[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2262-2269]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: 
Nos. 20, 24, 25, 26, 27, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, 
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's actions, and any statements 
relating to the nominations be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The nominations were considered and confirmed as follows:


                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

       John W. Snow, of Virginia, to be Secretary of the Treasury.


                               AIR FORCE

       The following Air National Guard of the United States 
     officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to 
     the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:

                          To be major general

     Brig. Gen. William J. Lutz

       The following named officer for appointment in the United 
     States Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10, 
     U.S.C., section 624:

                        To be brigadier general

     Col. Jarisse J. Sanborn


                                  ARMY

       The following named officer for appointment in the United 
     States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a 
     position of importance and responsibility under title 10, 
     U.S.C., section 601:

                        To be lieutenant general

     Maj. Gen. Thomas F. Metz


                                  NAVY

       The following named officer for appointment in the United 
     States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a 
     position of importance and responsibility under title 10, 
     U.S.C., section 601:

                           To be vice admiral

     Rear Adm. Albert T. Church, III

               Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk


                               AIR FORCE

       PN176 Air Force nominations (21) beginning FRANK W. * 
     ALLARA, JR., and ending GLYNIS D. * WALLACE, which 
     nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the 
     Congressional Record of January 13, 2003
       PN177 Air Force nominations (39) beginning NANCY M. 
     ACAMPADO, and ending JAMES H. YAO, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 13, 2003
       PN178 Air Force nominations (123) beginning GREGORY A. * 
     ABRAHAMIAN, and ending GREGORY B. * YORK, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 13, 2003
       PN179 Air Force nominations (337) beginning SAMEH G. 
     ABUERREISH, and ending MICHELLE K. ZIMMERMAN, which 
     nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the 
     Congressional Record of January 13, 2003
       PN180 Air Force nominations (53) beginning JAMES L. * 
     AGLER, JR., and ending BEVERLY A. WOODS, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 13, 2003
       PN183 Air Force nominations (61) beginning LAURA S. * 
     BARCHICK, and ending DONALD E. * WITMYER, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 13, 2003

[[Page 2263]]

       PN184 Air Force nominations (62) beginning WAYNE H. 
     ALBRIGHT, and ending MICHAEL J. WILLIAMS, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 13, 2003
       PN201 Air Force nomination of Richard L. Sargent, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 15, 2003
       PN202 Air Force nomination of Richard L. Neel, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 15, 2003
       PN203 Air Force nomination of Joel C. Carlson, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 15, 2003
       PN204 Air Force nomination of Scott C. Paul, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 15, 2003
       PN205 Air Force nomination of Steven E. Ritter, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 15, 2003
       PN206 Air Force nominations (2) beginning MICHAEL L. A. 
     HOLLAND, and ending PARIMAL R. * PATEL, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 15, 2003
       PN157 Air Force nomination of Anthony E. Musella, Jr., 
     which was received by the Senate and appeared in the 
     Congressional Record of January 9, 2003
       PN158 Air Force nomination of Steven B. Wallis, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 9, 2003
       PN159 Air Force nominations (4) beginning SARA M. DEVINE, 
     and ending MICHAEL H. QUINN, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 9, 2003
       PN160 Air Force nominations (4) beginning JAMES F. BARBER, 
     and ending DONALD G. SMITH, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 9, 2003.
       PN161 Air Force nominations (2) beginning JOSEPH M. 
     KOROLUK, and ending RICKY J. THOMPSON, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 9, 2003.
       PN162 Air Force nominations (8) beginning PATRICK W. BEHAN, 
     and ending JAMIE L. SAIVES, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 9, 2003.
       PN163 Air Force nominations (6) beginning HOSSAM E. AHMED, 
     and ending BRETT W. PERKINS, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 9, 2003.
       PN164 Air Force nominations (13) beginning ROBERT A. 
     BAZYLAK, and ending MARK S. SMYCZYNSKI, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 9, 2003.
       PN165 Air Force nominations (23) beginning DEBORAH L. 
     ASPLING, and ending CANDACE W. WOODHAM, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 9, 2003.
       PN166 Air Force nominations (156) beginning ANDREW A. 
     AKELMAN, and ending STEVEN ZEBICH, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 9, 2003.
       PN167 Air Force nominations (10) beginning MICHAEL L. BELL, 
     and ending GLENN L. SPITZER, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 9, 2003.
       PN168 Air Force nominations (35) beginning ROOSEVELT ALLEN, 
     JR., and ending ARJEN L. VANDEVOORDE, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 9, 2003.
       PN169 Air Force nominations (83) beginning PETER A. BAUER, 
     and ending CHRISTOPHER M. ZAHN, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 9, 2003.
       PN170 Air Force nomination of RONALD D. HARRIS, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 9, 2003.
       PN224 Air Force nomination of DAVID G. YOUNG, III, which 
     was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 16, 2003.
       PN225 Air Force nominations (2) beginning EDWARD D. 
     PETERSON, and ending WILLIAM M. ZIEGLER, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 16, 2003.
       PN226 Air Force nominations (2) beginning BENEDICT N. 
     ANTONECCHIA, and ending THOMAS S. TUCKER, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 16, 2003.
       PN227 Air Force nominations (2) beginning BRITTA A. 
     ANDERSON, and ending DEBORAH C. MESSECAR, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 16, 2003.
       PN228 Air Force nominations (7) beginning LEWIS A. BRANDES, 
     and ending CHARLES A. WALDEN, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 16, 2003.
       PN230 Air Force nominations (17) beginning WALTER S. 
     *ADAMS, and ending GEORGE T. *YOUSTRA, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 16, 2003.
       PN231 Air Force nominations (51) beginning MICHAEL ALUKER, 
     and ending SCOTT A. ZAKALUZNY, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 16, 2003
       PN251 Air Force nomination of Margaret C. Gram, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003
       PN252 Air Force nomination of James V. English, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003
       PN253 Air Force nominations (6) beginning JAMES C. 
     BALSERAK, and ending MARTIN E. SELLBERG, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003
       PN254 Air Force nomination of Timothy H. Lewis, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003
       PN255 Air Force nomination of Howard S. Loller, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003


                                  army

       PN207 Army nominations (28) beginning SALLYE J ALLGOOD, and 
     ending YVONNE L TUCKERHARRIS, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 15, 2003
       PN209 Army nominations (6) beginning LEONARD I. CANCIO, and 
     ending KATHLEEN S. ZURAWEL, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 15, 2003
       PN212 Army nominations (6) beginning KATHLEEN W. CARR, and 
     ending ROBERT G. WEBB, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January 
     15, 2003
       PN213 Army nominations (3) beginning KENNETH T. GAREAU, and 
     ending PAOLA M. OFLAHERTY, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 15, 2003
       PN214 Army nominations (2) beginning OLIN O. OEDEKOVEN, and 
     ending MATTHEW D. URBANEK, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 15, 2003
       PN171 Army nominations (20) beginning WILLIAM T. BARTO, and 
     ending BRADLEY P. STAI, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 9, 2003
       PN232 Army nominations (23) beginning PAUL A. BAKER, and 
     ending FRANK E. ZIEMKIEWICZ, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 16, 2003
       PN233 Army nominations (35) beginning MICHAEL P BOEHMAN, 
     and ending SCOTT F YOUNG, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 16, 2003
       PN234 Army nominations (55) beginning WHITE A* BAXTER, and 
     ending JENNIFER S* ZUCKER, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 16, 2003
       PN256 Army nomination of John F. Neptune, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003
       PN257 Army nomination of Charles E. Swallow, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003
       PN258 Army nomination of Wayne C. Hollenbaugh, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003.
       PN259 Army nomination of Joseph T. Hughes, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003.
       PN260 Army nomination of Gregory T. Bramblett, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003.
       PN261 Army nomination of Allen C. Whitford, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003.


                              marine corps

       PN215 Marine Corps nomination of John A. Manning, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 15, 2003.
       PN216 Marine Corps nomination of Michael E. Rodgers, which 
     was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 15, 2003.
       PN217 Marine Corps nomination of Samuel S. Scialabba, which 
     was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 15, 2003.
       PN218 Marine Corps nominations (200) beginning DANIEL W. 
     ALEXANDER, and ending JAN-HENDRICK C. ZURLIPPE, which 
     nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the 
     Congressional Record of January 15, 2003.
       PN235 Marine Corps nomination of Larry A. Dickey, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 16, 2003.
       PN236 Marine Corps nominations (651) beginning HARALD 
     AAGAARD, and ending ROBERT C ZYLA, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 16, 2003.

[[Page 2264]]

       PN241 Marine Corps nomination of Daniel P. Hudson, which 
     was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 21, 2003.


                                  navy

       PN219 Navy nominations (4) beginning FREDERICK J. ADAMS, 
     III, and ending ANDREA G. NASHOLD, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 15, 2003.
       PN220 Navy nomination of Ian G. McLeod, which was received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 15, 2003.
       PN221 Navy nomination of Michael S. Moeller, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 15, 2003.
       PN237 Navy nomination of Eric W. Herbert, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 16, 2003.
       PN238 Navy nomination of Jay R. Frohne, which was received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of 
     January 16, 2003.
       PN239 Navy nomination of Adrian D. Talbot, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 16, 2003.
       PN240 Navy nomination of Evangeline D. Smith, which was 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record of January 16, 2003.


                        NOMINATION OF JOHN SNOW

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pursuant to that unanimous consent 
request, I would like to take the floor for a few moments and then 
yield to my friend Senator Harkin.
  This evening, we are considering the nomination of John Snow to be 
the Secretary of the Treasury. It is a very important position, one of 
the most important in the President's Cabinet. I have had the 
opportunity on two occasions now to sit down with Mr. Snow and discuss 
with him a number of issues, but in particular one that I would address 
this evening. After these conversations, I am happy to report I will be 
supporting his nomination as Secretary of the Treasury. He will have an 
awesome responsibility in this post. I hope he can rise to that 
challenge. His resume shows that he can and that he will serve our 
Nation with pride.
  The particular issue which drew us together last night and again this 
evening is one that Senator Harkin has been the leader on for many 
years. Literally millions of Americans have pension plans which they 
have worked long and hard to maintain in their place of employment. The 
traditional defined-benefit plan is one where someone works for a 
company for a certain number of years and the company promised that at 
retirement they would pay them a certain amount of money. That is the 
retirement plan with which most people are familiar. That is the basic 
and traditional approach. But over the years retirement plans have 
changed. They have become more like 401(k)s or savings plans or 
investment plans, and those are known as cash-benefit plans. Some 
companies have decided to go with defined-benefit plans and some with 
cash-benefit plans. But many employees have been caught in the middle. 
Some started working for a company thinking they had a defined-benefit 
plan. Then the company at a later date says for a variety of reasons we 
are going to move to this other cash-balance plan. For some employees, 
it is a good choice. If you are a young worker in a company, and they 
come in and say, Listen, you don't know if you are going to be at this 
place the rest of your life; you may pick up and move to another job; 
would you rather have something like a cash-balance plan where you know 
how much money is there? It is invested. You can build it up over the 
years and move it with you from job to job. A lot of younger workers 
said, That is exactly what I want.
  But the worker who has been on that job for longer periods of time 
has built up benefits under the defined-benefit plan may say, Wait a 
minute. Don't change the rules at this point. I am nearing retirement. 
I know what I was supposed to receive. I don't want to change the 
benefit plan at all.
  Therein lies the dilemma. Some corporations have said to employees, 
You make the decision. Decide what is best for you. Stick with the old 
defined-benefit plan or move to the cash-balance plan. But it is your 
choice.
  Frankly, from my point of view and Senator Harkin's point of view, 
that is fair. Let the employee decide his fate. Let the employee decide 
what is best for him, for his family, and for his future. That is what 
we would like to see.
  Frankly, that really was the law and the rule for so long, thanks to 
the hard work of Senator Harkin of Iowa protecting the rights of 
employees.
  A month ago, there was a shocking rule issued by the Treasury 
Department which basically said the corporations could wipe out 
defined-benefit plans and say to that employee of many years, Guess 
what. We have changed the rules. You are now in a cash plan.
  I was at a press conference and met with some former IBM employees 
who went through that experience. It is really heartbreaking to hear 
what it meant to their families, and where they expected to end up 
generating some $4,000 a month in retirement income is now going to 
generate about $2,000. It means, frankly, the survivor benefits are 
sacrificed and a quality of life has been lost.
  Senator Harkin, myself, Congressman George Miller of California, and 
Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont have really tried to dramatize 
this issue and this new proposed rule, and to say to the Treasury 
Department, For goodness sakes, treat these workers fairly. Don't force 
them into a plan that is going disadvantage them or their families.
  We gathered together some signatures--I don't take any credit for it; 
the work was done primarily by the two House leaders I just mentioned--
over 226 signatures of Members of Congress in both the House and the 
Senate, saying to the President and the Treasury Department, Don't 
change the rules in midstream. Protect these employees.
  Along comes the President's nominee for the Treasury Department, John 
Snow. Of course, he will be the man to make the ultimate decision on 
the rule and whether it will be fair to employees. Senator Harkin and I 
sat down with him this evening and had a lengthy and very positive 
conversation.
  John Snow comes to us from a career in private business where he has 
been a CEO of the CSX Railroad. He explained to us when his railroad 
decided to change pension plans, they left it up to the employees to 
decide. He thought that was a fair thing to do with his railroad. We 
think it is a fair thing to do for every company. He talked about other 
businesses he worked with where the same thing occurred.
  He said to us he was going to be fair and objective, and he was going 
to take the rights of the worker into account for any rule related to 
future pension plans.
  We talked about the fact that when it comes to Members of Congress, 
that is exactly the standard we followed when it came to our 
retirement. I guess it was 10, 12 years ago we decided to change the 
retirement plan. We went to individual Members of Congress and said, 
What do you choose? What is best for you and your family? That was our 
way. Should it not be the right of every American worker?
  In a meeting with Senator Harkin and myself, we decided to let this 
nominee go forward to give Mr. Snow an opportunity to become the 
Treasury Department Secretary and to use his values and corporate 
experience which he brings to the job not only to serve the Nation but 
to treat American workers and retirees fairly.
  I want to especially thank Senator Harkin. This is not the kind of 
issue likely to be on the front page of any newspaper, but it is the 
kind of issue that is likely to be front and center on the dining room 
table of American families who are genuinely concerned about their 
future. He fought a long and lonely battle on this issue. I was happy 
to support him. But he deserves credit for his leadership. The meeting 
with the new Treasury Secretary today points us in the right direction. 
We want to work with this Treasury Department and with this Secretary 
to be fair to workers across America.
  I will support the nomination of John Snow for Treasury Secretary 
because I believe he brings the right values and the right corporate 
experience to this job. I am sure I am going to disagree

[[Page 2265]]

with him on many issues. But on this particular issue, the assurances 
which he gave us this evening are the basis for us to go forward and 
approve his nomination.
  At this point, I would like to yield to my leader on this issue, my 
colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
across the Mississippi River in Illinois, Senator Durbin, for the very 
kind and overly generous words. More than that, I thank him for his 
diligence and for his hard work on this issue which means so much to 
the average working person in America.
  I will just say at the outset that Senator Durbin has, I believe, 
correctly laid out the meeting we had with Mr. Snow earlier this 
evening, and has also correctly portrayed the assurances we got from 
Mr. Snow regarding this issue and how he would approach it as the new 
Secretary of the Treasury.
  Again, I want to make it clear that the actions of this Senator 
earlier today and yesterday in wanting to have a bit of time here to 
talk about this before we voted on this nomination had nothing to do 
with Mr. Snow. I said that earlier this evening. This is nothing 
personal at all. He has a very distinguished career in the business 
community. He was head of the CSX Railroad, I guess for well over 20-
some years, if I am not mistaken, and has served well on boards of 
schools, universities, John Hopkins, and others. In other words, he has 
been both a business leader and a community leader.
  Again, I want to compliment him and commend him for his distinguished 
career and for his service both to his company and to our country.
  I congratulate Mr. Snow on his nomination for Secretary of the 
Treasury and will join with my colleagues in supporting that 
nomination.
  I feel, as Senator Durbin said, that he gave us assurances on this 
issue--and I will talk more about this issue in a minute--dealing with 
pensions and workers' rights; that he will assure the fairness and 
equity as the rule. In fact, I wrote down exactly what Mr. Snow said. 
He said:

       I believe we should protect the basic rights of workers. 
     And, if a rule doesn't meet that test, it won't move forward. 
     Fundamental fairness will be at the center of any policy.

  I compliment Mr. Snow for that. As Senator Durbin pointed out, as the 
CEO of the CSX Railroad, when they changed their plan over from a 
defined-benefit plan to a cash-balance plan, they left in place for 
older workers the defined-benefit plan. In other words, they could stay 
with that plan. Newer, younger workers could go with cash balance 
plans. To me, that really makes sense. That is really the way we ought 
to be going in this country when we talk about our pensions and 
protecting our pensions.
  So my actions here yesterday and today have not been about Mr. Snow. 
They have been about this issue. It is an issue of fundamental fairness 
for people who work hard, play by the rules, and then find out--after 
working 20 or 30 years--that what they thought they were going to get 
has been taken away. So that is what this is about.
  Over the last several days, I have been reading a book that was given 
to me last year. I had not gotten to it. I have now been reading it. I 
am almost finished with it. I recommend it highly. It is a book by 
Kevin Phillips called ``Wealth and Democracy.''
  I remember in one part of the book he pointed out that over the last 
30 years--I think from 1970 to about the year 2000--the difference in 
the compensation for our CEOs and the people who work on the shop 
floor, so to speak, has been that in 1972, the average CEO salary was 
about 42 times that of the average worker in that corporation. That was 
1970--42 times; by the year 2000, that gap had widened to 417 times. In 
other words, today, the average CEO is getting 417 times the 
compensation of the average worker in that corporation. So that gap has 
widened tremendously.
  Also what has happened is that we see, time and time and time again, 
that when CEOs of these large corporations hit a rough spot--the 
company maybe has a rough spot, the CEOs leave the corporation--they 
get wonderful golden parachutes. They get wonderful retirement 
programs. We have to have that same kind of fairness for the average 
workers.
  In 2001, we passed numerous pension provisions that had wide support. 
Many provisions favored those making more than $200,000 a year. I am 
not saying those provisions are bad, but we need some balance.
  In the early 1990s, U.S. companies began a process of switching from 
defined benefit pension plans to cash balance plans. I am not going to 
get into the esoteric descriptions of defined benefits plans and cash 
balance plans, but only to say that many workers who affected by these 
changes had no idea what was happening to their pensions.
  You might ask: Why has this all of a sudden come to the forefront in 
the year 2003? Well, it did not. I first drafted legislation in 1999, 
because by that time workers whose pensions had been changed in the 
early and mid-1990s, and who were now really facing retirement, all of 
a sudden woke up and found out that they did not have what they thought 
they would, and they had no recourse.
  So, in 1999, I introduced a bill to make it illegal for corporations 
wear away the benefits of older workers during cash balance 
conversions. We had a vote on that bill in the Senate. I offered it as 
an amendment to the reconciliation bill, and a point of order was 
raised, so we had to vote to waive the point of order. 48 Senators, 
including 3 Republicans, voted to waive the budget point of order so we 
could consider this amendment. Obviously, we did not have enough votes.
  After that, more and more stories came out about how many workers 
were losing their pensions. In April of 2000, I offered a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution to stop this practice, and it passed the Senate 
unanimously. The Secretary of the Treasury put a moratorium on 
conversions from defined benefit plans to a cash balance plans. That 
moratorium has been in effect now for over three years.
  Last month, a rule was proposed by the Treasury Department--a rule 
that would turn the clock back, undo the moratorium, and allow 
companies to once again engage in the practice of switching from 
defined benefit plans to cash balance plans and wear away the benefits 
of older workers.
  So that is why I wanted to utilize this time and this nomination of 
Mr. Snow to be Secretary of the Treasury, to raise this issue once 
again and to talk with Mr. Snow about it as the incoming Secretary of 
the Treasury. We cannot permit this rule to just go forward. I think it 
was clear here in the Senate, in 2000, that we did not want that 
practice to continue. So I wanted to take this time to bring this issue 
to the forefront.
  What are we talking about when we talk about how much people are 
losing in this? This morning, we had a press conference. We had a man 
there by the name of Larry Cutrone. He was one of thousands robbed of 
the full value of their earned pensions. He said that before AT&T 
converted his pension, it was valued at $350,000. After the conversion, 
in July 1997, the value dropped to $138,000. The calculation period for 
his pension was frozen at 1994-1996 salaries, so no value to his 
retirement account was added for any years he worked after the 
conversion.
  So he said:

       In September 2001, I was ``downsized'' out of AT&T and 
     decided to take my pension. I discovered that it translated 
     into an annual income of just $23,444 instead of the $47,303 
     income under the old plan.
       When these plans were changed over, workers were not 
     informed that this could happen. They woke up one day and 
     found out: they have less than 50 percent of what they 
     thought they were going to get in their retirement.

  Is that fair? Is that equitable?
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this statement of Larry 
Cutrone that he gave this morning be printed in its entirety in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record,  as follows:

                       Statement of Larry Cutrone

       My name is Larry Cutrone, one of thousands robbed of the 
     full value of their earned

[[Page 2266]]

     pensions due to the ``Cash Balance'' pension conversion. 
     Before AT&T converted my pension it was valued at $350,000 
     and after the conversion in July 1997, the value dropped to 
     $138,000. Even with AT&T's ``Special Update'' enhancement to 
     my account, the value only rose to $150,000. The calculation 
     period for my pension was frozen at 1994-1996 salaries, so no 
     value to my retirement account was added for any years I 
     worked after the conversion.
       In September 2001, I was ``downsized'' out of AT&T and 
     decided to take my pension. I discovered that it translated 
     into an annual income of just $23,444 instead of the $47,303 
     income under the old plan. This seems meager after 31 loyal 
     years of service to the company. As a result, my wife was 
     forced to waive her rights to the survivor benefits of my 
     pension in the event I predecease her. Invoking these rights 
     would have meant between 8% and 20% less per month. While my 
     pension was reduced by more than half, my monthly 
     contribution for medical benefits was increased five times 
     this year.
       As representatives of ``AT&T Concerned Employees Council on 
     Retirement Protection'' (ACE CORP), we are willing to 
     publicize our personal situation in order to bring to the 
     forefront the negative impact of the forced cash balance 
     pension on the older worker. We urge President Bush to 
     support Congressman Sanders, Miller, Senator Harkin, and 
     their fellow representatives to revise his proposal to the 
     IRS by including protection for the older worker and 
     preventing them from becoming ``Pension Challenged'' by 
     ``Cash Imbalance''!
       In President Bush's radio address this past Sunday he 
     states ``In 2003, we must work to strengthen our economy; 
     improve access to affordable, high quality health care for 
     all our seniors . . .'' In his State of the Union Address, he 
     urged Congress to pass his plan ``. . . to strengthen our 
     economy and help more Americans find jobs.'' (Assuming he 
     makes these comments in his State of the Union Address on 
     Tuesday.) We hope our efforts will convince President Bush 
     that his IRS Proposal and the affect of the cash balance 
     pension on the older worker further reduces consumer 
     spending, and reduces tax revenue while causing our economy 
     to continue suffering. We are aware of any negative impact to 
     the corporations who convert to cash balance pension plans. 
     Should the loyal worker and subsequently America's economy be 
     penalized?

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 189 Members of the House of 
Representatives and 25 Senators signed a letter that was sent today to 
President Bush, asking that we do not reopen the floodgates, that we 
withdraw this rule and promulgate a rule that is fair and equitable. As 
we said in our letter:

       We are writing to strongly urge you to withdraw proposed 
     Treasury Department regulations regarding cash balance 
     pension plans and to issue new regulations that will prohibit 
     profitable companies from reducing the pension benefits of 
     existing employees or retirees by converting to age-
     discriminatory cash balance plans.
       The recently proposed regulations would create an incentive 
     for thousands of companies to convert to cash balance plans 
     by providing legal protection against claims of age bias by 
     older employees.

  Often when companies switch from defined benefit plans to cash 
balance plans, a worker can work for 20 or 25 years, but the employer 
may not pay anything into your pension plan for several years. But they 
will contribute to a younger worker who has only been there for 2 
years.
  So let's understand this. You have two workers work for the same 
company, doing the same job. One gets extra wages in the form of a 
benefit of money put into a cash balance account. The other worker, who 
has been there 20 or 25 years, does not get it. That is age 
discrimination, pure and simple, in violation of Federal law. The only 
reason the one person is not getting it is because they have been there 
longer.
  The younger worker gets the money; the older worker does not. That is 
age discrimination, pure and simple.
  As we said in our letter:

       [The proposed] regulations [from Treasury] would result in 
     millions of older employees losing a significant portion of 
     the annual pension they had been promised by their employer 
     and had come to rely upon as part of their retirement 
     planning.

  That is what happened to Larry Cutrone.
  We write:

       We urge you to direct the Treasury Department to 
     immediately withdraw these proposed regulations and instead 
     issue regulations that provide for the protection of older 
     employees pensions.
       At a time when millions of employees are still reeling from 
     significant losses to their 401(k) retirement plans because 
     of corporate scandals and the ongoing weakness in the stock 
     market, we believe these regulations represent another 
     serious blow to the retirement security of hard working 
     Americans who have played by the rules in their companies 
     only to see the rules of the game . . . change midway through 
     their careers.

  I ask unanimous consent this letter, signed by 189 Members of the 
House and 25 Senators, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 2003.
     The Hon. George W. Bush,
     President of the United States,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Bush: We are writing to strongly urge you to 
     withdraw proposed Treasury Department regulations regarding 
     cash balance pension plans and to issue new regulations that 
     will prohibit profitable companies from reducing the pension 
     benefits of existing employees or retirees by converting to 
     age-discriminatory cash balance plans. (Federal Register, 
     December 11, 2002, Internal Revenue Service, 26 CFR Part 1, 
     REG-209500-86, REG-164464-02, RIN 1545-BA10, 1545-BB79.)
       According to the General Accounting Office, annual pension 
     benefits of older employees can drop by as much as 50 percent 
     after a company converts from a traditional defined benefit 
     plan to a cash balance plan. Large companies favor the 
     conversion because they can save hundreds of millions of 
     dollars a year in pension costs. Delta Airlines, for example, 
     recently announced it would save $500 million per year by 
     switching to a cash balance plan. In the late 1990s, IBM 
     initially estimated it would save $200 million per year by 
     switching to a cash balance plan. IBM, AT&T, and Verizon are 
     among the 300 to 700 large companies that have already 
     converted to a cash balance pension plan. An additional 300 
     companies had been waiting for IRS approval of their 
     conversion plans even before the regulatory change was 
     announced. Thousands of companies employing millions of 
     people would be eligible to convert their pension plans under 
     the proposed regulations.
       Switching to a cash balance plan in mid-stream has the 
     greatest negative effect on older employees who have worked 
     for many years with one company and plan to continue to work 
     for additional years for the same employer.
       As you know, in September 1999, the IRS issued a moratorium 
     on issuing letters of approval to companies for pension plan 
     conversions because of age discrimination concerns. There are 
     over 800 age discrimination complaints currently pending 
     before the EEOC based on cash balance conversions. The 1999 
     moratorium has nearly stopped the flow of companies 
     converting to cash balance plans.
       The recently proposed regulations would create an incentive 
     for thousands of companies to convert to cash balance plans 
     by providing legal protection against claims of age bias by 
     older employees. The regulations would result in millions of 
     older employees losing a significant portion of the annual 
     pension they had been promised by their employer and had come 
     to rely upon as part of their retirement planning.
       We urge you to direct the Treasury Department to 
     immediately withdraw these proposed regulations and instead 
     issue regulations that provide for the protection of older 
     employees' pensions.
       At a time when millions of employees are still reeling from 
     significant losses to their 401(k) retirement plans because 
     of corporate scandals and the ongoing weakness in the stock 
     market, we believe these regulations represent another 
     serious blow to the retirement security of hard working 
     Americans who have played by the rules in their companies 
     only to see the rules of the game for rank and file employees 
     change midway through their careers.
       Re-opening the floodgates for cash balance conversions will 
     destroy what is left of our private pension retirement 
     system. This is a devastating step that your Administration 
     need not and should not allow.
       We deeply appreciate your attention to the concerns that we 
     are expressing on behalf of the millions of employees who 
     will depend on their pensions for a secure retirement. We 
     look forward to working with you to protect the pension 
     security of America's workers.
           Sincerely,
          Bernard Sanders, George Miller, Tom Harkin, Barbara 
           Boxer, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, Paul 
           Sarbanes, Carl Levin, Christopher Dodd, Charles 
           Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Jon Corzine, James Jeffords, 
           Mark Dayton, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Mikulski, Russell 
           Feingold, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Maurice Hinchey, John 
           McHugh, John Dingell, David Obey, Barney Frank, Tom 
           Lantos, Paul Kanjorski, Lloyd Doggett, Robert Andrews, 
           Jane Harman, David Price, Gene Green, Lucille Roybal-
           Allard, Rodney Alexander, James Clyburn, David Scott, 
           Ike Skelton, Ed Pastor, Adam Smith, Gil Gutknecht, Ron 
           Kind, James T. Walsh, Nick Lampson, Jay Inslee, 
           Sherwood Boehlert.

[[Page 2267]]

         Rahm Emanuel, Madeleine Bordallo, Rob Simmons, Solomon 
           Ortiz, Sanford Bishop, Gregory Meeks, Steve Israel, 
           Kendrick Meek, Steny Hoyer, Bob Etheridge, Artur Davis, 
           Ruben Hinojosa, Mike Thompson, Brad Miller, Max 
           Sandlin, Dutch C.A. Ruppersberger, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, 
           Adam Schiff, Sander Levin, Michael Honda, Melvin L. 
           Watt, Lincoln Davis, Marion Berry, Jim Cooper, Frank W. 
           Ballance, Jr., Shelley Berkley, Chris Bell, Dennis A. 
           Cardoza, Jack Quinn, Nick J. Rahall, II, Michael R. 
           McNulty, Richard Gephardt, Timothy Bishop, Karen 
           McCarthy, Raul Grijalva, Stephen Lynch, Ciro Rodriguez, 
           Bart Gordon, Mike Ross, John Spratt, Robert Menendez, 
           Virgil Goode, Jr., Denise Majette, Maxine Waters, Nita 
           Lowey, Jim Moran, Charles Gonzalez, Joseph Hoeffel.
         Jerry Costello, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Harold Ford, Jr., 
           Bobby Rush, Tom Udall, Timothy Ryan, Thomas Allen, 
           Elijah Cummings, Michael Michaud, Norman Dicks, Robert 
           Brady, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Jim Davis, Linda Sanchez, 
           Vic Synder, William Jefferson, Tim Holden, Diane 
           Watson, Carolyn Maloney, Lane Evans, Jesse Jackson, 
           Jr., Robert Wexler, Anthony Weiner, Betty McCollum, 
           William Lipinski, Peter Visclosky, Anna Eshoo, Steven 
           Rothman, Darlene Hooley, Nydia Velaquez, Martin Olav 
           Sabo, Gene Taylor, Ted Strickland, Danny Davis, Loretta 
           Sanchez, Chaka Fattah, Grace Napolitano, John Lewis, 
           Martin Meehan, Bart Stupak, Ellen Tauscher, Chris Van 
           Hollen, Zoe Lofgren, Edward Markey, Collin Peterson, 
           Henry Waxman, Michael Capuano, Diana DeGette.
         Jerrold Nadler, Bill Pascrell, Albert Russell Wynn, 
           Joseph Crowley, Gary Ackerman, Carolyn McCarthy, Gerald 
           Kleczka, John Murtha, Donald Payne, Louise McIntosh 
           Slaughter, Tammy Baldwin, John Conyers, Susan Davis, 
           Neil Abercrombie, Mike McIntyre, Fortney Pete Stark, 
           Hilda Solis, Bob Filner, Alcee Hastings, John Tierney, 
           Jose Serrano, James Langevin, Frank Pallone, Earl 
           Blumenauer, Juanita Millender-McDonald, Barbara Lee, 
           Lynn Woolsey, Robert Scott, Rush Holt, James McGovern, 
           Stephanie Tubbs Jones, John Olver, Lois Capps, Sam 
           Farr, Corrine Brown, Dale Kildee, Patrick Kennedy, 
           William Delahunt, Edolphus Towns, Joe Baca, Eliot 
           Engel, Silvestre Reyes, William Lacy Clay, Michael 
           Doyle, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Sherrod Brown, Luis 
           Gutierrez, Janice Schakowsky.
         Howard Berman, Bennie Thompson, Julia Carson, Mark Udall, 
           Rosa DeLauro, Peter DeFazio, Martin Frost, Marcy 
           Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Major Owens, Peter Deutsch, 
           Eleanor Holmes Norton, James Oberstar, Jim McDermott, 
           Rick Larsen, Donna Christensen, John D. Rockefeller IV, 
           Maria Cantwell, Jack Reed, Harry Reid, Daniel Akaka, 
           Richard Durbin, Frank Lautenberg, Debbie Stabenow, 
           Christopher Smith, Daniel Inouye, Alan Mollohan, Ed 
           Case, Bill Nelson.
  Mr. HARKIN. We have right now over 1,000 cases pending before the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, over 1,000 cases regarding age 
discrimination. These are cases of people who have had their retirement 
pensions, what they were promised, reduced like Larry Cutrone; 1,000 
cases filed under age discrimination. I believe these cases have merit. 
They are going to go forward. They are going to go into Federal courts.
  I want to make it very clear: I am not opposed to cash balance plans. 
Some cash balance plans can be very good. What I am opposed to is the 
unilateral decision of a company being able to change their plans and 
stop contributing to an employee's pension without their knowledge. 
That is what I am opposed to.
  That is what this issue is all about. It is fairness. It is equity. I 
know sometimes when you get into pension laws, things like that, it 
sounds very convoluted. In essence, what some of these companies have 
been doing to these workers is nothing less than sheer thievery. They 
are able to save millions, in some cases hundreds of millions of 
dollars, by converting these plans over, robbing--yes, I use the word 
``robbing''--their workers who have been loyal and hard working, 
robbing them of their rightful claims on future benefits, taking that 
money and giving it in higher benefits to the CEOs and the corporate 
executives, golden parachutes. It is not right. It is not fair.
  There is one thing that has distinguished the American workplace from 
others around the world. We have valued loyalty. If you are hard 
working and loyal, companies value that. At least they used to. That is 
one of the reasons we had pension plans--the longer you worked there, 
the more benefit you had in your pension program. Obviously, the longer 
you work someplace, the better you do your job, the more you learn 
about it, the more productive you are. We valued that loyalty.
  If companies are able to just change these plans, what kind of a 
signal does that send to the workers? It sends this signal: Don't be 
loyal. You are a fool if you are loyal because if you work here for 20 
or 25 years, we can just change the rules of the game, and break our 
promise.
  What it says to younger workers is: It would be crazy to work for 
this company for a long time. I will work here a couple years; I will 
move on.
  It destroys the kind of work ethic we have come to value and that we 
know built this country. I also thought we valued fairness when it 
comes to workers. A deal is a deal. Let's say I wanted to hire you. I 
said: I will hire you for 5 years, pay you $50,000 a year. But if you 
stay with me for 5 years, I will give you a $50,000 bonus.
  You say, OK, that is good. So now you work for me 3 years and you are 
thinking you have 2 more years to go and you will get that $50,000 
bonus. But at the end of the third year I come to you and say: Do you 
remember the deal we made where I said if you work for me for 5 years 
you will get that $50,000 bonus? Well, the deal is off.
  Well, now you have 3 years invested there. If you had known that the 
deal was going to be off, maybe you would not have gone to work for me. 
Maybe you would have gone to work someplace else. Is that the way we 
want to treat workers in this country, where I have all the cards and 
you have none, and I can make whatever deal I want, but I can change 
the rules any time I want to and take away your pension? That is what 
this is about.
  Well, as Senator Durbin said, I thought we had a good meeting with 
Mr. Snow. I am encouraged by the fact that, as a CEO of his 
corporation, when they changed their plans over, they left a choice for 
workers. That is the right and honorable way to do things. I compliment 
Mr. Snow for having done that. I am also assured that the rules of the 
game won't be changed in the middle. In other words, there is a 
moratorium on right now, and I am assured that the moratorium will stay 
on at least until a final rule is promulgated.
  Mr. Snow has said he would agree to meet with people--employers, 
representatives of labor groups, representatives of elderly groups--to 
get their input on this approach and, hopefully, on perhaps having a 
new rule.
  I want to make it clear this Senator will continue to press for the 
Treasury Department--when Mr. Snow gets confirmed and sworn in--to 
withdraw that rule. He has the power to do it as Secretary of the 
Treasury--withdraw the proposed rule and come out with a new one that 
more closely reflects what he had done as a CEO of a corporation 
earlier on when they changed their plans over. That is the fair way to 
do it. This is an issue that is not going to go away. Again, I think 
more and more working Americans are beginning to find out their hard 
work and loyalty is being taken away and they have no voice. Well, that 
is what we are here for, to help protect these people, and to make sure 
their voice is heard and to make sure the pensions they have built up 
over a long period of time over their working years is not unilaterally 
taken away by the companies for whom they worked.
  Again, I have no intention of holding up Mr. Snow's nomination at 
all. As I said, my only intention in doing this was to raise this issue 
up, to make sure Mr. Snow understood the depth of our feelings about 
it, the history in the Senate that we had passed a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution unanimously in 2000, and that there are a lot of strong 
feelings nationally--just witness the 1,000 cases now pending before 
the EEOC, plus the fact that there are now about 300 filings right now 
before the IRS, Internal Revenue Service, by companies wanting to 
engage in this practice--change from defined benefit plans, to cash 
balance plans, without

[[Page 2268]]

protecting the rights of the workers. I have estimated, roughly, that 
this represents several hundred thousand workers in this country who 
would be affected by this.
  We need to send a clear and strong signal that we are not going to 
allow this to happen. If companies want to change plans, fine; but give 
the workers the choice to stick with the plan they have had or to take 
the new one. That is all we are asking for.
  Mr. President, again, I congratulate Mr. Snow on his selection to be 
Secretary of the Treasury. I look forward to working with him. I thank 
him for his distinguished career, and I hope he is able to bring to the 
position that he will assume shortly the philosophy he had when he was 
the CEO of CSX Rail, and the kind of implementation of the change in 
their pension plans will be the kind of philosophy that we will have 
now at the Department of the Treasury.
  Every worker in this country ought to have the right to choose just 
like the workers at CSX had under Mr. Snow. Again, I look forward to 
working with Mr. Snow on this issue. I hope we can get a fair 
resolution of this in the days and weeks to come.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this morning the Senate Finance 
Committee completed our first piece of business for the 108th Congress. 
The business before the committee today was the nomination of John Snow 
to be Treasury Secretary. It is the matter that we should process as a 
full body today. The Treasury Secretary is, after the Vice President, 
perhaps the most important position in the President's Cabinet.
  As I said at the nomination hearing 2 days ago, the Finance Committee 
has a bipartisan tradition of acting expeditiously on this nomination. 
The reason is the importance of this nomination in the Nation's 
economic policymaking. The evidence of this tradition can be gleaned 
from committee records. Let's take a look at the recent history. For 
the period covering the first Bush administration, the Clinton 
administration, and this Bush administration, this committee has kept 
the position of Treasury Secretary filled in a virtually seamless 
manner.
  Let me emphasize that. For this first time in recent history, we have 
a significant vacancy in the Treasury Department. There has now been a 
gap in service. That gap needs to be closed. As long as that vacancy 
remains, our markets wonder, our global trading partners speculate, and 
the President is denied his principal economic policymaker.
  All Finance Committee Democrats and Republicans, past and present, 
should be proud of our record in recent history. It should surprise no 
one that the committee has taken this responsibility seriously. Whether 
we have divided government, or if one party controls the Congress and 
the administration, it does not matter. Much of the committee's policy 
is tied to the Treasury Department. It is a relationship that has a 
history of seriousness, productivity, and gravity. We all have an 
interest in filling this important position.
  I thank my ranking member and friend, Senator Baucus, for his 
assistance. I also thank my Finance Committee colleagues for their 
cooperation.
  Fortunately, over the same almost 15-year period, the full Senate has 
reflected the Finance Committee's seriousness on this important 
nomination. Again, over that period, under divided government or one 
party control, we as 100 Senators, have not permitted a significant 
vacancy to occur in this critical position. Some of my colleagues will 
recall Secretary O'Neill's nomination. Senator Helms, who some on the 
other side called ``Senator No,'' had an issue important in his State 
regarding the Africa free trade bill. Senator Helms recognized the 
critical nature of the Treasury Secretary's position and allowed the 
nomination to move forward expeditiously.
  Why does this office matter so much?
  Well, let's take a look at the job description on the Treasury Web 
site. I quote:

       The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for 
     formulating and recommending domestic and international 
     financial, economic, and tax policy, participating in the 
     formulation of broad fiscal policies that have general 
     significance for the economy and managing the public debt. 
     The Treasury Secretary oversees the activities of the 
     Treasury Department in carrying out his major law enforcement 
     responsibilities; in serving as the financial agent of the 
     U.S. Government; and in manufacturing coins and currency.
       The chief financial officer of the Government, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury serves on the President's National 
     Economic Council. He is also Chairman of the Boards and 
     Managing Trustee of the Social Security and Medicare Trust 
     Funds, Chairman of the Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight 
     Board, and serves as U.S. Governor of the International 
     Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
     Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the African 
     Development Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction 
     and Development.

  So, Mr. President, who has an interest in filling the gap I referred 
to earlier? The answer is: (i) any American with an interest in 
economic growth, (ii) any American senior receiving Social Security or 
Medicare, (iii) any holders of thrift deposits, (iv) any investor 
holding a Treasury bond and (v) any worker or management person with an 
international business. That is just for starters.
  This is not just any Cabinet position. The Treasury Department is the 
oldest Department and it is no accident that the Treasury Department is 
next door to the White House. These important responsibilities are the 
reason the Senate has not dilly-dallied on this nomination. I thank my 
colleagues for their cooperation in the confirmation of John Snow as 
Treasury Secretary.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, earlier today the Finance Committee 
approved the nomination of John Snow as the next Secretary of the 
Treasury. I thank my colleagues for this support of the confirmation of 
Mr. Snow.
  The confirmation process is never easy. Nor should it be, as it is 
part of the constitutional advice and consent function to review of the 
nominee's experience, qualifications and suitability to serve in the 
position to which he or she has been nominated.
  The Senate Finance Committee asked Mr. Snow hundreds of questions 
over a period of weeks. We sought his views on tax policy, prescription 
drugs, and budget deficits. We asked about matters involving corporate 
governance and executive compensation. He has responded to all of our 
questions.
  The American people are anxious about the flagging economy and the 
prospect of war. With the future uncertain, it is important for our 
country to have a Treasury Secretary in place to help tackle the 
difficult challenges ahead. The President has selected a man who is 
well qualified.
  I remain concerned about how we handle the upcoming debates about the 
budget, taxes and healthcare. We need to get to work. But we need to 
work together, in a bipartisan fashion, to address these important 
issues. I am committed to working with the administration to try to 
find common ground. The new Secretary shares this commitment. I look 
forward to working with him.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of John Snow, a 
proven leader with a reputation of a winner, and President Bush's 
nominee for U.S. Treasury Secretary.
  John Snow is someone I know well and a proud resident of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia. In nominating John Snow, President Bush has 
brilliantly chosen the best person in America for the vital position of 
Secretary of the Treasury. There are few Americans with the knowledge 
of diverse U.S. and international economies--manufacturing, mining, 
automobile, electric, agriculture--trade, transportation modes--rail, 
ports, barges--and hands-on track record of creating jobs that John has 
developed over the last three decades. John Snow is a man of positive 
action and the right person to help President Bush create greater job 
opportunities for all Americans. He will be a respected and articulate 
leader for the principles of trusting people and free enterprise to do 
what they do best--create new and better jobs.
  His prior service in Federal Government helps him as well. John Snow 
understands how government operates

[[Page 2269]]

and how government can help or hinder job growth.
  I have known John and Carolyn Snow for many years, and have relied on 
John's insight, experience and wisdom often over those years. While I 
served as Governor of Virginia, John gave extensively of his time to 
help us shape a plan that successfully revived Virginia's economy and 
resulted in the creation of a record number of new jobs. He continues 
to be a trusted adviser on economic and transportation issues.
  When John came to Richmond in the early 1980s, the city was still 
suffering the lingering consequences of the past, and a very 
contentious period in the 1970s. Richmond had just elected its first 
African-American mayor. During this time, John stepped forward to help 
bridge the gap between the past and the future. He was a founding 
member of Richmond Renaissance, an organization dedicated to promoting 
racial equality in downtown Richmond. He was appointed by the new mayor 
to the city of Richmond school board. He became a member of the board 
of Virginia Union, a historically black college in Richmond.
  He is a Renaissance man--educated in law and economics at the 
University of Virginia, government and business, and a professor. A 
Renaissance man who can convincingly and reasonably articulate the need 
for positive action.
  John Snow has been successful in business because he knows that a 
growing economy is one that enables every working man and woman to have 
an opportunity to benefit from their hard work, their creativity and 
their ingenuity.
  With his confirmation, all of America will soon come to trust and 
rely on John Snow's considerable knowledge and experience as I and so 
many grateful Virginians have over the years.

                          ____________________