U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–408—PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–842 

NOMINATIONS OF WILLIAM B. SCHULTZ AND 

CHRISTOPHER J. MEADE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON THE

NOMINATIONS OF 

WILLIAM B. SCHULTZ, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND CHRISTOPHER J. MEADE, TO 

BE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

DECEMBER 20, 2012 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Staff Director 

CHRIS CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee 

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................. 3 

Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from New York ................................. 9 

ADMINISTRATION NOMINEES 

Schultz, William B., nominated to be General Counsel, Department of Health 

and Human Services, Washington, DC .............................................................. 10 

Meade, Christopher J., nominated to be General Counsel, Department of 

the Treasury, Washington, DC ........................................................................... 11 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL 

Baucus, Hon. Max: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Meade, Christopher J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Biographical information ................................................................................. 38 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 47 

Schultz, William B.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Biographical information ................................................................................. 65 

Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 81 

Schumer, Hon. Charles E.: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 9 

(III) 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS OF WILLIAM B. SCHULTZ, 

TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT 

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND 

CHRISTOPHER J. MEADE, TO BE GENERAL 

COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in 

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus, 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Wyden, Schumer, Stabenow, Cantwell, Carper, 

Hatch, Grassley, Roberts, Coburn, and Thune. 

Also present: Democratic Staff: Amber Cottle, Chief International 

Trade Counsel; Rory Murphy, International Trade Analyst; and Tiffany Smith, Tax Counsel. Republican Staff: Chris Campbell, Staff 

Director; and Nick Wyatt, Tax and Nomination Professional Staff 

Member. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

I know that for some on this committee there is a hard 4 o’clock 

deadline. We will try to move expeditiously and in a way that all 

Senators who wish to ask questions will have an opportunity to do 

so, hopefully before 4, but, if not before 4 today, then at a later 

date they can ask questions. But I think there is a very good 

chance we can wrap it up today, again, by 4 o’clock. 

In his speech on leadership delivered more than 100 years ago, 

President Theodore Roosevelt said, ‘‘It is not the critic who counts; 

not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or 

where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit 

belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is 

marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who 

errs, who comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to 

do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; 

who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in 

the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, 

if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall 

never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory 

nor defeat.’’ 

2 

This quote hangs on the wall in my office. It serves as a powerful 

reminder about the importance of political leadership. Today I 

want to thank four members of our committee who are leaving. 

This will be their last hearing. I am not sure how many will be 

able to attend, but I want to mention them because they are such 

terrific people. 

The first is Kent Conrad. We all remember Kent for many reasons: for his charts—he informs us with great precision on various 

economic matters; second, as a valiant member of the BowlesSimpson Committee, the Gang of 6, the Gang of 8, who has devoted 

himself to getting our debt down; as someone who worked so hard 

on the passage of health care legislation, especially the Affordable 

Care Act, and contributed greatly and mightily, with very precise 

questions and great contributions, always looking for a better solution, always trying to make something better—not critical, but constructive. I just want Kent to know how much we are going to miss 

him here. 

Second, Jon Kyl. When I think of Jon, I think of a man of superior intelligence who has an encyclopedic knowledge of policy, who 

is tenacious, and who is a great multi-tasker. He is always very 

busy, with many balls up in the air. He works so hard, especially 

with respect to Federal estate tax. That means a lot to Jon to make 

sure it is written in a way that makes sense to him. All of this has 

not gone unnoticed. Time magazine named Jon one of the 100 most 

influential people in the world for his persuasive role in the Senate. 

Next to Jon, of course, is Jeff Bingaman. I do not know anybody 

here with more quiet, thoughtful, statesmanlike perception, who 

devotes himself to hard work and does not pat himself on the back, 

than Jeff Bingaman. He is really something. I mean, he reminds 

me a little bit of the old commercial, the E.F. Hutton commercial: 

‘‘When Jeff speaks, everybody listens.’’ Because what Jeff says is 

very thoughtful, he has thought it through, and he is several steps 

ahead of everybody else. We will very much miss Jeff on this committee for his tireless work on the Children’s Health Insurance 

Program, and helping to improve Medicaid. Not a show-horse at 

all, but he is a work-horse in the best sense of the term. 

Fourth is Olympia, Olympia Snowe. When I think of Olympia, I 

think of someone who is so dedicated to her State, who just keeps 

asking the questions, what about this, what about that? Olympia, 

what do you think? I do not know. I have to think this through 

more; I am not sure. It is because she wants to make sure she gets 

it right. 

Over here on the dais, if you look at her notes, I have never seen 

anyone with more underlines, with more highlights. Some are yellow highlights, others are red highlights, some are circled. She is 

prepared. She came to this hearing fully, totally prepared. She also 

is clearly a class act and a real statesman, very bipartisan. 

I will never forget working with her. She is the only Republican 

who voted for the Affordable Care Act on the committee—not on 

the floor, but in the committee—and in just talking with Olympia, 

gee, we will change this, Olympia, what about this? Then, I do not 

know, let us see on this. Then finally she said, ‘‘Okay.’’ She is a 

wonderful, wonderful person. 

So, thank all four of you for all that you have done. 

3 

I also want to acknowledge the work of our friend Mark 

Matthiesen. There is Mark, sitting in the front row there, who recently announced his retirement. For the past 31 years, Mark has 

worked on tax legislation in the Office of the Senate Legislative 

Counsel. Thank you, Mark, very much for your work. Congratulations for your next endeavor, whatever you choose to do. 

Let us give Mark a round of applause. [Applause.] 

On a final note, earlier today I announced that our friend, whom 

all of you know and love, Russ Sullivan, will be leaving the Senate 

at the end of this Congress. A true friend, respected colleague for 

the last 18 years, he is just amazing. I do not know anybody else 

like Russ and his ability just to work with people on both sides of 

the aisle, talking quietly, looking for solutions, bipartisan, how do 

we get this done, how do we find the right way to do this, not partisan, just looking pragmatically, practically, getting a good solution for our country. I can think of no higher honor than the work 

that Russ has done for all of us in the committee, the Senate, and 

for the country. A big round of applause for Russ Sullivan. [Applause.] 

While we are missing Russ, we are fortunate to have someone 

who is just as smart and talented as Russ to take Russ’s position 

as Chief of Staff of the Finance Committee, and that is Amber 

Cottle. She has been my top trade person. She has the same tenacity, focus, intelligence, and dedication as Russ. So thank you, 

Amber, for agreeing to join us and keep up all our work. 

Do you want to say something at this point? 

Senator HATCH. Yes, why don’t I? Then we can go back. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Well, I appreciate the chairman allowing me to 

pay compliments too. He has mentioned a number of the people, of 

course, whom I very much appreciate as well. I appreciate the opportunity to pay tribute to those who will be leaving the Senate 

and this committee at the end of the year. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for setting apart the time 

for this purpose. I appreciate all the hard work members of this Finance Committee have put in over the past 2 years. It has been 

a great experience to work with every member of this committee, 

more so than in some other committees in the Senate. You probably know some of them. 

The Finance Committee is often able to accomplish its tasks on 

a bipartisan basis. Much of that is due to the leadership of Chairman Baucus, but it can also be attributed to the commitment and 

effort displayed by all of the individual members of the committee, 

and I appreciate it. 

With the conclusion of this Congress, four great Senators will be 

leaving the Finance Committee. They will all be missed, so I would 

like to just take a second or two to say something about each of 

them. 

Let me start by saying a few words about Senator Olympia 

Snowe. Senator Snowe has been a fiercely independent voice on the 

committee and in the Senate. I have long admired her commitment 

4 

to her principles and to the people of her home State of Maine as 

well. Maine has been very well-represented here in these past 18 

years, as Senator Snowe has worked to advance and reflect Maine’s 

values here in the Senate. 

In 2006, Senator Snowe was named one of America’s 10 best Senators by Time magazine. In bestowing this honor, they said that, 

while Senator Snowe is ‘‘a major player on national issues, she is 

also known as one of the most effective advocates for her constituents.’’ I have to say that I agree with Time’s assessment. She has 

tirelessly worked to be responsive to the people of Maine, to address their concerns here in the Senate, and once again to reflect 

their values with her votes and her decision-making. It is no wonder that she has always enjoyed high approval ratings among her 

constituents. 

And do you know who else was on that list? Senator Jon Kyl. I 

have worked closely with Senator Kyl on a number of issues over 

the years. I have worked with him here on the Finance Committee, 

on the Judiciary Committee, and of course in his position in the 

Senate Republican leadership. He is an incredible strategist and a 

brilliant lawyer, with an almost unparalleled intellect. I called him 

a lion of the law the other day, because he really is. 

I do not know of a single Republican Senator who has not, at one 

time or another, relied on Senator Kyl’s leadership and expertise 

on any number of issues. Senator Kyl has been a relentless advocate for conservative values on issues ranging from national security to judicial appointments, and in such areas he has been a leader that I personally have relied on for advice and counsel. 

Senator Kent Conrad was also on the Time magazine list. I think 

this says something about this committee. For years he has led his 

party in some fierce budget battles here in the Senate. While I 

have not always agreed with his views, I have never doubted that, 

when it came to the budget, he always knew what he was talking 

about. I think it was all about the charts, myself. It is hard to debate someone who has so many charts to back up his arguments. 

Over the last couple of years I have tried to follow Senator 

Conrad’s example and have exponentially increased my use of 

charts on the Senate floor. I am not as good at it as he is, is all 

I can say. Now I see why Senator Conrad does it. When I use 

charts, no one wants to debate me either. [Laughter.] Joking aside, 

Senator Conrad and his charts will be missed, both on the Senate 

floor and here in the Finance Committee. 

Well, I have to say that Senator Jeff Bingaman was not on that 

Time magazine Ten Best Senators list; of course neither was I or 

our distinguished chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Speak for yourself. [Laughter.] 

Senator HATCH. Were you on that list? 

The CHAIRMAN. No. 

Senator HATCH. Well, you should have been. [Laughter.] So it 

could not have been much of a list anyway. [Laughter.] 

I have sat with Senator Bingaman for most of my time here in 

the Senate. If you know the both of us, you know that we do not 

often find ourselves on the same side of many of the issues. Even 

so, we found ways to work together. For example, for a number of 

years I worked with Senator Bingaman on his legislation to help 

5 

self-employed individuals deduct their health care costs when compiling their self-employment income. 

Jeff has become something of an institution in New Mexico, having represented the State here in the Senate for 30 years. I know 

that there are many in his State who are, like us here in the Senate, sad to see him go. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, an unfortunate part of serving in the Senate is seeing good Senators and good friends come and go. Each of 

the four Senators leaving our committee this year is a devoted public servant, and they have worked hard, and they have worked 

hard in the best interests of their constituents. I know that they 

will all continue to serve their country in different capacities after 

they leave the Senate. 

I have come to admire each of these Senators. They are great 

Senators, and I am proud to call them all friends. I thank you for 

taking this time to do this, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Woodrow Wilson once said, ‘‘I not only use all the brains that I 

have, but all that I can borrow.’’ This administration, like all administrations, faces a great number of challenges. They need a 

great number of bright and talented people to work together to find 

solutions. The two nominees before us today are among the best 

and the brightest. They seek to be the General Counsels of the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Health and 

Human Services. These agencies will depend on their advice and 

expertise for implementing laws informing our country’s economic 

and health policies. 

In August, President Obama nominated Christopher Meade to be 

the General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury. Mr. Meade 

came to the Treasury in 2010 and this summer took over as the 

acting General Counsel. This experience and his trusted knowledge 

of the law will serve him very well. 

After graduating from Princeton and then the New York University School of Law, Mr. Meade clerked for Supreme Court Justice 

John Paul Stevens. Years later, he returned to the Supreme Court 

to argue four high-profile cases before the court. In reviewing his 

career, a consistent theme is apparent: he is respected, trusted, and 

Mr. Meade knows the law. 

If confirmed, Mr. Meade will use his experience to counsel the 

Secretary and all at the Treasury Department on economic and financial affairs, both domestic and international. These policies affect every person in America, and Mr. Meade’s sound judgment is 

essential. 

President Obama selected William Schultz to be the General 

Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services. This 

position demands a high level of expertise to assist in the analysis 

and implementation of our Nation’s health care laws. 

A graduate of Yale and then UVA Law School, Mr. Schultz 

gained experience through a long and varied career, much of it in 

public service. He currently serves as acting General Counsel at 

HHS. He came to the agency in 2011 after working at the Department of Justice, the FDA, and in the private sector. 

Mr. Schultz was a well-respected professor at Georgetown Law, 

sharing his knowledge with hundreds of students. He published 

6 

many scholarly articles throughout the years, covering issues from 

the FDA to the Supreme Court. His writings have appeared in the 

New York Times and the Georgetown Law Journal. 

Both Mr. Schultz and Mr. Meade must bring thoughtfulness and 

a command of the law to their respective agencies. Their records 

show them to be qualified for these positions. I believe the administration will benefit from borrowing the knowledge, experience, and 

perspective from both nominees, and I think they will do a great 

job. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baucus appears in the appendix.] 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take 

a moment to once again express my concerns about a growing problem relating to Congress’s dealings with the Obama administration, because I believe it is relevant to today’s hearing. But before 

I do, I know Mr. Schultz very, very well, and I do know of Mr. 

Meade, and I support both of them. I hope we can get you through 

before the end of the year. I doubt that is going to happen, but we 

will see what can happen. 

But there is a growing problem relating to this Congress’s dealings with the President, or should I say with the Obama administration, and I believe it is relevant to today’s hearing. 

As part of the case against King George III, the Second Continental Congress repeatedly noted in the Declaration of Independence that King George had consistently frustrated the attempts of 

the colonies to govern themselves. In these grievances, we see frustration with a strong executive authority that dominated the legislative authority. 

The very first grievance against the King noted in the Declaration states, ‘‘He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome 

and necessary for the public good.’’ Later, the Revolutionaries indicted the King ‘‘for suspending our own legislatures and declaring 

themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases 

whatsoever.’’ 

Now, these grievances were the inspiration for our Constitution, 

among other grievances, which created a system of checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches. Put simply, 

our system of government was designed so that Congress would be 

tasked with writing the laws that the executive branch implements. 

Now, more than 200 years later, many would argue that the executive branch has become more powerful, perhaps too powerful, at 

the expense of Congress. Congress shares significant blame for 

this. In an editorial published last year in the Washington Post, 

former HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt noted that Obamacare contains the phrase ‘‘the Secretary shall’’ nearly 2,000 times. 

Even during his tenure, Secretary Leavitt noted that he had 

been advised that HHS ‘‘has more power than a good person needs 

or a bad person ought to have.’’ HHS is more powerful now than 

it has ever been before. Among literally hundreds of other functions, Obamacare designates that the HHS Secretary will develop 

‘‘tooth-level surveillance.’’ 

7 

As such, perhaps the next nomination to HHS Secretary ought 

to be jointly referred to this committee and the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The continued abdication by Congress of legislative power and the accumulation of 

that power by the executive branch make the positions of Chief 

Counsel at HHS and Treasury very important. 

The two nominees before us, if confirmed, would wield vast influence over decisions that might impact the lives of every American. 

This is why I, along with many of my colleagues, believe that thorough oversight of the executive branch is critically important to 

preserving our system of checks and balances. That is in spite of 

the fact that I support both of these gentlemen, knowing their 

qualifications. 

The level of responsiveness from the administration, specifically 

HHS and Treasury, to written requests for information, has continued to be lackluster at best. I, along with many other members, 

have raised this issue numerous times, but to no avail. 

Both of the nominees today are currently serving in an acting capacity in the roles to which they have been nominated. Consequently, they know agency practice—and have worked within the 

existing agency structure—including how the agency responds, or 

in many cases does not respond, to informational requests from 

Congress. 

I would respectfully suggest that, when you return to your agencies, you pass along a reminder that at least some in Congress find 

the lack of responsiveness to be entirely unacceptable. My goal is 

to be able to work together with the executive branch, and I think 

our system of government works better when our two branches of 

government cooperate. I hope that any nominee who comes before 

this committee does not believe that their responsibility to work 

and communicate with Congress ends with their confirmation. 

There have been several recent instances in which nominees 

have pledged to me and this committee that they would work to 

promote transparency and would be responsive to Congress. Unfortunately, following confirmation those pledges have too often been 

abandoned. I know that Chairman Baucus recognizes the need for 

transparency and responsiveness and that he will work with me on 

finding a solution to this problem. 

To his great credit, he has repeatedly shown leadership in this 

committee, backing up any member’s request to any agency of government. I want him to know that I appreciate his leadership and 

support in this matter, and in so many other ways as well. 

Finally, I want to conclude with a brief statement on the scheduling of this particular hearing. Mr. Chairman, I assume that there 

are many in the administration and on your side of the aisle who 

would like to see these nominations move quickly. I may be among 

them. However, when we rush these proceedings, it seems to me, 

particularly so near to the end of this Congress, we may be doing 

the committee and the nominees a disservice. 

As you know, there is a very important Republican conference 

meeting today at 4 o’clock. Despite that, it was decided that a good 

portion of this hearing would be devoted to honoring our colleagues 

leaving the Senate. 

8 

Now, I appreciate the desire to honor those who deserve it, as 

our colleagues do, but that should not cause the hearing to get 

short shrift. In particular, I do not want to unduly limit questions 

from members of the committee in order to complete the hearing 

in a shortened time line. 

Now, these nomination hearings are more than just a box to be 

checked: they are essential to ensuring that we adequately fulfill 

our advice and consent responsibilities here in the Senate. I just 

hope that, as we go into the future, we will keep that in mind 

under all circumstances. 

One other thing. I hope when you folks finally get confirmed 

that, when we send a request for information, we do not get stiffed 

like we have been getting stiffed the last 4 years. Frankly, it has 

been not only noticeable, it is offensive. We are going to have to 

see that that changes. 

We do not ask these questions just for meanness or just to try 

to make political points; we are asking them because we do not 

have the knowledge and we do not have the understanding we 

would like and we have some things that we are concerned about. 

So, if you will keep that in mind as you serve back there—and 

when I say back there, with the administration back over there— 

we would appreciate it. 

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I went on so long, but I can appreciate 

both of you and I am for both of you, but I wanted to make those 

points. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Those are very good points. 

Number one is the importance of oversight, in this case especially 

with the Affordable Care Act and HHS—this next year is going to 

be a very busy year before this committee—to make sure that that 

Act is implemented well. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. There are a lot of questions—a lot of questions— 

with respect to implementation, some of them have to do with the 

exchanges, and there is going to have to be interplay between 

HHS, IRS, and probably other agencies too. To be honest, I am getting nervous that we are not going to be ready when the first person is filed, I guess in October, I think it is. So I am asking you, 

both of you, especially you, Mr. Schultz, when you go back, to say, 

we have to get ready, because this committee is going to have a lot 

of oversight hearings with respect to the Affordable Care Act. 

Point number two is just confirming what Senator Hatch said, 

namely that this committee is going to be looking for prompt responses to written requests, written questions that Senators may 

ask. We have backed each other up. Sometimes this party is in the 

majority, sometimes the other party is in the majority, but we back 

each other and every other member of this committee. We could 

just be doing ourselves a lot of good if we just, again, promptly answer. 

We are really a team here. We want to help. We are not performing an adversarial role. We are not here to criticize; we are 

here to work, to make this government work, so take advantage of 

that. You can take advantage of that by working very closely, alVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:27 Jan 30, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\86408.000 TIMD
9 

most even aggressively and cooperatively and constructively, with 

this committee. 

Senator SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman? 

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from New York. 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes. I would like to make a brief introduction 

of one of the nominees who is a New Yorker. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. Before I do that, I would just like to mention—I am sure we will have time to say more—that Russ Sullivan, 

as you have said, Mr. Chairman, has done an incredible job. I cannot think of a single staff person who will be more sorely missed 

than Russ. 

So thank you, Russ, for your total dedication all the years I have 

been on the Finance Committee, and you were even very helpful 

to many members, myself included, before we were on the Finance 

Committee. So, we will miss you, and wish you godspeed. 

It is my honor, Mr. Chairman, to be able to introduce to this 

committee Chris Meade, who has been nominated by the President 

to be General Counsel of the Treasury. Chris is a New Yorker. He 

was born in Yonkers, NY. He met his wife Stella, who is here today 

with him, in New York. Joining him today are his mother, Mary 

Ann, and his beautiful young children: Nora, who is three, and Elliot, who is 3 months. If they would like to stand so we can just 

say hi. Hi, Mary Ann. I think we heard from either Nora or Elliot 

a second ago. Anyway, thank you. 

Chris completed his undergraduate studies at Princeton before 

attending NYU Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of The 

Law Review and graduated magna cum laude. 

Up until coming to work for the administration, he had spent almost his entire life in New York. The only 2 years away prior to 

his joining Treasury were when he served as a law clerk to John 

Paul Stevens, a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Judge 

Harry T. Edwards of the DC Circuit. 

In addition to these very impressive clerkships, Chris has been 

a partner at Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale, and Dorr. There he 

was a member of both the litigation and securities departments, 

and the appellate and Supreme Court litigation group. 

Almost 3 years ago, Chris moved his family from New York to 

Washington—boo-hoo—in order to serve in the administration. He 

has served as the principal Deputy General Counsel at Treasury 

since March 2010, and by all accounts has done an exceptional job. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted the President nominated him to 

serve as General Counsel, and I hope he is confirmed quickly. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I would now like you each to give your statements. Before you 

do, Mr. Schultz, I will give you an opportunity to introduce any 

friends, family, associates who may be here whom you want to recognize. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I would 

like to introduce my wife, Sari Horwitz, and my daughter, Rachael 

Schultz. Rachael is completing her senior year at Washington UniVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:27 Jan 30, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 R:\DOCS\86408.000 TIMD
10 

versity in St. Louis. They are the best part of my life. They make 

everything worthwhile. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are they here? Could you stand? Please stand 

and be recognized. Welcome, very much. [Applause.] 

And, Mr. Meade, Senator Schumer mentioned some of your family. Why don’t you also, again, recognize your family and friends? 

Mr. MEADE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce 

and welcome my family: my wife Stella, who is standing in the 

back; my beautiful daughter Nora, who is 31⁄2 years old; and my 

baby son Elliot, who is nearly 3 months old. He is in the BabyBjorn 

with my wife there. 

The CHAIRMAN. We see him. Right. 

Mr. MEADE. My mother, Mary Ann Meade. I also want to acknowledge my father, Bill Meade, who passed away a few years 

ago. We miss him today. Also, I have a number of friends and colleagues here, and I am very grateful for their coming and for their 

support. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you all stand up, everybody? Let us recognize you. Come on, let’s go. [Applause.] 

All right. Good. Very good. Wonderful. All right. 

Mr. Schultz, as you know, your written statement is automatically included in the record, and we urge you to summarize for 

about 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. SCHULTZ, NOMINATED TO BE 

GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SCHULTZ. It is a brief statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Senator Hatch, and members of the committee. I am honored to appear as the President’s nominee to be General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services. 

The Department has more than 65,000 employees whose mission 

is to assure that the American people have access to high-quality 

and affordable health care, to support children and families, to ensure the safety of the food supply and that medical products are 

safe and effective, and to support research that will improve health 

and save lives. 

The Office of General Counsel advises the Department on the 

legal authorities that Congress has given the agency and on the 

legal constraints that Congress has imposed. It also works with 

components of HHS and the Department of Justice to ferret out 

fraud against the government, to ensure compliance with the law, 

and to defend the government against legal challenges to government programs. 

I believe my experience has prepared me for this position and 

has equipped me with the relevant skills, as well as with an understanding of the appropriate role of a General Counsel. I have 

worked in all three branches of government and in the private sector on litigation and regulatory matters. 

Since March 2011, I have served as the Acting General Counsel 

of the Department. Prior to that time, I was a partner at the law 

firm of Zuckerman Spaeder, and prior to that I spent 11 years in 

government. This included 5 years as counsel to the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, 4 years as the Deputy 

11 

Commissioner for Policy to the Food and Drug Administration, and 

2 years as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department 

of Justice in charge of civil appellate litigation. 

I began my career as a law clerk to a Federal District Court 

judge here in Washington, DC and then worked for 14 years at 

Public Citizen Litigation Group, a public-interest law firm. 

I am fortunate that the HHS Office of General Counsel is populated by enormously talented and committed attorneys and other 

staff, many of whom are here today, and I appreciate that. 

I am also grateful to have the opportunity to work with Secretary 

Sebelius, Deputy Secretary Bill Corr, and the other extraordinary 

officials at the Department. Throughout my career, Mr. Chairman, 

I have found public service, and in particular government service, 

both to be extremely challenging and extremely rewarding. 

I feel very fortunate to be nominated for this position. The mission of HHS could not be more important. If I am confirmed, I look 

forward to working with the members of this committee and will 

do my very best to ensure that the laws that Congress has enacted 

are faithfully implemented. Thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today, and of course I would be happy to answer any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Schultz. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schultz appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Meade, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. MEADE, NOMINATED TO BE 

GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MEADE. Thank you, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member 

Hatch, Senator Schumer for the kind introduction, and members of 

this committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I 

am honored that President Obama nominated me for this position, 

and I am grateful to Secretary Geithner for recommending me to 

the President. 

My parents instilled in me a deep commitment to public service, 

a value that I hope to pass on to my children. This commitment 

has been reinforced throughout my career. At the beginning of my 

career, I had the honor and privilege to serve as a law clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens and Judge Harry T. Edwards of the DC Circuit. They are not only great jurists, they are great public servants. 

I spent the core of my legal career as a partner at a law firm 

that is deeply committed to public service. I learned from many 

great lawyers there, including many who have served our country 

with distinction. 

I have spent nearly 3 years now serving as the Principal Deputy 

General Counsel at Treasury. The scope of legal issues within 

Treasury is vast, ranging from domestic and international economic 

affairs, terrorist financing and enforcement, tax, ethics, and administrative law. 

My service has given me great respect for the Treasury Department and, in particular, for the talent and expertise of the career 

lawyers at Treasury. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely 

with Congress, and in particular with members of this committee. 

12 

I have enormous respect for this institution, and it is an honor to 

appear before you today. I am deeply committed to maintaining a 

close working relationship between Treasury and Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to you for bringing me before this 

committee today, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of the committee may have. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Meade. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meade appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I have four obligatory questions I would like to 

ask each of you, if you would just indicate, hopefully affirmatively, 

your response to each. 

Is there anything that you are aware of in your background that 

might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to 

which you have been nominated? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. No. 

Mr. MEADE. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any reason, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably 

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. No. 

Mr. MEADE. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree, without reservation, to respond to 

any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress, if you are confirmed? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes, I do. 

Mr. MEADE. Yes, I do. 

The CHAIRMAN. And finally, do you commit—this is a new one— 

to provide a prompt response in writing to any written questions 

addressed to you by any Senator of this committee? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes. 

Mr. MEADE. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both very much. 

Now, my basic question to each of you is, why in the world does 

each of you want this job? What do you want to accomplish? How 

do you want to be remembered when you leave and people look 

back 10, 15 years from now? I will start with you, Mr. Schultz. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. People, when I was in my law firm, said, what is 

the difference between working here and working for the government? What I used to say is, the difference is, I work here on 

issues that I would never have time to get to in government. The 

reason that I love public service is that you get to work on things 

that are important, the most important kinds of challenges, the 

same way I did when I was on the staff on the Hill and in other 

government jobs. 

I am fortunate to have at HHS this terrifically talented group of 

lawyers and others to be able to work with. Our goal is to ensure 

that the laws that Congress has passed are implemented and instituted in a faithful way, in the most honest way. That is our job as 

General Counsel, in a sense to protect you, to ensure that we are 

following the laws, and to defend the government against challenges to those laws. 

13 

The CHAIRMAN. You have been here a little while. Is there anything more specific that you are working on where there is more 

focus, something a little more identifiable, so when you look back 

after several years you can say, boy, we did that? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. The big thing is the Affordable Care Act. It is so 

thrilling to be at the Department at a time when we have the opportunity to provide health care to 35 million Americans, which is 

the goal of the Affordable Care Act. I hope I will look back and say, 

we got it right, we got it implemented, and we did it in a way 

where there were not many challenges and they were not very successful. That is the basic goal. 

There are other extremely important challenges. The Food and 

Drug Administration regulates a quarter of all the products sold in 

the economy and has the mission of ensuring that medical products 

are safe and effective, and there are constant challenges there, 

whether they are court cases or other issues that come up. But I 

think the Affordable Care Act—— 

CMS, as you know, has a budget of about $800 billion, and we 

are constantly trying to ensure that that money is spent only in a 

way that is permitted by Congress, that it is efficient. There are 

many court cases. I told somebody recently, if I only worked on 

matters that involved $1 billion or more, I would still be too busy. 

So part of the effort is obviously to try to protect the government 

fisc, but assure that the agency can do its job and that these very 

talented officials can do their work. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Meade, what about you? Why do you want this job? What did 

you tell your family when you told them you wanted to do this? 

Mr. MEADE. For me, it relates to the commitment to service that 

I outlined in my opening statement. To me, it is a question that 

answers itself, because there is really no higher honor than to be 

able to serve the country in this way. I am honored to be considered, and it is a great privilege and honor to serve. If confirmed, 

I would look forward to continuing. 

In terms of how I would want to be remembered, I mean, one of 

my mantras in life is to always want to do better. That is how I 

think about us within the Legal Division at Treasury. We have excellent lawyers, great lawyers, thoughtful lawyers, careful lawyers, 

lawyers who strive to be the best lawyers they can be and to give 

the best advice to the Secretary and other officials within Treasury. 

But in my view, I think we always want to do better, we want to 

be more thoughtful, more careful, more analytically precise. That 

is what I would hope to do, if I am confirmed as General Counsel. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next year could be a big year. We could be deeply involved with tax reform. Do you think the IRS and Treasury 

have sufficient resources? What assistance do you think Treasury 

and IRS could provide this committee as we work toward reform? 

How do you see your role, your office? What assistance can you provide? 

Mr. MEADE. So, Mr. Chairman, the lawyers within Treasury, at 

IRS, and the Office of Tax Policy are a group of excellent lawyers 

who, time and time again, I am impressed by their substantive expertise. I am committed, if confirmed, to work with you and this 

committee to provide whatever assistance we can. 

14 

But again, I am, time and time again, impressed by this substantive expertise and the care with which they go about thinking 

about the tax laws. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Mr. Schultz, on July 12, 2012, the Department 

of Health and Human Services issued an Information Memorandum regarding the TANF program, Temporary Assistance to Needy 

Families. Now, this memorandum attempted to explain how States 

could seek waivers of work requirements for welfare recipients. At 

my request, the Government Accountability Office determined that 

this memorandum actually constituted a rule and therefore was 

subject to the Congressional Review Act, or CRA. 

As part of their analysis, GAO requested the views of HHS General Counsel to determine why HHS had not determined that the 

memorandum qualified as a rule. According to GAO, HHS responded as follows: ‘‘The Information Memorandum was issued as 

a non-binding guidance document and HHS contends guidance documents do not need to be submitted to the CRA.’’ 

Now, GAO disagreed with that conclusion reached by HHS’s 

General Counsel’s Office and noted that HHS provided ‘‘no support 

for this position.’’ 

Can you please explain what role you played in making this determination? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you, Senator Hatch. I was involved in the 

determination. We went back and looked at the statute and the 

cases and also what prior administrations have done. This is obviously an administration-wide issue. 

For the 16 years since the Congressional Review Act, every administration, Republican and Democratic, has submitted regulations for review, regulations that require notice and comment and 

so on. This was an Information Memorandum, essentially a notice 

to the States saying, we are open for business. If you have a waiver 

that meets the requirements, you can submit it, and we will consider it. This is not the sort of thing that has ever been submitted. 

There are, I think, tens of thousands of guidances and so on that 

are not submitted. 

We did know how important this was to Congress, Senator 

Hatch. The Department did, on the day it was issued, submit it to 

the minority and the majority staff in the House and Senate, so we 

were trying to be very respectful and notify Congress. 

Senator HATCH. Well, in the GAO’s language, it said that ‘‘we 

cannot agree with HHS’s conclusion that guidance documents are 

not rules for the purposes of the CRA,’’ and HHS cites ‘‘no support 

for this position.’’ The definition of ‘‘rule’’ is expansive and specifically includes documents that implement or interpret law or policy. 

This is exactly what the HHS Information Memorandum does. 

Then they also say, ‘‘In addition to legislative history, the CRA 

specifically includes guidance documents as an example of an agency pronouncement subject to the CRA.’’ So I am concerned about 

that, as you can imagine. I have raised the issue, and I really do 

not understand. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. No, I understand your concern, Senator Hatch. I 

am disappointed that GAO disagreed with us. We have looked at 

15 

it very carefully, and we looked at the history very carefully. In Republican and Democratic administrations, we have followed the 

same practices as everybody else. I think we got it right, but I understand the other side. 

Senator HATCH. But can you show any instances where people 

applied for this type of a waiver in the past? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I am not aware that there have been any applications for the waiver. The authority was requested by a bipartisan 

group of Governors. The Secretary simply announced, you can 

apply for a waiver. But I am not aware that there have actually 

been applications; certainly none have been granted. 

Senator HATCH. Well, see, I disagree with you on this. I think it 

is a very, very important question. On that question, I do not know 

whether you can or cannot, but can you explain to me why the administration has ignored the Hatch-Camp request for correspondence relating to the development of the waiver rule between the Office of General Counsel and the policy officials at HHS? As you can 

see, I am very concerned that a recent staff inquiry to the HHS Office of Legislation has not even been acknowledged. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, yes, I can certainly try to respond. I want to 

say, I worked as a staffer in the House. I did oversight, and I understand the importance of oversight and how, in order to do oversight, the administration has to respond, and we have the duty to 

do that. I am told that that response is being worked on, and you 

will get a response. 

Senator HATCH. Well, I hope so, because I do not think they have 

been very forthcoming down there on a whole raft of issues. Certainly they are not forthcoming with any kind of speed or any type 

of real cooperation, it seems to me. I hope you can bring about a 

change there. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes. I agree with you that you are entitled to a 

prompt response. I will do what I can to be that voice. These are 

not all my decisions, but I will certainly be the voice on your side 

on this. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. 

My time is up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, when did you make the request? How 

long ago did you make the request? 

Senator HATCH. Well, here is the chronology on the request for 

information from the General Counsel’s Office. Chairman Camp 

and I sent a letter to Secretary Sebelius requesting answers to 

questions regarding the development of the Information Memorandum on welfare work waivers. That was sent September 21st. 

We requested information no later than October 25th, which was 

more than a month. On October 25th, committee staff sent an 

e-mail to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, requesting the information. We were informed ‘‘not today.’’ Committee staff requested a time frame for complying with the request 

and were told ‘‘working on it.’’ 

On November 8th—and here we are almost into the next year— 

committee staff once again requested a time frame for compliance 

with the request and were once again told ‘‘oversight staff working 

on it.’’ 

16 

On December 11th, committee staff requested an update on the 

request. That e-mail has not been responded to. That was December 11th. It has not been responded to by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legislation. I just think it is completely unacceptable and shows a lack of respect and responsiveness by this administration. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, I agree. 

Mr. Schultz, if you can get the Department to make a prompt response, that will not go unnoticed. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I will do everything I can. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Senator HATCH. This is not some itty-bitty issue; this is an important issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I understand. 

Senator Stabenow? 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

want, first of all, to thank you for recognizing all four colleagues 

who are leaving, and the extraordinary efforts of Senator Conrad, 

Senator Bingaman, Senator Snowe, and Senator Kyl. Thank you 

for doing that. 

Also, I want to send my thanks and best wishes to Russ Sullivan—I do not believe I see him here at the moment—for all of his 

efforts. We all collectively owe him a great deal for his public service. 

Welcome to both of you, and thank you for being willing to be 

involved in public service as well. 

Mr. Schultz, I want to, just for the record, talk about something 

you and I have talked about that is very important to me in health 

reform. I care about all pieces of it, and having it done promptly, 

and having it done well. 

There is one particular issue dealing with pediatric dental coverage, which, as you know, because of some ambiguity after we had 

passed an amendment here in the Finance Committee about the intent of the law, that has needed to be cleared up in the rules. 

In health reform we worked to ensure that children are able to 

get dental care that they need, and in some cases that would save 

their lives. We have had very unfortunate tragedies that have occurred. We expanded access to affordable dental coverage for children and wanted to do it in a way that would not disrupt current 

dental coverage of families. 

So to accomplish this, the law intended to ensure that standalone dental plans of families could meet the essential health benefit’s pediatric dental requirement in combination with a medical 

plan outside the health exchange marketplace, as well as inside. I 

have spoken to the Secretary a number of times, and a number of 

us, as Senators, have sent letters asking to make sure that this is 

clarified. 

The law intended to ensure that, regardless of how the coverage 

is attained, pediatric dental coverage is still required as a part of 

the essential health benefits package and that all relevant consumer protections, such as out-of-pocket limits, would apply to 

stand-alone plans. I just wanted, for the record, for you to indicate 

your awareness of this and willingness to work with me and many 

17 

other Senators to make sure we are clarifying this in the final 

rules. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes, I am aware of it. We have talked about it, and 

it will certainly be a priority. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Meade, thank you also for your service. You have a broad 

role as General Counsel when we look at tax reform and all of the 

issues that are so important to moving the economy forward in a 

global economy. I am wondering if you have any comments about 

how we, in our economic recovery, focus on manufacturing, which 

of course is very important in Michigan but also in other States, 

every State actually. 

In fact, according to a New York Times article published in January of this last year, for the first time since 1997 manufacturing 

employment has risen in two consecutive years and in fact is driving much of the recovery as we are making more things in America 

again. So, when we are looking at tax reform, do you have any suggestions in terms of growing the manufacturing sector as we look 

at broader tax reform or particular policies that you have looked 

at that would help us to continue to grow that part of the economy? 

Mr. MEADE. Thank you, Senator, for that question. With the lawyers at Treasury, we work very hard with our various policy clients 

to provide them advice on a range of questions. Many of the questions that you raise are important policy questions that could be 

considered by the Office of Tax Policy on the one hand, or also by 

the Office of Domestic Finance. 

We see our role very much as partners with those policy offices. 

In some instances we are asked to consider possible legislation, 

possible proposals, looking at the scope of authority under current 

law to do whatever we can to support the policy officials. 

I do not know of any particulars on the question that you raised. 

I would be happy to bring those concerns back to Treasury and 

commit that the Office of General Counsel will work with the policy 

officials to support those goals. 

Senator STABENOW. And just very quickly—thank you. If we are 

not able to come to agreement as it relates to the fiscal cliff—and 

I certainly hope we are going to be able to do that—and we do not 

extend the AMT patch, how do you work with IRS to ensure that 

families have some certainty? What happens from your end? 

Mr. MEADE. That is a critical question that the country is focused 

on at the moment. Right now, obviously, there is a fair amount of 

uncertainty with respect to what will happen with the fiscal cliff. 

The Acting Commissioner, Steven Miller, put out a letter yesterday 

on the AMT. I think there are a lot of questions about what will 

happen with the return season if the AMT patch is not put into 

place. So the lawyers work with the policy officials on those questions, but I think right now the hope is that the AMT patch is fixed 

so that there is some certainty around that question. 

Senator STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. I want to just second what 

you said. I very much hope we reach sufficient resolution by the 

end of this year that addresses not just the AMT patch, but there 

is SGR, there are a lot of provisions which, if not addressed by the 

18 

end of this year, are going to cause just terrific hardship at the beginning of next year. 

I will go out on a limb. I think we are going to get some kind 

of agreement this year. We certainly must, for all the reasons that 

we know. But thanks for mentioning AMT. That is all the more 

reason to get an agreement this year. 

Senator Coburn, I apologize to you. I did not notice that you were 

earlier on the list than Senator Stabenow. You are next. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. Welcome, both of you. Mr. Schultz, 

I enjoyed our talk yesterday. You can see from what the ranking 

member had to say the problem with HHS and responsiveness, and 

your commitments to me personally that we would see a change in 

that, I will hold you to that. I think you are a man of your word. 

I am sorry I did not have a chance to meet with Mr. Meade. I 

have a big burr in my bonnet, and, unfortunately, you are the only 

leverage I will have to get it cleared up, so it is going to become 

an issue. As part of our oversight in Governmental Affairs, we were 

looking at the New Market Tax Credits. We sent a letter to the 

agency asking for information on it. 

After our letter was sent—and, Mr. Chairman, this is very important, because section 6103 of the code provides protection for 

taxpayers, and the protection was not placed on this until after I 

sent a letter requesting the information on the two previous times 

they had readily granted the information to members of Congress 

or GAO. 

So the question I have is, until I see the background, with substantial clarity and transparency, of the decision-making process 

that went into it, that all of a sudden, when a member of the Senate starts asking questions about it, we now decide we are going 

to use 6103 to not share the information—I would just say, if I can 

get my chairman to agree, we can have the information with his 

blessing if he so asks for it. 

But that is not the question that I am concerned about. I am concerned about, when we ask GAO to do further work on this and 

when we ask about it, all of a sudden you all make a determination 

that it is now protected, and it was not before. You can understand 

that that might raise some certain questions on our part. Our 

whole purpose is to do good oversight. 

As ranking member on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as well as ranking member-to-be on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, these are important issues for us to look 

at: how, when we put something into the tax code, it actually plays 

out. Not having the availability of this information limits our ability to assess the effectiveness of tax policy. 

So unfortunately, until I see with real clarity an explanation, 

with transparency, which would include all the background information, I am going to be hesitant—and I have no other reason, 

after reading all the files on you, to say that you are anything 

other than a perfect fit for this job. Until I can be satisfied on that, 

this nomination is going to be held by me, and I am going to work 

with my colleagues if it is brought to the floor, because this is the 

very thing that Senator Hatch is talking about. 

If we cannot have transparency from the agencies when we are 

trying to do a good job for the American people on policy, and then 

19 

we see a ruling invoked that was not invoked until a Senator asked 

for the information, that raises serious questions. 

So I do not know if you are prepared to answer that today. You 

do not have to answer that. But I am going to have to be satisfied 

on that, because I think it is highly inappropriate, what was done 

and the way it was done. What we want is truth. We are not trying 

to gore anybody’s ox. What we want to know is how we are spending tax money in tax policy, and is it working and where is it 

going? 

I do not think we had an illegitimate request. Other than that, 

I know you are highly qualified for this job, and I support you fully, 

but I want that information, and I want it in detail with complete 

transparency. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Meade, are you prepared to address this 

question? 

Mr. MEADE. Senator Coburn, unfortunately I am not familiar 

with the particulars of the situation. But of course I will take it 

back to Treasury. I hear your concern, and I want to work with you 

to get your concerns resolved. 

Senator COBURN. That is all I can ask. 

Mr. MEADE. I think it is critical that oversight happen, that we 

get back to Congress. We work closely, and I work very closely with 

our three Inspectors General to make sure that oversight happens. 

That is one of my most important relationships at Treasury. But 

I will work with you to make sure you get the answers that satisfy 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I will be watching the development of this 

and the resolution of this as well, because it is important. 

Senator Roberts, you are next. 

Senator ROBERTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I associate myself 

with the comments of Senator Hatch and yourself regarding our 

outstanding members who are leaving, and I regret that I was not 

here to put a little frosting on the cake. 

I have, I think, three questions. The answers are ‘‘yes,’’ and ‘‘as 

soon as possible,’’ so you do not have to worry about it. 

Mr. Schultz, along with the Senate HELP Committee, we have 

been looking into the New England Compounding Center, the actions by the NECC, and the potential action by the Congress in response to the outbreak. But we have made repeated requests for 

information and have yet to receive any really adequate information. It really has hindered any progress. 

Of particular interest to me is the timeline of events related to 

the NECC inaction by the Department of Health and Human Services and FDA, both prior to and following the outbreak. We made 

this request in early October at the start of the meningitis crisis, 

and, even after asking Dr. Hamburg about it during the HELP 

Committee hearing a while back, we have yet to receive a response. 

You are 60 days—well, not you, but the folks in charge—in violation of the new Baucus-Hatch doctrine. If you go 90 days, you will 

be sentenced to come to Kansas in January and visit every rural 

hospital and say, I am from CMS, and I am here to help. That 

might not be something you want to do in January. So anyway, if 

20 

you can get that back to us, or at least give us a report, I would 

appreciate it. 

In addition to that, what do you believe are the scope and limits 

of FDA authority as it relates to compounding? What is the FDA 

role, and what is the appropriate role for State boards of pharmacy 

in oversight of this industry? I realize you cannot go into that right 

now, but if you could make a note of that, and we will submit that 

for the record for you, and then if you could get back to us. 

Recently, HHS, Treasury, and the Department of Labor have 

issued regulations to implement the provisions of PPACA, the Affordable Health Care Act. These include the essential health benefits mandated, the actuarial value calculator, market rules, and 

wellness provisions, as well as rules to implement provisions relating to risk programs, cost sharing, the federally facilitated exchange, user fees, and medical loss ratio. There is somewhere between 6 to 8 there that I have noted. 

Many of the initial rules in trying to implement the statute were 

called the Interim Final Rules, which allowed very little or no 

stakeholder input. Of the most recently issued rules, while none of 

them are IFRs, many of these only provided 30 days for public comment. 

Now, this is after the administration took over 18 months to 

draft the regulations and OMB was allowed 4 months for their review. That is 22 months. I am just going to tell it like it is on what 

I am hearing from the rural health care delivery system, and for 

that matter our entire health care delivery system there in the 

State of Kansas. 

We have already heard from many stakeholders. A lot of them 

fear they will be unable to meet the timelines for these comments. 

The comments will not represent a thorough review of the new 

policies, and the administration does not value stakeholder input 

in the process—that is not a good thing, to say the least—to the 

point that many stakeholders are considering whether time, effort, 

and expense is even worthwhile when they believe their comments 

are not even being considered, but instead are treated as a checkthe-box exercise to comply with existing executive orders and 

statute-related stakeholder input. 

My question is, what is a reasonable and standard amount of 

time for review and comment on regulations issued in regard to 

PPACA? We also have an important consideration when drafting 

and issuing these regulations. I would repeat, if the folks who are 

drafting the regulations do not know what is in a rule after 18 

months of drafting and 4 months of OMB review, how can we expect stakeholders to know such things and provide valuable feedback in a much shorter time frame? There. You have 35 seconds 

to respond. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I certainly agree, notice and comment are critical, 

because regulations have the force of law, Senator Roberts. I agree 

with you that we should use IFRs very reluctantly, because, in that 

case, the comment is after the fact. We did it early on because of 

tight timelines that Congress asked us to meet. But as you say, we 

have done it very rarely recently, and I would think that would 

continue to be so. 

21 

We truly value comments from the public. We spent a lot of time 

responding to them and typically make many changes in the regulations in response to them. I think we will continue to do that. I 

hope this effort is apparent. 

Senator ROBERTS. Do you ever go out in the field? I mean, out 

to, say, a typical critical access hospital in Montana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I have not. No, I have not in this job. I talk to people—— 

Senator ROBERTS. Do you have time to do that at all? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. No. 

Senator ROBERTS. I did not think so. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. No. 

Senator ROBERTS. Could you send a deputy? We have a lot of 

deputies out there. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. We could. 

Senator ROBERTS. I am not going to do this in January for you, 

but maybe in the spring. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, maybe it would be good. 

Senator ROBERTS. I think that would be a good thing. I might 

stand a little part away from you. No, I would stand right by your 

side. We will see all the hospital administrators, doctors, nurses, 

and everybody else, all these forms and regulations they have to 

put up with. It will be an interesting exercise. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Senator Roberts—— 

Senator ROBERTS. I have done it twice myself. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I would, of course, do that with you if you would 

like me to. I do want to say that we have a lot of outreach to all 

the States, and there has been a lot of interaction with many officials and others in the States that is informal, outside the rulemaking process. 

Senator ROBERTS. We could do it pretty quickly, and we could get 

you a good balance, and I think it would be very helpful. I am not 

going to put you on the spot on that. I know you have a ton of 

things to do, and so do we. But I think it would be a good thing 

if we did that. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I think it would too. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

Senator Wyden? 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, 

with respect to our retiring colleagues—Mr. Chairman, I think you 

would remember this—I hope some of them will in effect do a 

Conrad. As you know, Senator Conrad retired once because he said 

the budget was in balance. Then there was a death, and he came 

back. We were lucky he came back. We have a terrific group of colleagues. Maybe we can persuade some of them to do a Conrad. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is one of the conditions that the budget has to 

be in balance? 

Senator WYDEN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think you are in for a long wait. [Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. Well, I want them back sooner than that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. We all do. 

Senator WYDEN. I want to say a good word about Russ Sullivan. 

He has such a wealth of knowledge. Mr. Chairman, as you know, 

22 

we spent years talking about Build America Bonds. I do not think 

there was anybody on the planet, other than Russ Sullivan, who 

mastered that subject, along with scores of other technical ones. 

The fact that he has all this technical knowledge, while he cares 

for this huge group of children, I think tells you a lot about what 

kind of heart Russ Sullivan has. I often see him, as you do, Mr. 

Chairman, with those kids in the corridor because Russ is taking 

them on a family outing. To have that kind of heart for people 

while you stay here and handle all these technical issues says a lot 

about a person, and we are very grateful for your service. 

Mr. Chairman, we have two outstanding public officials. I have 

one question for each of them. 

The first one, for you, Mr. Meade, deals with electioneering by 

tax-exempt social welfare organizations. As you know, in the wake 

of the Supreme Court’s decision, there has been a proliferation of 

these entities organized under section 501(c)(4) of the code. It just 

looks like they are doing pure politics. I do not want to talk about 

Democrats or Republicans, I just want to talk about what seems to 

me is an abuse of the tax exemption. During the 2012 election cycle, an estimated $400 million went 

into secret contributions that were associated with these 501(c) organizations. In July of 2012, a letter was sent responding to a request from the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 to 

change the rules. 

The IRS Exempt Organizations Division Director stated that the 

IRS is aware of the interest in the issue and noted that the agency 

will consider proposed changes in this area as we work with the 

IRS Office of General Counsel. As I understand it, you have involvement with them in terms of the reporting. 

The reason I am asking the question is, in November of 2012, the 

IRS released its priority guidance plan. It contained 317 projects 

that are priorities for allocation of resources. Nowhere in the list 

of agency priorities was there any mention of the need to revise 

and clarify the rules dealing with political activities by section 

501(c)(4) organizations. When you are confirmed, will you try to get 

this issue on the priority list for that agency? 

Mr. MEADE. Thank you, Senator, for that question. In terms of 

any particular issue about any particular 501(c)(4), that is a question of enforcement for IRS, and we stay away from those questions. 

Senator WYDEN. I understand. 

Mr. MEADE. But in terms of the policy question, I know it is 

something that the Office of Tax Policy and IRS are looking at, and 

I would be happy to look at that issue, to talk to the Chief Counsel 

of the IRS, who is, as you know, a Senate-confirmed official, and 

talk about that question and about making that a priority for 

the—— 

Senator WYDEN. Do you personally think it ought to be a priority? I do not want you to have to speak for anybody else. Do you 

personally think it ought to be a priority? 

Mr. MEADE. Senator, I have not studied the question. I hear your 

interest in the issue and the fact that you think it is a priority. 

What I want to do is take a look at it and talk to the officials within Treasury, talk to the officials within the Chief Counsel’s Office, 

23 

and analyze the issue. So I do not know enough to know whether 

it should be a top priority or not, but I definitely hear your concern, 

and I will take that concern back to Treasury. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, I understand why you want to talk to people in the Department. I hope you will come away and say it ought 

to be a priority. This ought to be a priority for good government. 

These abuses are completely out of hand, and you know that I am 

not bringing any kind of partisan tinge in this group and that. I 

think this is an abuse of what is really a tax exemption that is supposed to go to social welfare organizations. 

A question for you, Mr. Schultz. I have watched your outstanding 

work since the days when we were back on the Health Subcommittee over in the House and I had a full head of hair and rugged good looks and all. My question is a legal one. That is, we have 

been working very hard to try to get the hospice program off the 

ground, where, for the first time in America, the vulnerable would 

be eligible for curative services as well as hospice services. 

The Congress wrote this so that it would be budget-neutral. We 

have been having a lot of challenges at CMS, trying to get them 

to accept the intent of Congress. They say hospice providers would 

have to pay for curative treatment out of their own pockets. That 

was never the intent of Congress. 

Will you work with us so that we can get the congressional intent here nailed down and, for the first time, say to the vulnerable 

in America—again, this was supported by people all across the political spectrum. They said, when you need hospice—Senator 

Hatch, Senator Grassley, and others have worked on these issues 

for years—you should not have to give up hope. That was the intent of Congress. Will you commit to working with us? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you, Senator Wyden. I know this is a very 

important program, and I will certainly work with you and do what 

I can. As you know, I am not the decision-maker on this. 

Senator WYDEN. Understood. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. So I am happy to work with you on it. 

Senator WYDEN. Well, thank you. The reason I ask is, not only 

have I watched you in the past approach these issues professionally 

and fairly, but it has become a legal issue with respect to the intent of Congress. 

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

Senator Grassley? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this hearing. I would like to put in the record a statement that I 

would have about our four colleagues retiring. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears in the appendix.] 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Schultz, I have many unanswered questions and document requests, as you have heard from other members. I have received no response to my December 6, 2011 letter on 

eliminating the age requirement for Plan B. I have received none 

of the documents that Chairman Issa and I requested regarding 

monitoring of FDA employees; no response to a letter Chairman 

24 

Upton and I sent on the oversight of Federal exchange grants to 

States. 

I received no response to my September 10, 2000 letter regarding 

Keokuk. I hope you know that, as my other colleagues have said, 

this is unacceptable. Until I receive answers to my letters and document requests, I am hesitant to move forward on these nominations. 

Question number one. I have some remarks preliminary to it. For 

the past 5 months, Chairman Issa and I have been investigating 

the FDA regarding its spying activities against whistle-blowers. 

The FDA intentionally spied on confidential communications with 

Congress and the Office of Special Counsel and the whistle-blowers’ 

private attorneys. 

We have completed four voluntary transcribed interviews with 

key FDA individuals who participated in the spying. Three out of 

the four employees declined to answer when asked about anything 

related to personnel action. They said they were told by the agency 

not to answer such questions, citing the Privacy Act. Obviously you 

know that Congress is exempt from the Privacy Act. 

I understand that you were involved in the discussions about 

prepping the FDA employees before their interviews. I also understand that, during conversation with my staff, you could not recall 

whether or not you advised the FDA employees not to answer questions regarding personnel management. 

Given the clear exemption in the Privacy Act for disclosures to 

Congress, I assume you agree that the FDA employees are free to 

answer questions about personnel action during congressional investigations. Is that true? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes. Thank you, Senator Grassley. I was not involved in the conversations, but I have gone back and looked at the 

Privacy Act and so on. We will not instruct employees or their attorneys not to answer your questions. We certainly agree that there 

is an exemption for Congress from the Privacy Act. There are debates about whether it applies to committees, chairmen, individual 

members, and so on. But in this particular situation that you are 

talking about, we believe that at most the risk would be very small, 

and we will certainly not instruct the employees not to respond. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You have answered my second question. Let 

me state it anyway, and you do not have to speak further to it. 

Well, let me make a statement. I think you have assured me in 

what you just said that, in the future, you will ensure that witnesses know that they are free to make disclosures to Congress 

that might otherwise be prohibited by the Privacy Act. 

For Mr. Meade: on November 1st, Senator Thune and I wrote 

Secretary Geithner a letter in his capacity as chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States regarding bankruptcy stimulus recipient A123. We asked seven questions. The response we received did not answer a single question. 

When you reviewed this reply letter, did you find any legal bases 

for refusing to answer our questions, and, if so, what were they? 

Finally, does the Treasury still take the position that it does not 

have to respond fully to the letter? 

Mr. MEADE. Thank you, Senator Grassley, for that question. I did 

not review that letter before it went out. I know in general, with 

25 

the CFIUS, there are certain statutory prohibitions where Treasury 

is permitted to share information with Congress at some point but 

not at other points under the statute passed by Congress. I would 

be happy to look at that particular instance and give you whatever 

information I can, and if not, provide the legal basis for that. 

But what I can say is, I think oversight is critically important 

and providing prompt responses to members of Congress is critically important. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Thune? 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank our panelists today for your willingness to be 

here and to continue to serve. I also want to acknowledge the departing members of this committee, Mr. Chairman, that have been 

already mentioned. Obviously a lot of firepower, a lot of skill and 

knowledge on the issues that this committee deals with will be lost 

when we lose Senators Snowe, Kyl, Bingaman, and Conrad, all people who have tremendous amounts of expertise. Hopefully we will 

be able to muddle along without them, but we certainly appreciate 

their great service and all they have contributed to this committee 

and to our country. 

Let me ask a question, if I might, to Mr. Meade first. This question has to do with sort of where we are with regard to the fiscal 

cliff. We are now less than 2 weeks away from seeing tax rates rise 

across the board, that is assuming that Congress and the administration cannot come to an agreement on the fiscal cliff. 

So my question has to do with the paycheck withholding levels 

for 2013. First, how much latitude do you believe the Treasury Department has under the statute when setting withholding rates? 

Second—and again, knock on wood, hope this does not happen— 

should we go over the cliff without an agreement, how would 

Treasury make a decision with regard to the withholding tables? 

Mr. MEADE. Thank you for that question, Senator Thune, a very 

important question that obviously the country is thinking about at 

this time. The Secretary’s discretion on this score is limited. The 

law says that the Secretary needs to set withholding tables consistent with the tax laws set by Congress. 

The Secretary does not have the authority to unilaterally set the 

tax rates, he needs to reflect the rates set by Congress. Hopefully, 

though, a deal will be reached such that this will be unnecessary, 

but the bottom line is the Secretary’s withholding tables—any tables that he issues—need to reflect the laws set by Congress. 

Senator THUNE. So, if there is a scenario where, in the near 

term, it looks like there might be an agreement but that has not 

been struck or at least has not been voted on by the end of the 

year, but there is sort of a framework, or at least it looks like there 

is going to be some closure, your view is that the Treasury Department does not have authority even on a near-term basis, an interim basis, to maintain the withholding tables the way that they 

are? 

Mr. MEADE. So, Senator Thune, that is a slightly different question in terms of the particulars of that kind of hypothetical. As a 

26 

lawyer, I want to be very careful giving answers to hypothetical 

questions. As your question reflects, there could be many different 

components of such a hypothetical about what the particulars look 

like. 

The Secretary does have some discretion, but that discretion is 

limited. At the end of the day, what his authority is is to reflect 

the law set by Congress. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you. 

Let me ask Mr. Schultz a question, if I might. This one has to 

do with the passage of the health care law. There was a particular 

provision in there that I was concerned about and was trying to 

keep from having added to the law. That is the CLASS Act, which 

is a new long-term care entitlement program that was created by 

the Affordable Care Act. 

Last year on October 14, 2011, Secretary Sebelius announced 

that, based on actuarial legal analysis, the CLASS program is both 

legally and fiscally unsustainable. The report went on to conclude 

that they cannot predict that the CLASS program will be able to 

‘‘honor its commitments to individuals who had already enrolled or 

entered beneficiary status in the program or avoid leaving them 

worse off.’’ 

So the question is, do you agree with the analysis contained in 

this report that the CLASS Act is unsustainable? If you do not 

agree with that, why? Then second, if you do agree with this report, then would you support the efforts that I and others are making to repeal that program? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thanks for that question, Senator Thune. We 

worked very hard to try to find a way to implement the act because 

Congress passed it, but looking at the legal constraints—including 

that it had to be sustainable for 75 years, there were certain guaranteed benefits, certain groups that had very reduced rates—the 

Secretary concluded that she could not go forward with a program 

that people would buy under the requirements that Congress imposed. Yes, I do support that conclusion. 

We put the legal analysis out there so Congress could see it. 

Whether it should be repealed or not, I think is a decision for Congress. We have not been sued on it. I do not think we would be. 

I think what we did is very sustainable. So, I would leave it to Congress as to whether to repeal it or not. 

Senator THUNE. All right. But in terms of taking a position supporting efforts by Congress to repeal it based upon the conclusions 

that you all have drawn—that it is not sustainable in its current 

form—would the administration be able to support legislation that 

would repeal it? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I would have to leave that to others in the administration to speak to. I am merely a nominee at this point. 

Senator THUNE. On October 17th, HHS received a letter regarding concerns that some of my colleagues and I had, and still have, 

regarding the Final Rule for the stage 2 of ‘‘meaningful use’’ for the 

adoption of electronic health records. 

To date, we have about $10 billion that has been paid out in incentives to health care providers to implement a useful EHR system, and we still have several unanswered questions and concerns 

27 

about the direction of this program. When might we anticipate a 

response on that letter, if it is something you are familiar with? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I am not familiar with it, but I will certainly go 

back and raise this and do what I can to get a response. 

Senator THUNE. That would be great. That was a couple of 

months ago now. Hopefully we are going to get a response on that, 

so, if you could check that out, that would be great. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I would be happy to. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator THUNE. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. It has. 

Senator Grassley? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. Mr. Meade, on October 2nd, Senator 

Kirk and I wrote Secretary Geithner a letter about manipulation 

of LIBOR. The manipulation has led to billions of dollars in losses 

to the Federal Government. My concern is that the Treasury Department is not fully committed to informing Congress about the 

scope of the problem. I understand that, as acting General Counsel, 

you are familiar with the letter and the response. 

My letter asked five questions. The reply we received, almost 2 

months later, did not answer any of them. Here is one example. We 

asked whether Secretary Geithner considered the litigation risks of 

not reporting his knowledge of LIBOR manipulation to U.S. enforcement authorities. The letter you reviewed did not answer this 

question. Why did the reply that we received not answer this question? 

Mr. MEADE. Thank you, Senator Grassley, for the question. I am 

familiar with that letter. My understanding is, in follow-ups with 

your staff after the response, we answered that question and the 

other questions. 

The questions asked I believe for the most part, or maybe exclusively, for answers about the Secretary during his time at the New 

York Fed. We, I believe, now have answered those questions to the 

satisfaction of your staff. We think the LIBOR issue is very important. I think we are pleased that the actions of the CFTC and others that began in 2008 have led to very strong enforcement actions 

which we are beginning to see the fruit of today. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. 

Also, Mr. Meade, I ask this question as a champion of whistleblowers and for changes in whistle-blowers legislation, but, particularly in this case, tax whistle-blowers. I am concerned that some 

within the IRS and Treasury continue to be unsupportive of 

whistle-blowers. My concern results from recent regulations proposed by Treasury that unnecessarily put roadblocks in the way of 

whistle-blowers. What was your role in preparing those regulations? 

Mr. MEADE. Senator Grassley, I personally did not play a role in 

crafting those regulations. I would say two things. First, these are 

proposed regulations. They are regulations that set out the proposed definitions of a variety of statutory terms, as well as give a 

comprehensive view of a whistle-blower’s experience with the IRS. 

These are proposed regulations. We look forward to input from 

stakeholders, from you, from members of the whistle-blower bar, to 

make sure that we are reaching the right conclusion under the law. 

28 

But I want to say, personally, I am committed to the whistleblower program. I have heard others in Treasury talk about their 

commitment to the whistle-blowers program. But I can commit to 

you that, if confirmed, I will carry that commitment through in my 

role as General Counsel. 

Senator GRASSLEY. All right. You answered my next question. I 

will follow it up with this, that I do plan to propose regulations and 

expect a thorough response. I expect you to help in facilitating a 

quick response to my concerns. So, you answered your concern 

about protecting whistle-blowers, but would you commit to getting 

me a response when I submit my comments on those regulations? 

Mr. MEADE. I would be happy to work with you and help prepare 

a response, or at least review a response and make sure that you 

are getting a proper response. 

Senator GRASSLEY. All right. 

Then my last question is for you, Mr. Schultz, and then I will be 

done. The FDA says that spying on its employees was justified because they were warned by a security banner on their FDA computer that it was being monitored. However, the wording of that 

banner changed during the course of the spying. 

When asked why the banner was changed, all four employees 

interviewed could not recall. Why was the wording of the banner 

changed, and was the language changed in the summer of 2010 to 

justify spying activities that had already taken place? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I am not aware. I have not seen the two banners. 

I could get you a written response to that, but I do not know why 

the banner was changed. I certainly was not involved in that. 

Senator GRASSLEY. I will let you give me a written response. 

Could you tell me, was the change reviewed by your office? 

Mr. SCHULTZ. I do not know. 

Senator GRASSLEY. All right. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. It certainly was not reviewed by me. 

Senator GRASSLEY. All right. Then you have answered my last 

question as well, so I will look for your response in writing. 

I thank both of you for being kind enough to answer my questions, but I will thank you more if I get regular responses, in time. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

Thank you both very much. This committee looks forward to a 

very vigorous and constructive relationship with both of you and 

with your departments, and we wish you both well in the new year. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Senator Baucus. 

Mr. MEADE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] 

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


86408001.eps
30 


86408002.eps
31 


86408003.eps
32 


86408004.eps
33 


86408.005
34 


86408.006
35 


86408.007
36 


86408.008
37 


86408.009
38 


86408.010
39 


86408.011
40 


86408012.eps
41 


86408.013
42 


86408.014
43 


86408.015
44 


86408.016
45 


86408.017
46 


86408018.eps
47 


86408.019
48 


86408020.eps
49 


86408.021
50 


86408.022
51 


86408.023
52 


86408.024
53 


86408.025
54 


86408.026
55 


86408.027
56 


86408.028
57 


86408.029
58 


86408.030
59 


86408.031
60 


86408.032
61 


86408.033
62 


86408.034
63 


86408.035
64 


86408.036
65 


86408037.eps
66 


86408.038
67 


86408.039
68 


86408.040
69 


86408041.eps
70 


86408.042
71 


86408.043
72 


86408.044
73 


86408.045
74 


86408.046
75 


86408047.eps
76 


86408048.eps
77 


86408.049
78 


86408.050
79 


86408.051
80 


86408.052
81 


86408.053
82 


86408.054
83 


86408.055
84 


86408.056
85 


86408.057
86 


86408.058
87 


86408.059
88 


86408.060
89 


86408.061
90 


86408.062
91 


86408.063
92 


86408.064
93 


86408.065
94 


86408.066
95 


86408.067
96 


86408.068
97 


86408.069
98 


86408.070
99 


86408.071
100 

Æ 


86408072.eps