those ``deer-in-the-headlights'' moments.
  As the Senate Finance Committee prepared to take up the 
reconciliation package, farm and renewable fuels groups looked to me to 
lead the fight. But cracking reconciliation's procedural nut at this 
point was a daunting challenge at best.
  Ken, however, formulated a legislative response that overcame these 
obstacles. One Finance Committee tax counsel wryly characterized it as 
``clever.''
  The amendment was designed not only to stop Chairman Archer's 
handiwork, but also to extend the ethanol tax provisions by several 
years. This was a bold move for a number of reasons, not the least of 
which was the fact that it drew opposition from both the Finance 
Committee's chairman and ranking Democrat.
  The political obstacles were even more challenging than the 
legislative and procedural.
  Many Democrats were outright giddy with the prospects of taking back 
control of Congress by blaming Republicans for the loss of the ethanol 
program and the resulting harm to rural America.
  In recognition of this temptation, Ken recommended a particular 
Democratic cosponsor who, though not recognized as the most experienced 
in these battles, we felt would fight hard against political 
gamesmanship. He also devised a plan that did not depend upon the 
Clinton administration's help to ensure success.
  I will never forget how quickly the loud chortling of the big oil 
lobbyists fell silent as they were stunned the night my amendment 
passed the Senate Finance Committee by a vote of 16 to 4.
  And to the amazement of many, we fought to a draw during the 1997 
reconciliation battle. Both Chairman Archer's and my provisions were 
dropped in conference. We then braced for Chairman Archer's next attack 
that came with the 1998 highway bill. This time, however, Speaker 
Gingrich quietly assured me that if we could get my tax amendment 
passed once again in the Senate, he would find a way to help me in 
conference.
  As the time came close for the House/Senate conference, the Speaker 
had not yet said what he would do to help. Ken explored a number of 
ideas. It was common practice for House committee chairmen to designate 
members of their party and committee to attend conferences. But 
researching House rules, and seeking confirmation from the House 
Parliamentarian, Ken determined that the actual power of appointment 
resides with the Speaker.
  We approached the Speaker to suggest that he consider exercising this 
power. And indeed, that is ultimately what the Speaker did: he 
appointed pro-ethanol House conferees, and my legislation extending the 
ethanol tax incentive prevailed, while the Ways and Means chairman's 
language to kill the program was dropped.
  When I became the new chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Mark 
Prater, the committee's chief tax counsel, told me that this was by far 
the biggest victory he had witnessed of me. It was unheard of and 
astounding for a mid-level member of the Finance Committee to defeat, 
as I did, a Ways and Means chairman on one of his top priorities.
  Mr. President, even House Speaker Gingrich was amazed as the dust 
settled and we emerged victorious. Addressing a group of my 
constituents, the Speaker characterized legislate battle as, and I 
quote, ``the substance about which great novels are written.''
  I will be first to acknowledge and express gratitude for all the help 
that many, many people provided in this fight, but I am convinced that 
we would have lost and there would be no ethanol program today had Ken 
Cunningham not come up with the right analyses and solutions at each 
and every critical juncture.
  Over the years, Ken helped me at one time or another in just about 
every area of legislation and committee assignment, but he also 
contributed greatly to my office as a manager--first as legislative 
director and then as chief of staff.
  He is very good with people--tactful and empathetic. He is firm, but 
always fair and even-handed. He has a way of bringing calm and 
resolution to tensions and conflict among staff. He is a good problem 
solver, teacher, and coach.
  It is said that actions speak louder than words. And although I am 
not at a loss for words of praise for Ken, I think one of my last acts 
before he left speaks volumes about my confidence in Ken's judgment, 
loyalty, friendship.
  I asked him to find and hire his own replacement--someone who was 
just as good with the same experience. I knew he would not let me down, 
and I think he did a pretty good job on that last assignment.
  Ken has a wonderful wife and four growing boys. Barbara and I extend 
our blessings and best wishes for Ken and his family. And we have 
absolute confidence that he will be successful in his new business.
  We miss seeing him at the office every day but know we will always be 
close friends.
  So, Ken, to a valued public servant and a trusted friend, Barbara and 
I say

[[Page S10647]]

thank you for your long-standing service to Iowa and the U.S. Senate.

                          ____________________