Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 135 (Saturday, November 20, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 135 (Saturday, November 20, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11715-S11731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

A DEEPLY FLAWED PROCESS

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we are here late on a Saturday afternoon
as part of what has become truly a deeply flawed process.
We have been presented with this huge stack of paper. I think this is
well over 3,000 pages. We got it in the middle of the night. We didn't
have a hard copy until somewhere after noon today. We are being told
that we will vote on it shortly. It reminded me very much of attending
one of the State of the Union Addresses in my first years in the
Senate. It was in 1988. President Reagan was talking to the Nation, and
he held up what was then a conference report that he reported was over
a thousand pages long, weighing 14 pounds. Then he held up a
reconciliation bill that was 6 months late and was 1,200 pages long,
weighing 15 pounds, and a long-term continuing resolution of over 1,000
pages, weighing 14 pounds. He reminded us that was 43 pounds of paper
and ink, and you had 3 hours--yes, 3 hours--to consider each. He said
it took 300 people at his Office of Management and Budget just to read
the bill so the Government would not shut down. He concluded that
Congress should not send him another one of these. He said: If you do,
I will not sign it.
President Reagan was right. This is not the way we should do the
people's business. We should not have, late on a Saturday, 3,000 pages;
and there are not more than a handful of people here who know what is
in it. I know what is in it for the State of North Dakota. I know that.
But I don't know what else is in here.
I have found one thing that is in here that I think will shock every
one of my colleagues. There is a little nugget tucked away in this
package that says the Appropriations Committee chairmen, or their
designees, can call up the tax returns of any individual, any company
and, without civil or criminal penalty, do whatever they want with
those returns.
Madam President, think about that. Are we really going to pass
legislation that says an Appropriations Committee staffer can look at
the individual returns of any American, any company, and there are no
civil or criminal penalties for their release of the contents of that
return? I don't think so. That is in this stack of papers.
We have provisions saying that the chairman of the Finance Committee

[[Page S11716]]

and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee can look at individual
returns. They are the only Members of Congress who can do that, and
there are very severe civil and criminal penalties if they were to
release what they saw there. Those are privacy protections for every
American taxpayer, every individual, every company. We protect the
privacy of those returns with stiff civil and criminal penalties for
the release of the information gained in those returns.
All of that is thrown right out the window in this stack of paper
because it provides that the Appropriations Committee chairman, or
their designees, can have access to the returns of any American, any
individual, any company; and there are no civil or criminal penalties
for the release of the information contained therein. I say to my
colleague from Idaho I don't think this is his idea of protecting the
privacy of the American people.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, the Senator
brings up a critical point. Would he cite the page and the subparagraph
to the body? Clearly, the Senator is stating a charge, if you will,
that is very critical and very important for all of us to understand.
No one, without court order or subpoena ought to have that kind of
authority.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, there are so many different page numbers
on this page, I am not sure which of these page numbers is the relevant
page number.
There are at least three page numbers on the page. That is how
slapdash this whole thing is. There is a page number 802, there is a
page number 1112, and there is a page number 85. Take your pick. This
is what it says, and I quote it to my colleague, section 222:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the
disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon
written request of the chairman of the House or Senate
Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service shall hereafter allow agents designated by
such chairmen access to Internal Revenue Service facilities
and any tax returns or return information contained therein.

That is the provision that is in this stack of paper. That is an
outrage. That is absolutely beyond the pale to allow staffers here the
access to tax returns of any American citizen, of any American company
with absolutely no civil or criminal penalties for the release of that
private information.
What is going on here that we have a stack of paper that has a little
nugget like that stuck in? That cannot be.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question without losing his
right to floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, does that mean--it just boggles the mind--
this goes way beyond the wildest dreams, for example, of J. Edgar
Hoover. Does that mean, for example, if somebody in the press
criticizes the chairman or if a constituent wrote in and criticized
some action of the chairman or, let us say, that some Member of
Congress dared to vote against a bill of the chairman, their staff
could just go and grab all their tax returns and then just give it to
anybody and have no penalty?
I realize this is not the old former Soviet Union, but this could
possibly happen in America?
Mr. CONRAD. Unfortunately, it is contained in this bill. This bill is
very clear:

And there are no provisions in the civil law or the criminal law that
would protect the release of that information.
I tell you, when my staff came upon this and brought it to my
attention--I used to be a tax commissioner, and one of the things that
is understood by anybody who deals with tax information is that there
are rights to preserve the privacy interests of any taxpayer. We have
long held in this body and in the body on the other side of the Capitol
the people's right to privacy would be protected.
This provision, I am told, was stuck in at about midnight last night.
Without any debate, without any discussion, without any Democrat in the
room, it was stuck into this monstrosity of a bill. I think that is
just one more indication of how dangerous this process has become--
3,000 pages dumped on our desks, and we are told to vote in just a few
hours.

There is nobody here, other than those who have been in the room, who
can understand what is in this bill. If we gave our colleagues a quiz
on what is contained here, I do not think very many of them would pass.
Something has to be done here. This cannot become the law of the
land.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, my only question to the Senator is, is
he really surprised that something egregious should be in this long
package that none of us have seen or read until a few hours ago? Does
it really surprise the Senator when we find it packed full of goodies
for special interest and policy changes and all kinds of things that
are passed into law that otherwise would not bear scrutiny? Is he
really surprised that all of a sudden now we just pass some other
barrier?
Isn't it also the fact this is in a bill that none of us have seen or
read? Should it surprise us that finally happened when we have a system
that is broken? The system is broken. This is 9 of the 13
appropriations bills that have never seen a debate or discussion or
amending. None, never. So now we find something that--thank God for
somebody's staffer who found it buried on page--what did the Senator
say, page 1,000-something?
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I say to my colleague, my friend, you
cannot even tell what page number it is because on these pages there
are three different page numbers. Page 802, page 1112, page 85--take
your pick.
Mr. McCAIN. If I can finally ask my colleague, doesn't it really
argue again that we have to fix a system that is broken? Here we are,
everybody trying to get home for the Thanksgiving recess, and we are
going to debate and vote on this ``as quickly as we can'' and anybody
who extends the debate is being terribly unfair to their colleagues. I
have already had four colleagues who have airline reservations come up
to me and say: Please don't talk too long this time; you're not going
to hold up this bill, are you?
I am not the one who caused this bill to not appear before us when we
have been here for the entire year without acting on nine of the
appropriations bills. The system is broken, and sooner or later we
better fix it.
I am going to identify billions of dollars of pork that are in this
bill that have had no scrutiny, no competition, no nothing except a
testimony of the influence of some member of the Appropriations
Committee.
I ask my colleague if he is surprised this should happen.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. First, let me answer the question of the Senator from
Arizona. Am I surprised? I am not surprised there are things in here
almost nobody knows about. I started out by going back to President
Reagan's admonishment to us never to permit this to happen again. That
was in 1988. This is 2004, and here we are again 16 years later with
over 3,000 pages dumped on our desks, and we are told to vote on this
in a few hours. Nobody knows what is in here. We have been scouring
this bill--thank goodness some sharp-eyed aide of mine saw this little
nugget.
I must say, I am surprised something such as this could even get
through a flawed process like this one. I am amazed we are about to
pass in the Congress of the United States a provision that would allow
some staffers to look at any tax return of any individual, of any
company, and not have civil or criminal penalties apply to them for the
release of that information.
I tell you, that is serious. That is serious.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Vermont.

[[Page S11717]]

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the suggestion has been made that the
system is broken. Of course, I thought it would work far more smoothly
with a Republican President, a Republican House, and a Republican
Senate. We had actually passed a budget back last April, which by law
we are required to do.
Madam President, will the Senator from North Dakota agree that there
is at least one glimmer of hope here on the system working? This was
put in by the Republicans in the House, and at least the Democrats in
the Senate discovered it. So to that extent, there is at least a
glimmer of hope.
Mr. CONRAD. I say, in answer to my colleague, I agree with the
Senator from Arizona, the system is broken. The system is completely
broken when we have 3,000 pages dumped on our desk and we are told to
vote in 3 hours.
Now, that does not make sense. Members do not know what is in this.
We find egregious provisions such as this one tucked away that people
did not review, did not debate, did not discuss, did not have a chance
to amend, have not had a chance to vote on, and all of a sudden it is
contained in here. That cannot be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are currently in morning business with a
10-minute time limit, and the 10 minutes of the Senator from North
Dakota has expired. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. McCAIN. I have a parliamentary inquiry. Where are we on the bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business.
Mr. McCAIN. When do we expect to take up the legislation itself?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That has not been determined.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I happen to be the ranking member, that is
the most senior Democrat, on the Finance Committee. In years past, I
was chairman of the Finance Committee when this side had the majority.
Mr. SARBANES. Those were the halcyon days.
Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, those were the halcyon days when this country was
represented really well.
But I might say the provision we have been discussing; namely, the
degree to which Members of Congress should have access to any
American's income tax returns, is really an outgrowth of the Nixon
years. That is, in the Watergate years, when too many Government
officials had access to individuals' income tax returns and we enacted
so-called Watergate reforms, one of the reforms was a section in the
code which basically provides that no one in Congress has access to any
American income tax return--as well they should not--except for the
chairman of the Finance Committee and the chairman of the House Ways
and Means Committee, the committees that have jurisdiction over our tax
laws.
Someone might ask, why should they have jurisdiction? Why should the
chairman of the Finance Committee have the right to look into an
individual's tax returns? That is a question that should be asked very
seriously and it is one we should take very seriously.
But the reason that is in the law today is so the Finance Committee
can exercise jurisdiction or proper oversight over our Tax Code,
especially looking into how companies, maybe individuals but certainly
companies, use the tax system to shelter their income--what do they
do; how do they do it--so we in the Congress can enact legislation that
closes those loopholes. That is what we have done.

Within the last couple of years, with the so-called Enron reforms as
we looked at Enron's tax returns, we found a lot of provisions where
actually the company was overstating assets in a certain area and
understating in another, sheltering a lot of income, clearly not in the
spirit of the income tax returns.
I might say, too, that, frankly, the Tax Code is so complex and the
returns are so complex it is difficult for the enforcement agency, the
IRS, to look at all of these shelters and to enforce the tax law.
As we know, a low percentage of tax returns are currently audited,
and it is very difficult for the Joint Tax Committee because they do
not have the resources to look at all of this.
The long and short of this is that we in the Finance Committee, the
chairman of the Finance Committee and his staff, looked at income tax
returns, including Enron, and we made appropriate deletions to protect
proprietary interests. Nevertheless, we thought we should exercise that
responsibility and we did, very carefully and professionally, and the
result was not to use individual tax returns but, rather, closing a lot
of loopholes of which companies, in this case Enron, were unfortunately
taking advantage.
The current law also provides for civil and criminal penalties for
any unauthorized disclosure by the chairman of the committee or
authorized staff of any unauthorized information, which there well
should be. If any of us were to divulge any of the information we might
have, we go to jail, and we should.
The provision we are talking about here, that is, in this big
appropriations bill right in front of me, basically says the chairmen
of the Appropriations Committee, House and Senate, have the same
authority, and that they can also exercise that authority and have
access to income tax returns without any penalty whatsoever, no
criminal penalties, no civil penalties, for any unauthorized
disclosure.
Well, what does that mean? It does not take a rocket scientist to
know that means anybody on the staff of the Appropriations Committee
can just take that tax return information and can go to the press, can
use it however they want on anybody, without any penalty. That is an
outrage. Even in the dead of night, who would try to enact a provision
like that? And that is what the majority has done very late at night.
My staff happened to find this provision several hours ago. I called
them this morning to see what they found in the conference report. They
said: We are still trying to download it. We divided it into different
parts. We are not going to be able to go through it all until 5 o'clock
today, not even see what is in this conference report until 5 today.
That is about eight or nine people in my office, each downloading from
the House Ways and Means Web site various portions of what is in this
conference report.
I am informed that the House has gone out. I do not know if that is
accurate, but I am informed the House has adjourned and that is highly,
highly reprehensible. They passed this provision in the middle of the
night, did not tell a soul, did not consult with the Finance Committee,
did not consult with the House Ways and Means Committee. They certainly
did not consult with the Finance Committee. The chairman of the Senate
Finance Committee found out about this a few hours ago and he is as
upset as I am. The chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Mr.
Stevens, I am told he did not even know this was in there until a
couple of hours ago when he was informed about it. That is what I am
told. He did not know it was in there. Come on.

It seems to me that the one resolution yet available is for the
Senate to amend--it is a procedural motion here--the enrolling
resolution, to strike that language and send it back to the House.
I have to figure out there is a way for the House to stay and meet. I
am told they are just doing special orders or something like that. I am
told they have not adjourned sine die. It is clear that if they want to
change this, the House of Representatives can find a way to change it.
They can find a way if they want to. If they do not, I have to reach
one conclusion, they do not want to. They want to give the
Appropriations Committee chairman this unfettered access to individual
income tax returns and the ability to release it to anybody in the
world without any punishment, without any civil penalties, without any
criminal penalties.
I ask the House of Representatives, I ask the Speaker of the House, I
ask the leadership of the majority party in this body, to find a way to
get the House of Representatives to accept our resolution.
I have been told we will have a colloquy or we will take this up
later. We all know what happens when we take things up later--it does
not happen. Things have a way of getting lost. One has to strike when
the iron is hot. The iron is really hot now.
When the American public hears about this--we can bet dollars to

[[Page S11718]]

donuts there is probably nobody in the press gallery right now because
they are out writing their stories about this--we are going to hear
about this and I would think that the majority party would like to nip
this thing in the bud and get it done right now and not have it in the
press for weeks and months because it is on the doorstep of the
majority party of the House and the Senate. It is on their doorstep. If
they want to change it and delete it, they can do that. If they do not
want to change it or delete it, then they are not doing it.
Since I have been in this body, I cannot think--I am sure there are
others but I cannot think of an outrage as reprehensible as this one.
Can my colleagues believe it, unfettered access to individual tax
returns which are supposed to be private income, that can be divulged
to anybody without any sanctions? Come on. How can anybody even
conceive of suggesting something like that? Somebody did it in the
middle of the night, and I might say we still do not know what is in
this legislation. As I said before, the chairman of the committee did
not even know about it. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee
did not know about it. They do now, and I call on them to do something
about this to get this problem solved right now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is what happens at the end of a
session when things go bump in the night and on your desk you find a
stack like this. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee. A lot
of work has gone into this, but by waiting until the end of the session
to put all of this in front of Members of Congress, it becomes
literally impossible for us to meet our responsibility to say to the
voters we represent that we know what is here; it is good for America,
and we are voting for it. You have to operate on faith.
That faith is shaken if not destroyed when something comes through
like this. If there is anything we are supposed to respect in this
country, it is the right of privacy, particularly when it comes to
Government records. To slip in this section 222 in the Treasury
appropriation, and give to certain Members of Congress and their staff
access to individual income tax returns which they can order up from
the Internal Revenue Service and then use the contents with impunity,
in other words, without any threat of civil or criminal prosecution if
they disclose them, is to create a situation which, frankly, is beyond
description.
We talked about enemies lists 40 and 50 years ago in America, where
administrations would decide which Americans were not friendly and
there was a hint or suspicion that the Internal Revenue Service was
going to look at their tax returns. That is as far as it went.
Forget the hint of suspicion, this is an outright delegation of
authority to elected officials in Congress and their staff to order up
the tax returns of any person they choose. Could it be their opponent
in the last election? Or maybe the candidate who might run against them
next time? Could it be a whole branch of contributors to certain
causes? All of those things are possible under this.
It strikes me as odd, if we are going to respect the right of privacy
for individuals in this country, that we would delegate this authority
and then say that the staff people and Members of Congress who use it
can disclose the contents to the public without any fear of
prosecution. They could turn them over to the press. They could use
them on these talk shows. It could happen.
In case this sounds as if it is in the realm of the ridiculous, it
happened to be on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill that a
staffer hacked into my computer and stole 2,000 documents from my
computer and turned them over to the press and special interest groups
in Washington. He was caught, thank goodness, and now there is an
investigation underway. But he was using material from my staff and my
office in an effort to not only try to anticipate what might happen in
the committee, but to use it against me politically. That happened at
the Senate Judiciary Committee, the committee responsible for reviewing
and designating future Justices in the Supreme Court. It happened
within our committee.
Now what we are saying is we will write into law the access of
Members of Congress and their staff to, not just the computer memos
generated in my office, but income tax returns; that they could have
access to an individual income tax return and disclose it with
impunity, without any possibility of being held accountable for that
fact. That is a troubling development.
I do not know who is responsible for it. It happened in an
appropriations bill that it turns out at least Members on this side of
the aisle were not aware it was included. But think about the fact that
we are dealing with some 3,400 pages of legislation here. It is not
possible for us to read through every word of this, every paragraph,
and to find out if we can trust the contents of this to be something
that is good for America and something about which we can cast our vote
in favor.

I thank my colleagues for coming to the floor--Senator Conrad from
North Dakota, Senator Baucus from Montana and others, Senator McCain
from Arizona, for bringing to light this outrage.
It is not enough for us to limit this outrage to the point where we
say we will pass it today and take care of it tomorrow. What happens in
the meantime, after this is signed into law? What will happen? I don't
know.
But we will be giving legal authority to individuals to misuse income
tax returns of individuals, families, and businesses across America.
That, in my mind, crosses a line which we should never allow to be
crossed.
The Government serves us. We are the masters of this country because,
in a democracy, the voters rule. When it reaches a point that you have
to worry about the tyranny of a government invading your privacy,
disclosing information which they have no business to publicly
disclose, then we have crossed a line which we should never cross.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question? As I read this
provision, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee could send what
are called agents--which I take it means staff?
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order.
Mr. SARBANES. Then the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is required
to give them access to the Internal Revenue Service facility and access
to any tax returns or return information contained therein. So they, in
effect, have a carte blanche to gain access to any tax information
involving any tax return. Is that correct?
Mr. DURBIN. That is my understanding. I would say to the Senator from
Maryland, as you read it, it is even more expansive than I described
it. I talked about asking for a tax return. As you read this language,
they could ask for all of the tax returns of certain individuals or
people living in certain areas or people working for certain companies
or people contributing to certain charities or contributing to certain
political candidates. They could go in and ask for all the information,
and can do it without any penalty under law if they disclose that
information or misuse it.
To think that we would give this authority in an appropriations bill
of 3,400 pages, and we stumbled upon it in the last few moments, is an
indication of some of the troubling possibilities in this piece of
legislation.
Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely correct. I thank the Senator
for answering the question.
Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I want to say to my colleagues who read
this bill--I don't know if I can hold it, but here it is. I asked that
it be put on everybody's desk. That is a rule in the Senate. You can
require that because I think just looking at this you see how not
to legislate. I think Senator McCain has made that point eloquently.

I am going to speak for about 5 or 6 minutes now. I am going to speak
more later.
I thank my colleagues who found that ``Big Brother is watching you''
language in this massive bill. It is a horrific thought that some
person working for the Government can identify a taxpayer and go after
him or her, or go after a business without penalty. This is unheard of.
If this is a new America, then let me say we have a lot

[[Page S11719]]

of work to do around here, and things are going to be slowed down
because as much as everyone wants to get home and get with their
families, not the least of which is the folks on the floor right now,
we may have to sacrifice a little bit if this is the kind of
legislation that comes before us in this huge packet.
I am going to take just a few minutes to run through another piece of
legislation that was thrown in here without any vote in the Senate,
without any hearing in the Senate, without any discussion in the
Senate, and that is the so-called Weldon amendment which has very many
adverse consequences for millions and millions of women of reproductive
age in our country.
The Weldon amendment is a sham conscience clause. It takes a good
conscience clause that was put in place so that doctors who have a
moral or religious objection to performing abortion do not have to do
that, but what this does is says anyone who wants can claim a
conscience clause without giving any reason, and expands it to HMOs and
insurance companies. Imagine giving an HMO a conscience clause. Since
when do HMOs have a conscience? I haven't met one that did so far.
Now, any business entity can decide to tell its doctors who work for
it that they cannot give women information about their constitutional
right to choose, even in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the
mother. In this bill, millions of American women are now at risk, if
they are the victim of incest or rape or their life is at stake, they
will be denied services and referrals. It is extraordinary to me.
Women will be left abandoned in emergency by overriding the Federal
Medicaid law. It abandons women in emergency rooms who have life-
threatening pregnancies. It overrides title X requiring referral to
appropriate clinicians or clinics. It overrides State laws.
Now you have from my colleagues who run this place, the Republicans,
who always say they don't like Big Brother--first, you have them going
after your tax return, and now you have them overriding State laws that
respect a woman who may be in deep trouble because of incest, or rape,
or her life may be threatened.
Can you imagine that? When the American people learn about this--that
a woman could stagger in, having been raped by a relative, and she does
not have to be told her constitutional rights. Let me tell you, that
treats women worse than criminals.
Let us see what we do about criminals. We make sure criminal suspects
have to be told their constitutional rights. These folks could be
suspected of the most heinous crimes. We have to tell them they have a
right to remain silent; anything they say could be used against them in
a court of law; they have a right to an attorney before they can be
questioned; if they can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed.
And then they are asked, Do you understand these rights?
A woman who may be quite poor, who may not know all of her
constitutional rights, up to now has been protected because all the
laws we have on the books say she needs to be told what her rights are.
Look what we do here to women. Women don't have their constitutional
rights explained to them. Under Roe v. Wade, a woman has a right in the
first 3 months of her pregnancy to be told that the decision is hers,
without government interference. After that, she has to be told that
her health and life must always be protected throughout her pregnancy.
These are the constitutional rights of women.
Yet with this Weldon language which was put into this bill, without a
Senate hearing, without Senate debate, without a Senate vote, a woman
will be treated worse than suspected criminals.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. In our State of New Jersey, public hospitals are not
allowed to deny abortion services to a woman. What effect will this new
Federal law have on those women's rights accorded to them under State
constitutions?
Mrs. BOXER. The State law will be overridden, my friend. And your
State--and I know you and Senator Corzine are here to fight for your
State. You fight for your State every single day. Right now, in this
package, without one hearing, your State, if this bill passes, is going
to be told from now on they cannot in any way have protections for
women in the law if that State takes Federal funds. Of course, they all
take Medicaid funds. They will not be able to protect women. Not only
won't they be able to protect women in the sense that the woman can
have a legal procedure, but the woman won't even be able to get a
referral.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Can a doctor who works at a hospital that doesn't
provide abortion services be prevented from providing a patient with a
simple direction to say we don't do it, I won't do it, but there are
places you can go and you ought to check the directory, or check Web
sites and see if you can find a place to get this done?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes. There is a gag rule on doctors. The way it would
work would be this: If an organization, an HMO, or a hospital, or an
insurance company decides it no longer wants to either provide abortion
services or even refer a woman to abortion services, they can say to
the doctor who works for them, if you want to work here, forget about
it. You cannot refer a woman for an abortion. You can't tell her about
her constitutional rights. It is a gag rule that will now be permitted
on the doctors of this country to the detriment of the patient.
I will go over this quickly.
Under current law, doctors can choose a conscience objection to
provide abortion services. We all support that. If a doctor personally
declares a conscience objection problem, he or she does not have to
perform an abortion. However, if a doctor doesn't have a conscience
objection, under the Weldon amendment, HMOs and insurance companies who
no longer wish to provide women with information on their
constitutional rights can prohibit doctors from performing them and
referring women; they will lose their job.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it is my
understanding this provision now being described not only deals with
conscience issues but also deals with what potentially HMOs or
insurance companies can choose to not inform, not because of an issue
of morality or religious beliefs, but because they just flat out
believe it is not in their best business interests to do that. So we
are changing the whole generic and fundamental reason on how we are
addressing this issue.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes. That is why I call it a sham conscience clause. It
took a conscience clause we passed in 1997 that was very fair, because
none of us, pro-choice or not, wanted to say to a doctor you must
perform a procedure that you have a religious objection to, and now we
have taken that and thrown it out. We say for whatever reason or for no
reason, not only a doctor but an HMO, an insurance company, can decide
they don't want to offer the service regardless of State law,
regardless of local law, and regardless of Federal law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 more
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, to put this in the context of this 3,500-
page bill that we are legislating outside of the Constitution, of the
formal processes of hearings, not unlike the abomination of the IRS
where we are creating policies that are changing both State law and
privacy issues, both in the case of a woman's right to have access to
protecting her health, and dealing with things like the Federal privacy
laws with regard to the IRS--what we are doing with these 3,500 pages
is the American people are getting legislation tucked into bills
without any kind of debate or transparency.
Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely. What we have going on here is this enormous
spending bill, and buried in it is legislation that was tacked on, in
many cases never discussed, such as this one Senator Conrad discovered,
where a committee staff can look at Senator Grassley's tax returns or
my tax return, or Senator Corzine's income tax returns, or anybody's
tax return, and give it to the press. They could choose someone who is
a constituent of ours. They could choose someone and find out what
charities they are contributing to.

[[Page S11720]]

This is the big government watching us, and the Weldon amendment is
tucked in here without any vote by this Senate, either in committee or
on the floor. I will tell you right now, talk about big government
watching you. This is big government overriding State laws in many
States. It is big government that is abandoning women in the emergency
rooms who have life-threatening pregnancies, who walk into emergency
rooms, and under a different law that protects this woman, she has to
be stabilized. No more; not with the Weldon amendment.
I wanted to say to my colleagues that I was willing to stand on my
feet as long as it takes because of the outrage I feel for the women in
this country because of the way they are treated in this bill. But I
have been able to work with Senator Frist, Senator Reid, and Senator
Daschle, and it looks as though we will be able to reach an agreement
to have a vote on my bill to repeal this Weldon amendment within the
next couple of months. At that time, we will shed light on it. I will
have far more to say about it. I wanted to tell my friends here--and I
thank Senator Feinstein, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Corzine, who
are on the floor--how much I appreciate your leadership on this.
This is an outrage.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may ask the Senator from California, the Senator
is saying she has a commitment. Will that be expressed?
Mrs. BOXER. I will not allow a vote until we have a colloquy read on
the floor between myself, Senator Reid, and Senator Frist which
promises we will be able to have an up-or-down vote on the Weldon
amendment sometime around April, sometime before that, where we can
debate this on both sides, where we can share our views on it. Then I
will feel in my heart we have done the right thing by the women in
America, at least protecting them by letting the light shine on this
piece of legislation, which is a shame for the women of this country,
overriding State law, overriding laws that protect a woman who might
walk into an emergency room, practically at death's door, and no longer
would receive treatment.
I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I speak in strong opposition to a very
troubling provision in this bill that will potentially take away
American taxpayers' right to privacy regarding their personal income
tax return.
The section I refer to is Section 222 of the bill. This section will
allow any agent designated by the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee access to tax returns and tax return information.
Section 222 provides this sweeping new authority while at the same
time it throws aside years of detailed strict statutory protections for
taxpayers that also ensure the privacy of taxpayer information.
Given that the language in this section can be interpreted to
eliminate all restrictions on access to taxpayer information and
publication of taxpayer information, there is nothing to prohibit the
Appropriations Committee from obtaining taxpayer information,
information about a corporation, information about an individual and
releasing it to the press without fear of penalty.
There is no reason that the Appropriations Committee cannot obtain
taxpayer information, your 1040, and just posting it on the Web.
This poorly drafted and even more poorly conceived legislation will
bring us back to the doorstep of the days of Nixon, Truman and similar
dark periods in our tax history when tax return information was used as
a club against political enemies.
My colleagues may find these concerns over the top but I can assure
you that when it comes to protection of taxpayer information the
history has been a very troubling one and it is only through constant
vigilance that we have been able to give Americans confidence that
their tax return information will be protected and private.
I find it especially troubling that this language which will harm the
volunteer tax system and make the work of the IRS harder comes in an
appropriations bill that fails to even provide the the full funding
requested for the IRS by President Bush.
What is more important, providing more money to the IRS to combat tax
shelters, or allowing Appropriations staffers the right to dance
through private citizens' tax returns at will? This is an outrage.
Just so my colleagues understand the claim for this language is that
it is to allow the appropriations committee with access to IRS
facilities for oversight purposes but not the ability to examine
individual tax returns, data or information.
This is the statement that was made in colloquy between the chairman
of the Ways and Means Committee and the Chairman of the Appropriations
Committee in the other body.
The statement between the two members further states that it is the
intent of the Appropriations Committees that all access to taxpayer
information remains governed by the disclosure and privacy rules of
Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.
For my colleagues information, Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue
Code generally governs and protects taxpayer information.
What is particularly frustrating is that Section 6103 already
provides the Appropriations Committee a means to have access to
taxpayer information--within the protections and limitations provided
by law to protect taxpayer privacy.
The Appropriations Committee can seek permission for access to
taxpayer information from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee
or myself, in the Senate, the chairman of the Finance Committee. I have
received no request for access to taxpayer information from the
Appropriations Committee during my time as chairman.
However, I would say that my colleagues know my reputation for
oversight and encouraging oversight and I have been very open minded
about granting such requests. In addition, any committee can appeal for
such authority to the House or Senate for authority--that also has
never taken place by the Appropriations Committee to my knowledge.
Again, if that authority is granted the protections provided under
Section 6103 are still in place.
This provision in the omnibus bill reflects a mindset that Members
or, more likely, their staff--don't want to be bothered with such
longstanding successful mechanisms to provide access for legitimate
congressional oversight and have instead opted for the ``easy way
out.''
And let me be clear, the ``easy way out'' contained in this bill will
jeopardize taxpayer privacy and taxpayer information.
Let me make a final point. This section places the Commissioner of
the IRS in the position of possibly forcing him to violate the law
under Section 6103. The Commissioner of the IRS is still covered by
Section 6103 and the penalties for improper disclosure.
It is my early review of this language that this Section 222 will put
the Commissioner in the position of an improper release of tax
information in violation of 6103. In such a case it is my view that the
Commissioner should not release any tax information under this Section
222.
They say haste makes waste. In this case, with Section 222, haste has
made a hash of years of efforts to protect taxpayer information and
ensuring that taxpayer information is kept private. It is disgraceful
that all this is being done because some Members of the Congress can't
be bothered with following the simple rules in place to protect
taxpayer information. Now, I have been satisfied since this has come to
our attention that this goes much further than what the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee has desired, or even more so, that he was not
aware of the sweep of this legislation and that it will be corrected
shortly in other action taken by this body under the leadership of the
Senate Appropriations Committee--and presumably, I am also told, with
the adherence of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. So
this may no longer be an issue.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield.
Mr. STEVENS. I would like to tell the chairman of the Finance
Committee as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I checked with
Chairman Young, Bill Young of the House

[[Page S11721]]

Appropriations Committee. Neither of us was aware this had been
inserted in the bill. It was inserted at the request of one staff to
another, reliance on the statement made by one that the front office
had been briefed and is fine with this.
That was not right. No Member had ever seen it. It came out during
the readout. I am pleased that after it was presented to the body, it
was found. It does not represent the policy of the Appropriations
Committee. None of us have even ever discussed in a meeting either on
this side or the House of Representatives any further access to
taxpayer information. It came strictly from a staff request to another
staffer.
It is absolutely a mistake. I apologize to the Senate. I am sorry
that both the Senator from Iowa and his colleague, Chairman Thomas in
the House, properly were exercised over it. It is a mistake. It will be
deleted. We have made an agreement it will be totally deleted from this
bill.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. Would this not be, the explanation just provided by the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, incredibly disturbing, that
we would have a bill before us, that we would have a few hours of
debate, and if it had not been for the alert staff, one of the staffers
over here, this would have been passed into law?
This would have been passed into law. Now we find out how it
happened. One staffer had an agreement with another staffer, and it was
placed into a multithousand-page document that none of us had ever seen
or read.
Doesn't the Senator from Iowa find this incredibly disturbing, that
there will be all kinds of pressure we vote as soon as possible on this
bill because we all want to get out of here, that it is just
discovered, but it was done by two staffers?
Has this system broken down completely here in the U.S. Senate?
Mr. GRASSLEY. To the Senator from Arizona, I cannot disagree with
what he says. But we do have a bill before us. And the fact is, the
chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee has assured me--and he
is a man of his word--that he is going to take action to get this out
of here. That does not detract anything from what the Senator from
Arizona said about the bill, but I am satisfied as far as this
egregious provision being taken care of.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, I do. But I want to say thank you.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Arizona is absolutely warranted in his
comments. As I said, I apologize to the Senate. We thought we had these
bills read through twice. Both sides read them through twice by people
who are involved in them.
I have to tell the Senator from Arizona, I do not sit there for 10
hours as that is being read. I rely on the people who have been with us
now for years and years to tell us that it has been checked properly,
that there is nothing in the bill that has not been approved by the
bodies respectively and in conference.
But this error happened. I do apologize to the Senate. It is
unfortunate. And it is more than a mistake; it is a terrible disaster,
and we will have to examine our whole procedures to see if there is any
way we can prevent it in the future. But it has happened now, and we do
apologize.
Congressman Young is as disturbed about it as I am, and his statement
was: ``Take it out now.'' And that is what we are going to do.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I think the Senate should be assured.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I was present in the caucus when the Senator from North Dakota raised
this issue and read the language, and I think I have listened to all of
the commentary. I very much respect the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee. I have served on that committee for 10 years now.
I have a very hard time accepting that this is just an inadvertent
staff submission, and I wanted to say why. Because this section 222, if
you read it in its entirety, is really an egregious abuse of power. If
you go down to line 17, it says: ``allow agents.'' We are not talking--
this is not even staff. This is anyone the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee would designate, in written form, would have
``access [to all] Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax
returns or return information'' such as legal information, cases
brought.
I cannot believe that some staffer, for some technical reason, wanted
to insert this in the bill. I think this is an egregious overreach of
power. I think we ought to do the right thing by it, and the right
thing, for me, is to vote down this bill, call the House back, have
them reconference the bill, and do it the right way. I do not think
this language should be active for 1 minute, let alone 1 day. It is
just a terrible, egregious abuse of power.
I do not tend to be suspicious. But I see the Senator from Idaho
there, and I see the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee here. Does
anyone believe, really, that some staffer, without any permission,
thought up a scheme by which a chairman's ``agent'' could have access
to every IRS facility anywhere in this Nation, and every single IRS
filing of every citizen of this Nation?
I mean, you know, we were not born yesterday. We did not come down
with the first snow. I think that is asking for an impossibility. How
can we believe that? I think to just shuffle this off----
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator from California yield for a quick
question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I will.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Could you see that this information might be used in
a political campaign?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely. Absolutely. I can even see it being used
to go after some district attorney in Texas.
I find this an egregious abuse of power. I think we ought to spend
some time on it. We ought to talk about what it means. I do not think
any Member of this body ought to accept the fact. And if some staff
does have the power to simply put something in that is so widespread,
have the House of Representatives already pass it--and a bright staffer
of Senator Conrad's found this. What if we had passed this bill?
Senator McCain is absolutely right. This place is broken. And it
starts by having one party left out of conference, which has become
more and more an accepted trait. That is how this place is broken. You
are going to have one party where one person can insert things in the
dead of night, in huge bills, which come to this Chamber. It has
already passed 345 Members of the House of Representatives.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. It has been floating around here
that this is somehow a staffer who put this in. I do not know the
answer to that question. But certainly someone is responsible and
certainly it should not take an investigation lasting a year to find
out who. Someone was responsible for this.

I ask the Senator from California, does the Senator feel we ought to
know who the person responsible is, and certainly anyone who would
exceed his or her authority as a staff person to put in that kind of
language, I ask the Senator, does the Senator think that person ought
to continue employment in either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think there certainly ought to be an investigation.
I cannot conceive of a staffer doing this without authorization. I
cannot conceive of a staffer--if this is so staff can go and look at
tax loopholes, in the first place, the Appropriations Committee does
not need this. The Finance Committee can do that. Why does the
Appropriations Committee need this authority? It does not make any
sense.
Not only that, if you are going to copy the legislation that relates
to the chairman of the Finance Committee, there is a sanction there, a
very heavy sanction for misuse of that information.
Mr. HARKIN. Civil and criminal.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If you are going to copy it, why not copy that part
of it? This is not a copy job. This is somebody's innovative thinking
of how they

[[Page S11722]]

could get their minions access to the tax returns of individuals who
might be political opponents or who might come up against them in some
way or for general resource information to use against an individual,
against a company, against a member of the press, at any given time.
Everything we have tried to do, with Social Security numbers, with
privacy, is to protect individuals' rights to their own privacy. Every
stricture of the IRS is to protect an individual's right to privacy.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me just finish. I am just getting wound up. Let
me just finish this windup.
Here, in the dead of night--this is not poorly thought out. This is
very carefully thought out. Whoever did this knew exactly what they
were doing, and they got it through one House.
Please, don't shuffle this under our desks with a resolution. This
bill should be defeated. It should go back. The House of
Representatives, which passed it, should at least have to come back to
Washington and correct their error. This is the way I feel. I think the
American people would be just appalled if they knew this was in the
bill.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will yield, certainly.
Mr. CONRAD. It was represented on the floor that there was a colloquy
on the House side, and in that colloquy they suggested there was no
intent for this language to permit access to individual tax returns.
In that colloquy, they suggested, there was no intent. Now, the
Senator has read this language. Do you believe the representation that
has been made on the House floor that this didn't intend to access
individual tax returns?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely not, because twice on line 14 and lines 19
and 20, it reinforces that it is a tax return or return information. It
broadens it from tax return.
Mr. CONRAD. I might say to the Senator, if you go to lines 18 and 19,
that says `` . . . allow agents designated by such Chairman access to
Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return
information contained therein.''
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It gives them free access to every IRS facility
anywhere in America, to go and rummage through and do whatever dirty
work they want to do.
Mr. CONRAD. I will ask a second question. On the House floor, they
made the representation that this was intended to preserve the
protections for individuals' rights to privacy. Now, I ask the Senator
from California, is there anything in here that has a protection for
taxpayers of their private return information?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I worked on privacy legislation, and this absolutely
does not have any protection for an individual.
Mr. CONRAD. In fact, it completely sweeps aside all of the
protections that are in law because what it says is:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the
disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon
written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate
Committee on Appropriations, the Committee of the Internal
Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such
Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and
any tax returns or return information contained therein.

There is no protection; it is out the window. There is no criminal
penalty, no civil penalty. They could call up the return of the Senator
from Arizona, if they didn't like the speech he gave on the floor of
the Senate; they could get that return and they could release it to the
press and have absolutely no penalty.
Mr. McCAIN. I think I would be the first.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may make a comment--and then I
will defer to a question by the Senator from Idaho. I think this is so
Machiavellian--to realize this power is being given to just one Member
of the House and one Member of the Senate, and it is a power that I
think is broader than that which now exists with sanctions for the
Chairman of the Finance Committee. It is not just a staffer, it is an
agent that can go. You can hire an investigator. You can have your
campaign chairman designated to go in writing. That is the broad
fashion in which this phrase or this section is written. It is a very
frightening thing.
As I say, I don't often get exercised or upset about things, but the
more I read, the more I saw that it was very carefully put together. It
is extraordinarily dangerous and a real abuse of power.
I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I share the Senator's outrage. I agree that
the Appropriations Committee chairman and ranking member and/or their
staffs or designees do not need this authority. You heard the Finance
Committee chair speak, and the ranking member has spoken; they have
this authority. But in them gaining this authority, there are very real
sanctions against any disclosure.

I know this is an opportunity to make a substantial amount of
hypotheticals. Agents are also our staffs. That is what is intended
within the law, and that is what is in the law today as it relates to
the Finance Committee. I agree with the Senator; this ought to come
out. You heard the chairman of the Appropriations Committee say it will
come out. It is now not law, nor will it become law. I think that is
what is most important.
Is the system broken? Yes. This represents a broken system. What is
not broken about it are the keen eyes of all of us and our staffs. The
ranking member of the Budget Committee and his staff have found this,
so the system is not broken; it just got discovered. It is not in the
dark of night; it is a dark early evening. It is 6 o'clock and we are
doing the business of the country.
The Senator from California is absolutely right in what she says. I
am not going to play hypothetical. That is the politics I will not
enter into. But I agree with her and I suggest that we can talk a great
deal about this section, but it will never become law because you and I
and the Senator from North Dakota, and everybody else on this floor, by
a vote of probably 100-0, will not allow it to happen. I thank the
Senator for his diligence.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I appreciate the comments of the Senator.
Mr. President, I will wrap this up. I commend my friend and
colleague, the junior Senator from California, Senator Boxer, for her
indefatigable effort and perseverance on the Weldon amendment. I want
to say how strongly I agree with her. I will submit for the Record a
letter I circulated, signed by Senators Boxer, Snowe, Clinton, Lincoln,
Mikulski, Stabenow, Murray, Cantwell and Collins. I think if I could
probably sum it up for everybody, this is just one more step in
removing a woman's right to choose. It is a terrible step because it
also subjects a woman without resources to a situation where she cannot
find help, particularly in a rural area.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, November 19, 2004.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stevens: We are writing to oppose a provision
called the federal refusal clause from being included in the
FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill. This provision was
included by Representative Dave Weldon in the FY 2005 House
Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill and it would allow a
broad range of health-care companies to refuse to comply with
federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to
abortion services.
Should this provision become law, federal, state, or local
government may no longer require any institutional or
individual health-care provider to provide, pay for, or refer
for abortion services. This will mean that medical providers
in hospitals and clinics across the country will likely be
victims of demonstrations and intimidations as this provision
allows that they be forbidden from providing abortion care to
women who need it, and also to deny women referrals to
another provider. It will interfere with the authority of
Attorneys General to reject, approve or impose terms on the
sale or transfer of assets by nonprofit health entities as
under current law. For example, an Attorney General could no
longer reject a merger proposal on the grounds that the
result would be diminished community access to full
reproductive health services.
This provision has never been considered in the Senate.
There have been no hearings held and no debate about this
provision. Further, this provision puts all states' Labor-
HHS-Education funding at risk and will require them to change
existing laws.
The federal refusal clause is harmful to women and denies
women access to reproductive health services. We ask that you
oppose

[[Page S11723]]

its inclusion in the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill.
Sincerely, Thank you for your consideration.
Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Olympia Snowe, Hillary
Rodham Clinton, Blanche L. Lincoln, Barbara A.
Milkuski, Debbie Stabenow, Patty Murray, Maria
Cantwell, Susan Collins.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I just ran up here. I thought I heard the
Senator from California say the chairman had sought this power?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. No, I did not say that.
Mr. STEVENS. I hoped that was not the case. In any event, the Senator
from California did say it was a one-sided review, with the Republicans
reviewing this. The staff reads out our bills--joint staff, House and
Senate, Republican and Democrat. I don't want to embarrass anybody here
tonight. I am sure every Senator and Congressman will talk to their
staff about this mistake. I assure the Senate that there were members
in the minority from the Senate and from the House and members from the
majority from the Senate and House that read this bill through twice.
It wasn't just the majority; it was the minority and the majority
staff.
This is a mistake. It is clearly a mistake. It is an unfortunate
mistake. I have talked to the chairman of the House committee. He was
appalled, as I was, when we found it was in there. To my knowledge, no
Member of the House and Senate was asked about this staff request. A
representation was made that the front office had cleared it. Actually,
we have to have a signoff from the minority as well as the majority
staff for their section of these bills. We have that signoff.
If the Senator from California wishes, I will tell her the members of
the staff on the Democratic side who reviewed this section and signed
off on it. I don't want the Record to show it was a partisan review. We
do not have partisan reviews of our bills. As a matter of fact, there
is no committee that works on a bipartisan basis more than the
Appropriations Committee.
Again, I apologize to the Senate. Members of my staff are going to
answer to me tomorrow. I want the Senate to know it was a bipartisan
staff from the House and the Senate that made this mistake, a terrible
mistake. I question any staff member who would ever approve this
language without referring to a Member of the Congress to whom he or
she is responsible.
I hope the Senator from California understands it is not something we
sought, not something we wanted. Both the chairman of the House
committee and I sought to delete it the minute we found it. It was too
late. The House had already passed it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to discuss a
provision in the bill about which I think there was strong bipartisan
agreement, because it will lift a significant burden off of minority
contractors around the country who wish to do business with the
Government.
Now, as Senators know, the program under which you get certified as a
minority contractor in the Federal Government is called the 8(a)
Program. State and local governments have similar certifications for
contracting as a minority contractor with those governments. This
presents a serious problem for minority small businesses seeking to do
business and to take advantage of goals or set-aside programs because
they are, after all, small businesses. They have to get recertified
today, having gotten recertified under the Federal Government, under
State government, and recertified under local government. It is a time-
consuming and expensive process.

The provisions in the bill which reauthorize several of the Small
Business Administration programs also contain a provision about which
we had unanimity on both sides of the aisle which provides that once a
business is certified as an 8(a) contract on the Federal level, it does
not have to go through recertification on the State and local levels in
order to do business in programs which are federally funded.
This is going to save minority small businesspeople many thousands of
dollars and, in many cases, make it possible for them to participate
where otherwise they would not be able to, and enlarge their
opportunities to do business with the Government.
It is a piece of legislation that I have worked on throughout this
Congress, and I am very pleased and grateful to the chairman and
ranking member, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of the
Small Business Committee in the House and Senate for agreeing to it.
I want to establish for the purpose of legislative history that the
purpose of it, again, is to make clear that once a minority small
business is certified as an 8(a) contractor on the Federal level, they
are automatically certified as a minority contractor in State and local
programs which receive Federal funds.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record letters of support
from the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas
City, the Minority Business Council of St. Louis, and the Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

From: Harry Alford,
Sent: Thursday, Aug. 7, 2003,
To: Hall, Heath, (TALENT)
Subject: Section 8(a) Language.
Heath: The National Black Chamber of Commerce is in strong
support of your language for ``Section 1. PARTICIPATION IN
FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS''.
We surveyed 7200 8(a) companies and received responses from
1227 which is a 17% response rate. The first question was:
Would you approve of official 8a certification being accepted
at local government entities such as city, county, state and
even private corporations who are federal contractors? The
response was positive 1183 versus 44 which is a Yes vote by
96.4%.
The second question was: Do you find the current system
where you must get certified at various places redundant,
time consuming and costly? The response was positive 1165
versus 62 which is a Yes vote by 95%.
Based on the response of the survey and on behalf of over 1
million Black owned businesses in the nation, we support Sen.
Talent's effort on this matter. This will truly be helpful,
economical and fair.
Harry C. Alford,
President/CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, DC.
____

United States Hispanic Chamber

of Commerce,

Wasington, DC, July 31, 2003.
Hon. Olympia Snowe,
Chair, Senate Small Business Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC
Dear Senator Snowe:
On behalf of the 1.2 million Hispanic-owned businesses
represented by the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
(USHCC), I wish to express support for the Section 8a
Certification amendment to the House Small Business Act
Reauthorization legislation proposed by Sen. James M. Talent
(R-MO). The USHCC supports this critical amendment because we
believe it will streamline the 8a certification process for
many Hispanic-owned businesses, greatly enhance their
efficiency, remove barriers to certification and increase
their access to federally funded projects.
The majority of Hispanic-owned businesses we represent are
small businesses that are eligible for 8a certification.
Currently, small businesses are required to obtain multiple
certifications--at the federal, state and/or local levels.
This can be costly and time-consuming. This is particularly
burdensome for our members because most Hispanic-owned
businesses are small businesses with fewer than 25 people,
limited budgets and limited time. For many Hispanic
businesses, this requirement has also proven to be a barrier
to certification. The amended language would eliminate the
need to obtain state and/or local government certification if
a small business has already obtained federal 8a
certification. We believe our members would benefit greatly
from this because it would help focus their efforts,
resources and energy where it is needed most--on growing
their business, rather than on paperwork and procedures.
Not only would this amendment alleviate regulatory burdens,
and ensure that more Hispanic businesses enter the
certification process, but we believe that it will also help
increase business for Hispanic firms. Currently, federally
certified 8a small businesses must be certified by their
particular state and sometimes by the local government to
have access to projects that are funded by the federal
government. This amendment would provide federally certified
8a small businesses with access to all state and local
projects entirely or partly funded by the federal government.
As you know, Hispanic-owned businesses comprise a vital
part of our nation's economy. The more than 1.2 million
Hispanic-owned firms employ 1.3 million people and generate
$200 billion in annual gross receipts. With Hispanics now
officially the largest minority in the country with a
population of 38 million, we must ensure that Hispanic
businesses have every door open to them so they

[[Page S11724]]

can continue to be powerful contributors of the U.S. economy.
The USHCC joins the many other trade and professional
associations in supporting the Section 8a Certification
Amendment. Thank you for your tireless efforts in confronting
this issue.
Sincerely,
George Herrera,
President & CEO.
____

Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of

Greater Kansas City

Kansas City, MO, Sept. 5, 2003.
Senator James M. Talent,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Talent: We are pleased to inform you that the
Board of Directors of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of
Greater Kansas City is unanimously in support of the Section
8(a) Certification Amendment of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 637(a)) for the participation in federally funded
projects so that a business that is 8(a) certified shall not
be required to be certified by any State, or political
subdivision thereof, in order to participate in any project
that is funded, in whole or in part, by the Federal
Government.
Eliminating the multiple certification process and
providing more access to all State and local projects funded
in whole or in part by the Federal Government will certainly
decrease business costs and increase the system efficiency.
Thank you for your continuous support to the business
communication and in particular the small business community,
which is the backbone of the national economy.
Sincerely,
CiCi Rojas,
President, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
Carlos Orta,
Legislative Chair, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
____

Minority Business Council,

St. Louis, MO, Sept. 5, 2003.
Hon. James M. Talent,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Talent: On behalf of the 300 members and their
8800 employees, the St. Louis Minority Business Council
wishes to express support for your proposed Section 8(a)
amendment to the Small Business Act.
This critical amendment will remove one of the most
significant barriers to our members gaining access to
federally funded projects--multiple certifications. The
elimination of the multiple certification process will
provide our members with greater access to all State and
local projects funded in whole or in part by Federal funds.
In addition, this will greatly decrease business costs and
improve the Section 8(a) program.
Thank you for your continued leadership and support of
minority small businesses in the St. Louis area. We look
forward to working with you in securing the passage of this
very important amendment.
Sincerely,
James B. Webb.
____

Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

of Metropolitan St. Louis,

St. Louis, MO, Aug. 8, 2003.
Senator James M. Talent,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Talent: We are pleased to inform you that the
board of directors of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of
Metropolitan St. Louis is unanimously in support of the
Section 8(a) Certification Amendment of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) for the participation in federally
funded projects so that a business that is 8(a) certified
shall not be required to be certified by any State, or
political subdivision thereof, in order to participate in any
project that is funded, in whole or in part, by the Federal
Government.
Eliminating the multiple certification process and
providing more access to all State and local projects funded
in whole or in part by the Federal Government will certainly
decrease business costs and increase the system efficiency.
Thank you for your continuous support to the business
community and in particular the small business community,
which is the backbone of the national economy.
Sincerely,
Rafael Nun Marin,
President.

Mr. TALENT. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to this
sweeping gag rule with which we have become familiar. It is against
women's health. It has just been slipped into the omnibus spending
bill. Even though most of this country is pro-choice, the House
Republicans have inserted radical anti-choice language into this
legislation.
One thing I have learned in my time in politics is that if one of the
parties is shameless, the other party cannot afford to be spineless. I
am pleased that my colleagues have caught on to what is going on here
and are trying to make sure we all understand what is in this huge bill
we are looking at. It deserves a thorough examination.
I think the Senator from Maryland indicated that if you recognize
some mistakes in this pile of paper, one thing you know is that there
are many others that lurk in the voluminous bill before us. So the
effect of this Republican provision to allow doctors to be gagged from
even discussing abortion with their patients is outrageous.
This morning, I heard our majority leader, Senator Frist, say that
the Senate should focus on ``putting the doctor-patient relationship
first.'' But here the Republican majority is inserting language that
would block doctors from even talking to their patients about legal
medical procedures.
Under current law, if a doctor's religious beliefs prevent him or her
from providing abortion procedures, then he or she cannot be forced to
perform the procedure or even discuss it. That is called the conscience
clause, and I think it makes sense. But what is in this omnibus bill
goes way beyond the conscience clause. It is a gag rule that allows a
hospital or an HMO to order its doctors not to perform, discuss, or
even provide basic information on abortion, and that certainly is not
putting the doctor-patient relationship first. That is putting politics
first.
Even if a doctor believes that the information on abortion would be
critical to saving the life of the mother, this new provision could be
used to prohibit that doctor from providing such lifesaving
information.
To put it simply, this is an outrageous attack on women's health and
women's rights.
In addition, this Republican provision overrides State laws. I asked
the Senator from California a question as she was making her remarks:
Would this eliminate the possibility that even though in the State of
New Jersey, my State, for example, if we allowed under our State
constitution the right for a woman to have an abortion, that it could
be overridden by Federal law if this becomes law. And the answer is
yes--state's would not be able to enforce their own constitutional
protections. I guess the Republican Party suddenly wants to preempt
State or local law from ensuring a woman's access because it does not
suit their agenda.
My State of New Jersey has such a law, but now our law would be
overridden by this Federal gag rule, and that is totally unacceptable.
The provision goes so far as to say that any State or local
government that attempts to enforce its own laws or policies in the
area of abortion could have all of its Federal labor health and
education funding canceled--cancel the funding for those essential
services.
My only complaint is this is not States rights, it is State bullying.

One year ago, President Bush--how well I remember it, and I am sure
most of my colleagues do--signed an anti-choice bill into law. It was
an extraordinary event not just because of the terrible bill that he
was signing into law, but also it was quite an image that appeared in
newspapers across the country.
This is the image. Look at the image again: Smiling faces of all
men--all men. Not one woman Republican or Democrat stood with them when
the President signed that bill. They are all men, and it is downright
frightening. I call this photo a ``male-a-garchy.'' This photo says to
women: Your right to make choices about your health and your body is
being taken back from you, and these men are doing it, right here, with
smiling faces, and the President, with pen in hand, is signing the
bill.
This trend is going to continue to be enforced by this bill today.
The bill before us takes away the decision-making power from women and
doctors, and puts it into the hands of men who lead hospitals,
insurance companies, and HMOs. Supporters of this gag rule claim this
policy change is necessary to make sure that health care providers are
not forced to perform abortions.
I want to make it crystal clear that under current law, no doctor or
nurse in this country is required to provide or discuss abortions
against their will. Unlike the conscience clause, this gag rule does
not protect doctors' rights, it takes doctors' rights away. Doctors
have a duty to ensure that patients

[[Page S11725]]

have access to accurate information so that they can make the medical
decisions that are best for them.
This bill would gag them from providing that information and denies
women the right to understand all of their medical options.
Women have the right to access to medical information about all of
their options, not just those that the ``male-a-garchy'' wants them to
hear. So I say to women across this country: Be aware, the right to
choose is in dire jeopardy. This bill today is yet another attempt to
chip away at the right to reproductive choice.
Look at the size of the bill that we have just received. It is
thousands of pages. Hidden within these pages is the attack on a
woman's right to choose.
It is wrong to take away people's rights by slipping it into a giant
spending bill without any debate, without any discussion, and
concealing it in such a way that if we were not lucky and did not catch
it, even though it was suggested we are studying all of these bills--
believe me, when there is that much paper and it arrives so late, one
does not have time to do it, and it is just luck when it is found. To
put it bluntly, it is not becoming of a democracy.
I am pleased the Senators from California have secured an ironclad
agreement from the majority leader to take up this issue before the end
of April of next year. We look forward to that debate. The American
people deserve better. Open up the records. Talk about it plainly.
Debate it fairly, and then if it comes to a vote, the people in the
country will see who voted for and who voted against women's rights.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I speak for
10 minutes now and then when we go to the bill for an additional 20
minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, beginning this year, during consideration
of the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus appropriations bill, I stood on the
floor and spoke about how our economic situation, our vital national
security concerns, required us to take greater effort in prioritizing
our Federal spending and we could no longer afford business as usual.
Little has changed since January. Here we are again, nearly 2 full
months into fiscal year 2005 and we have before us another
appropriations monstrosity. Let me remind my colleagues that because of
our inability to get much done under the regular order, this is the
third year in a row we have had to pass a mammoth consolidated
appropriations bill. In fact, we have been forced to consider huge
Omnibus appropriations bills for 6 of the last 8 fiscal years.
This is a remarkable package. This is a remarkable thing. I would
argue that not one Member of the Senate or our loyal staffs is
physically capable, even if they wanted to, to read this many-thousand-
page document. This system cannot continue.
Another thing that is very dispiriting, it always is considered at
the last minute before we go out or the last hour or the last 2 hours.
Why? Because the members of the Appropriations Committee know it will
not bear scrutiny.
We were able to uncover an egregious action on the part of the
committee that has been fully ventilated, but if we were going to go
out next Monday night, we would be debating this Omnibus bill next
Monday night. If we were going out Christmas Eve, we would be debating
Christmas Eve. It is in the appropriators' benefit for us to do it at
the last minute.
This many-hundred-page document deserves a lot more than my half-hour
and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee's 20 minutes. Why? Why
are we going to talk so little about it? I would like to talk for hours
about it, but I do not have the courage to hold up the travel plans of
all of my colleagues. So I am only going to talk for half an hour about
a $388 billion, 1,632-page document. That is disgraceful. We are not
doing what we should do for our constituents. We have an obligation to
oversee their tax dollars.
I am going to talk about a number of the provisions. Some are fairly
entertaining: The Clemson University, South Carolina Call Me Mister
Program. We are going to spend money on the curriculum development on
the study of mariachi music. I am going to go over some of them. They
are remarkable.
The good old Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is back. We are going to give
them some money again. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is hurting badly.
It goes on and on and on: beautification projects, libraries. We are
back to the old snake management in Guam. That is only $515,000;
$175,000 for research into tree fruits quality. All of them, of course,
have a specific location. We are going to spend $443,000 to research
and develop baby food containing salmon; $3 million for the Center for
Grape Genetics in Geneva, NY; $2.3 million for an animal waste
management research laboratory in Bowling Green, KY; $100,000 for the
Puerto Rican Traveling Theater in the Bronx; $100,000 for the Cedar
Creek Battlefield Foundation. By the way, the Cedar Creek Battlefield
Foundation proudly proclaims on their Web site that they receive no
Government funding and will continue to operate as an independent
organization.

Then there is $100,000 for the Belle Grove Plantation, an 18th-
century grain and livestock farm. Here is a great one, $1 million for
the Norwegian American Foundation to fulfill its charter. What is the
charter of the Norwegian American Foundation that they need $1 million
of my taxpayers' money?
It goes on and on. The energy and water, of course, is $1.796 billion
for construction of inland waterway projects; $12.5 million for the
Dallas floodway extension; $24 million for portions of the Big Sandy
and Upper Cumberland River Project. A couple of these projects that
caught my eye are because they direct the Corps to continue with the
construction of harbor projects in accordance with ``the economic
justification.'' In other words, no cost-benefit analysis but economic
justification. Then there is $324.5 million for Cape Girardeau, MO; $12
million, if it is going to continue, another one of the worst projects
ever conceived by Congress, the Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater Pumping
Plant in Mississippi, in which the Clarion Ledger, a Mississippi
newspaper, had to say in an editorial, ``Death of This Boondoggle Long
Overdue":

So why does the Yazoo Pump Project survive-very few people
would benefit and the plan is so costly . . . running it
would be an ongoing destruction of wealth and wildlife. Yet
pump proponents were at it again trying to resurrect this
Frankenstein monster.

Core support for the International Fertilizer Development Center,
$2.3 million. I had no idea we had an International Fertilizer
Development Center, much less that it needed $2.3 million for core
support of it.
I guess $500,000 for Idaho weed control; $2 million for Atlantic
salmon grants; $790,000 for the Bering Sea Fisherman's Association. I
guess the Bering Sea Fisherman's Association cannot raise their dues
enough to sustain themselves. We have to give them $790,000. We go
through this every year. Three million for Wheeling Jesuit University
for the National Technology Transfer Center for a coal slurry
impoundment pilot project; $20 million to Project GRAD-USA in Houston,
TX, for continued support and expansion of the program focusing on
school reform; $350,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Museum in
Cleveland for music education programs. Being a fan of rock and roll
myself, I guess that is well justified.
The fact is we are looking at a deficit of enormous proportions where
Alan Greenspan as recently as the day before yesterday warned us about
the impact on our economy. Some of these, such as what is being done on
NASA funding, is harmful to the mission and capabilities of NASA
itself. According to information compiled from the Congressional
Research Service, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 to
14,040 in fiscal year 2004. In terms of dollars of earmarking, it has
gone from $26.6 billion to $47.9 billion. That is in the space of 10
years.
If you extrapolate that, we are really on a remarkable path. I was
shocked when I read a recent report ``Is Pork Barrel Spending Ready to
Explode? The Anatomy of an Earmark'' by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., published
by the Heritage Foundation, which details a new scheme by lobbyists to
sell earmarks.

[[Page S11726]]

I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[Published by the Heritage Foundation, Nov. 10, 2004]

Is Pork Barrel Spending Ready To Explode? The Anatomy of an Earmark

(By Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.)

A news item appearing this November in a Virginia newspaper
reveals the emergence of what may be a lucrative new lobbying
strategy that could substantially increase federal pork-
barrel spending. In the past, earmark-seeking entities
approached earmark-providing lobbyists for assistance in
getting a piece of the federal budget. But in this new
strategy, lobbyists openly sell such services to unserved
institutions and individuals by convincing them that they
might be eligible for an earmark, providing that they are
willing to pay a four-figure monthly retainer.
The new strategy was recently revealed by way of a
prospective earmark for a $3.5 million community sports
complex in Culpeper County, Virginia. The county has just
begun construction on the project, which was to be funded
with the proceeds of a county bond offering the voters
approved a few years ago. But that financial arrangement
might change now that a lobbyist paid the county a visit and
pointed out that, for a fee, the county could get the federal
government to pay for the complex. As reported in the Free
Lance Star, a county official says that ``he had been
approached by a representative of Alcalde and Fay, a Northern
Virginia lobbying group, who expressed optimism that funds
for the $3.5 million sports complex could be tied to one or
more federal appropriation bills.'' [1]
The article also noted that ``The cost of hiring Alcalde
and Fay would be $5,000 per month, with an 18-month
recommended contract.'' While the average American family
might consider this a steep price, the prospective
arrangement's payoff reveals what a bargain it is for the
county. With their fees totaling $90,000 for a prospective
federal grant of $3.5 million, Alcalde and Fay are, for all
intents and purposes, selling federal taxpayer money for just
2.6 cents on the dollar. Anyone who has suspected that
Washington places little value on taxpayers' hard-earned
dollars now has an idea of just how diminished that value
is--somewhat less than the market price for defaulted
Argentine debt.
How the Culpeper transaction unfolds bears watching for
several reasons. From the perspective of federal fiscal
integrity, this new earmark strategy could open the
floodgates to me-too projects across the country that would
otherwise be funded with local resources. Just thirty miles
down the road from Culpeper is the town of Fredericksburg,
which is now in the process of committing itself, and its
budgetary resources, to a $6 million recreation complex with
indoor and outdoor swimming pools. Now apprised of Culpeper's
prospective earmark, could the elected officials in
Fredericksburg be faulted for ringing up a lobbyist of their
own?
And in the not-too-distant future it is quite likely that
the federal budget process will no longer take place in the
halls of Congress, as the Constitution requires, but in the
dozens of offices of Washington's top lobbyists--largely
driven by generous contracts between the firms and their
clients.
Another reason this process bears watching is for how it
reflects on Congress. The lobbyist is proposing to sell
something that is not really his to sell. That he believes he
can deliver it tells us that something is terribly wrong in
Congress. It is one thing for members of Congress to make
pork-barrel spending promises to their constituents and
deliver on them, but it is quite another that earmarks can be
bought and sold like bushels of wheat on the open market by
private speculators. And apparently, all this wheeling and
dealing is taking place without any involvement (at least not
yet) by a member of Congress.
As noted earlier, if Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the
Constitution reserves exclusively to Congress the power of
appropriating money from the U.S. Treasury, how is it that
these lobbyists have come by the same privilege, and who has
allowed it to happen?
That is a good question, and in the event that the County
of Culpeper signs a contract with Alcalde and Fay to secure
$3.5 million for the sports complex now being built, the
Heritage Foundation, in partnership with fiscally responsible
members of Congress, will closely track this process and
determine how, and at what point, the writing of
appropriations bills was outsourced to the lobbying community
on a for-profit basis.
Alcalde and Fay, of course, is not the only firm engaged in
the misdirection of federal resources through the pay-to-play
process. In a process previously described (See Heritage
Backgrounder No. 1527, ``Can Congress Be Embarrassed into
Ending Wasteful Pork-Barrel Spending? ''), the market for
earmarks in appropriation bills has been growing rapidly and,
given its profitability, will likely continue its robust
growth. In recent years, some members of Congress and
government officials--notably former OMB head Mitchell
Daniels, Sen. John McCain, and Rep. Jeff Flake--have tried to
dampen the practice, but they have had little success in
cultivating a greater awareness of fiscal hygiene among the
vast majority of their colleagues who believe that electoral
success grants unlimited access to taxpayers' credit cards.
Between 1997 and 2004, appropriations earmarks have increased
from under 2,000 to over 10,000, and this year's failed
highway reauthorization contained more than 3,000 pork-barrel
earmarks, compared to 1,800 in the previous bill and only 10
in the highway bill passed by Congress in 1982.
That Congress once showed budgetary restraint and fiscal
continence suggests that the propensity to earmark is not
some inherent flaw in American democracy, but rather a
willful irresponsibility now embraced by all too many
members. Among the many tasks confronting the re-elected
President Bush will be to reduce federal spending from its
near record levels as a share of GDP and to narrow the
deficit, which now hovers at $413 billion. A good place to
find fiscal redemption is in the appropriation bills that
will soon come across the President's desk. The first step in
the process should be a sharply worded veto threat. It would
be a welcome change if that veto threat included excess
earmarks as one of many items that would merit a presidential
rejection.

Mr. McCAIN. I quote:

That Congress once showed budgetary restraint and fiscal
continence suggests that the propensity to earmark is not
some inherent flaw in American democracy, but rather a
willful irresponsibility now embraced by too many members.

We now have a deficit of $413 billion.

A good place to find fiscal redemption is in the
appropriations bills that will soon come to the President's
desk. The first step in the process should be a sharply
worded veto threat. It will be a welcome change if that veto
threat included excess earmarks as one of the many items that
would merit a presidential rejection.

Here is the stark reality of our fiscal situation. According to the
Government Accountability Office, the unfunded Federal financial
burden, such as public debt, future Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid payments, total more than $40 trillion, or $140,000 per man,
woman, and child.
To put this in perspective, the average mortgage which is often a
family's largest liability is $124,000, and that is often borne by the
family breadwinners, not the children, too. But, instead of fixing the
problem, and fixing it will not be easy, we only succeeded in making it
bigger and more unstable, more complicated and much more expensive.
I point out that it is well known that the President very soon will
come over and ask for an additional $70 billion to fight the war in
Iraq. I believe--and I said this a long time ago, and it is true today
and it will be true when I say it again a year or two from now--we are
going to be in Iraq for a long time. I pray every day that we prevail.
I pray every day for the young men and women who are serving and in
harm's way. But there is no doubt in my mind that we will have many
billions of dollars yet to spend on Iraq and Afghanistan. All of us are
aware we now face a growing threat from North Korea and a recent very
serious one from Iran.
There is no one I know who is an expert outside the administration
who does not believe we are going to have to spend a lot more money on
defense, one reason being that our military is too small. We need as
many as 80,000 more men and women in the Army. We need 20,000 to 30,000
more men and women in the Marine Corps. It is all going to cost money.
But, instead, we are going to spend tens of billions of dollars in
wasteful and unnecessary spending and increase this debt on future
generations of Americans.
We can't afford to do this. We cannot afford to continue a broken
system such as this, where the night we are going out of session we
have a 1,630-page bill that none of us have seen or read and in which a
particularly onerous provision which, if it hadn't been for the Senator
from North Dakota bringing to our attention, would have been an
unprecedented invasion of the American family's privacy. But there are
other provisions in this bill which no one has seen or read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator have
additional time, if he desires it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, The Conference Report, once again,
contains earmarks of $10 million for the Alaska Fisheries Marketing
Board--is there something wrong with these fish that warrants such an
expensive program to convince us to eat them? And now it also has $1
million for the Wild American Shrimp Initiative. I am hoping

[[Page S11727]]

that the appropriators could explain to me why we need $1 million for
this--are American shrimp unruly and lacking initiative? Why does the
US taxpayer need to fund this ``no shrimp left behind'' act?

At the Department of Justice, Section 619: $100,000 for the Puerto
Rican Traveling Theater in Bronx, NY for outreach and programs. This
theater has produced 104 plays in both English and Spanish, and is not
community based; $100,000 for The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation.
It preserves lands where battles were fought, reenacts battles. It
proclaims on their website that ``the Cedar Creek Battlefield
Foundation receives no government funding and will continue to operate
as an independent organization.''
Then $100,000 for the Shenandoah Valley Travel Association. This
association presents a comprehensive tourism guide to attractions,
lodging, restaurants, shopping and other services.
And $100,000 for the Belle Grove Plantation. Belle Grove is a
preserved 18th-century grain and livestock farm.
And $1,100,000 for the MountainMade Foundation for outreach and
promotion, the education of artists and craftspeople, and to promote
small businesses, artisans and their products.
And $1,000,000 for the Norwegian American Foundation to fulfill its
charter. This foundation promotes further cooperation among all
Norwegian American organizations.
Mr. President, while I understand that the omnibus before us is a
glaring and wasteful sign of the Senate's failure to consider and pass
individual appropriation bills, I had hoped that the bill would succeed
in hold the line against wasteful and unnecessary pork following a vote
to raise the debt limit. My colleagues have become accustomed to my
railing against pork-barrel spending, but if there was ever a time when
we all needed to rally against it for the good of our country, our
economy, and our current commitments and security priorities, it is
now.
This bill in no way reflects the fiscal realities of our times. One
can go directly to the energy and water appropriations section of this
bill to take a quick read of the pork fantasies that federal taxpayers
will be plagued by.
Senator Feingold and I sent a letter to leadership last week urging
the exclusion of Water Resources Development Act provisions because of
the costly and wasteful water projects included as well as the neglect
of much-needed Army Corps reform. I am heartened to see that the bill
with the full compliment of costly water projects was not included.
However, there are billions of dollars earmarked for a host of water
projects.
Let's start at the top of the big ticket list-$1.796 billion is
provided construction of inland waterway projects. I was relieved to
see that funds are provided for the rehabilitation of specific locks in
the Upper Mississippi-Illinois Waterway, but not for the incredibly
wasteful $2.3 billion locks expansion project.
This project has received attention in papers throughout the country
because it is such an extreme example of a very expensive and
unnecessary water project that some members are determined to foist on
American taxpayers. A New York Times editorial from November 18th
discussing the possible riders to be attached to the omnibus bill
stated, ``but the worst by far is a proposed $2 billion expansion of
the lock system on the upper Mississippi River, a project that the
National Academy of Sciences has twice reviewed and twice declared a
waste of money.''
After a conscientious economist at the Corps blew the whistle on this
project and heads rolled, the National Academy of Sciences undertook a
study of the project and then a second oneI guess just in case Congress
was ignoring the first one- and both conclude that this project cannot
be justified by current or projected barge traffic and there are
inexpensive and effective alternatives available.
And in spite of this irrefutable, objective information, there have
been concerted efforts to get Congress to approve spending $1.8 billion
dollars to satisfy special interests instead of the public interest.
It's wrong and its shameful. Speaking of interests, the interests of
your own state would also be affected by this project because it will
suck up such a significant percentage of the Corps program funding
there just won't be enough to go around in years to come.
Next to the mother of all wasteful Corps projects, other earmarks
look downright insignificant: $12.5 million for the Dallas Floodway
Extension, $24 million for portions of the Big Sandy and Upper
Cumberland River Project, and a not too surprising number of Alaska
projects. A couple of these caught my eye as they direct the Corps to
continue with the construction of harbor projects in accordance with
``the economic justification'' contained in the Engineers report. I've
not seen the cost-benefit analysis of these projects but this language
ensures that there won't be any question regarding their justification.

The rest of this section of the bill is a litany of multi-million
dollar projects earmarked for Missouri, California, Hawaii and other
states and I hope that these are all worthy projects. There is $324.5
million provided for flood damage reduction in Cape Girardeau, Missouri
and I don't know where all that money is going but $12 million of it is
going to continue another one of the worst projects ever conceived by
Congress. This is the Yazoo Basin, Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant,
Mississippi which I've spoken against on the Senate floor before. Well,
its back.
Again, this is another of those projects that newspapers like to
write about in pointing out the folly of congressional spending. Here's
what the Clarion Ledger, a Mississippi newspaper had to say in an
editorial titled ``Death of this Boondoggle Long Overdue'', ``So why
does the Yazoo Pump Project survive--very few people would benefit and
the plan is so costly . . . running it would be an ongoing destruction
of wealth and wildlife. Yet pump proponents were at it again trying to
resurrect this Frankenstein monster''. The New York Times concurred,
``Yazoo Pump ranks among the most indefensible projects undertaken at
Congressional behest. It would drain 200,000 acres of valuable wetlands
. . . and would benefit nobody except a relatively small number of big
growers, who already drink copiously from the public trough''.
I highlight this egregious project among others to make the point
that this bill clearly reflects that we are not doing our essential job
of expending public funds wisely and responsibly and if not now then
when will we ever take this duty seriously?
The report language earmarks up to $2,000,000 for Water Missions
International to develop clean water treatment projects in developing
countries; At least $4,000,000 for the International Fertilizer
Development Center; $1,000,000 directed for support of the United
States Telecommunications Training Institute; $1,000,000 for the
International Real Property Foundation; $3,000,000 for Internews, to
promote freedom of the media in Indonesia; $3,000,000 for the
Foundation for Security and Sustainability; and $2,000,000 for Zanmi
Lasante.
Mr. President, the Interior bill language also includes individual
location specific earmarks and provisions in this section of the
legislation. Of note: a provision stating that, out of amounts for
Resource Management maintenance is provided for the herd of long-horned
cattle on the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge; a provision stating
that, notwithstanding any provision of law including NEPA, nonrenewable
grazing permits authorized by the Jarbidge Field Office, Bureau of Land
Management within the past 8 years shall be renewed; $1.5 million is
earmarked for wood products wastewater treatment plant repairs in
Canton, NC; $5.0 million is earmarked, in addition to its normal
allocation, to Alaska Region to establish a 3-year timber supply; $18
million is earmarked to continue a multi-year project coordinated with
the private sector for FutureGen in Alaska; $50 million is made
available for a request of proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative
for competitively awarded research, development, and demonstration
projects; $18 million is made available to carry out naval petroleum
and oil shale reserve activities; $500 million, which was not requested
by the President, in included as additional funding for wildland fire
suppression funds for fiscal year 2005.

[[Page S11728]]

Mr. President, I did not have enough time to count every earmark in
division E of the conference report, but it is safe to say that there
are well over 1,000 individual location specific earmarks in this
section of the legislation. Of note: $500,000 for Idaho weed control;
$2 million for Atlantic salmon grants administered by the National Fish
and Wildlife Federation; $500,000 for Lahonton cutthroat trout; $1.8
million for eider and sea otter recovery at the Alaska SeaLife Center;
and $250,000 for concho water snake delisting efforts in Texas.
For the Bureau of Land Management there are 32 location specific
earmarks for land acquisition, including $3.4 million for the Baca
National Wildlife Refuge in Colorado and $2 million for the James
Campbell National Wildlife Refuge in Hawaii. These 32 earmarks amount
to almost $23 million in spending.
The National Recreation and Preservation provisions include $2.5
million for the Chesapeake Bay Gateway and $750,000 for the Alaska
National Parks. The Historic Preservation Fund is loaded with 84
location-specific earmarks totaling $15 million. There are 78 earmarks
in the construction account totaling approximately $192 million. Some
of the more egregious examples of these earmarks include: $8.7 million
for the Crater Lake National Park in Oregon; $3.0 million for the Blue
Ridge Parkway in North Carolina; $7.4 million for Denali National Park
in Alaska; $10.8 million for Gettysburg National Memorial Park in
Pennsylvania; $10 million for the Lassen Volcanic National Park in
California; $15.5 million for Olympic National Park in Washington; and
over $15 million for Yellowstone National Park.
Mr. President, every year I marvel at how well the residents of
Alaska make out in these appropriations bills. This year is no
exception. Throughout the division E, earmarks for Alaska abound. Just
a sampling of these projects include: $1.2 million for the Alaska
mineral resource assessment program; $100,000 for the Alaska Geological
Materials Center; $150,000 for the Alaska Whaling Commission; $900,000
for the Marine Mineral Technology Center; $98,000 for the Alaska Sea
Otter Commission; $790,000 for the Bering Sea Fisherman's Association;
$346,000 for the Chugach Regional Resources Commission; $750,00 for the
rural Alaska Fire Program; and $750,000 for the Alaska native aviation
program.
Out of the Employment and Training Administration account the bill
provides the following amounts for non-competitive grants: $2,200,000
for the AFL-CIO Appalachian Council, Incorporated; $1,500,000 for the
AFL-CIO Working for America Institute; $4,000,000 for the Black Clergy
of Philadelphia and Vicinity; $2,600,000 for the National Center on
Education and the Economy.
Out of the Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses account the
bill provides: $7,000,000 for Frances Perkins Building Security
Enhancements.
Out of Department of Labor project pilots and demonstrations, the
statement of managers suggests the following earmarks: $100,000 for 413
Hope Mission Ministries, Philadelphia, PA for employment skills
training for disadvantaged adults and ex-offenders; $500,000 for Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Juneau, AK to fund
training for gas pipeline workers; $200,000 for Central State
University, Wilberforce, OH, to implement a world class modular
automation training system; $225,000 for Cook Inlet Tribal Council for
the Alaska's People Program in Anchorage, AK; $50,000 for Fashion
Business, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, for workforce development and
training; $500,000 for Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS,
Robotics and Automated Systems for Nursery Industry.
Out of DoL Mine Safety and Health Administration, the statement of
managers suggests the following earmarks: $750,000 for infrastructure
improvements at the Mine Academy in Buckley, WV; $3,000,000 for
Wheeling Jesuit University for the National Technology Transfer Center
for a coal slurry impoundment pilot project.
This conference report includes funding for a number of important
public health programs and research activities funded through the
Department of Health and Human Services (HIS). However, the
appropriators were once again unable to allow the Department to
allocate funds through merit based grants and took it upon themselves
to select projects which they believe to be worthy of funding. The HHS
section of the Joint Explanatory Statement includes 53 pages full of
more than 1,400 earmarks, totaling over $603 million.
Some particularly large examples include: $10 million for the Medical
University of South Carolina Oncology Center in Charleston, South
Carolina, for the construction of the Allied Health Technology Tower;
$10 million for the Shepherd University in Shepherdstown, West
Virginia, for the construction of a nursing education facility; $10.25
million for the University of Louisville, in Louisville, Kentucky, for
the Baxter III Research Building; $10 million for the University of
South Alabama in Mobile, Alabama; and $10 million for the West Virginia
University for the construction of a Biomedical Science Research
Center.
It shouldn't be surprising to any of my colleagues that the section
of the Joint Explanatory Statement for the Department of Education is
again loaded up with pork barrel projects designated to schools and
organizations which the members of the Appropriations Committees,
rather than the Department of Education, deemed worthy of federal
dollars. In the 43 pages of the statement, devoted exclusively to pork,
the appropriators included an estimated 1,147 earmarks, amounting to
well over $392 million.
Among the more egregious examples is: $20 million to Project GRAD-USA
Inc, in Houston, Texas, for continued support and expansion of the
program focusing on school reform; $18 million to provide assistance to
low-performing schools in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department
of Education; and $15 million for the Iowa Department of Education to
continue the Harkin grant program.
$350,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum in Cleveland,
Ohio for music education programs.
I am sure that many Americans would be surprised to learn that there
are even state specific earmarks in the Legislative Branch
Appropriations. The appropriations bill that is supposed to fund the
work of Congress and its related offices is also being used to ``bring
home the bacon.'' The bill specifically earmarks $300,000 in funding
from the Library of Congress (LOC) for the University of South Carolina
for the preservation of Movietone Newsreels. The Joint Explanatory
Statement mandates that the LOC establish a program under its Adventure
of the American Mind initiative in Georgia. Clearly both are worthwhile
endeavors, but why are the University of South Carolina and the state
of Georgia more deserving of these distinctions then any other
university or state.
The conference report provides $1.1 billion more than requested by
the President for the federal-highway program. All of the extra
funding, plus another $100 million, is used to $1.2 billion for 795
earmarked projects. Among the projects deemed worthy of funding are:
Access to the Ebenezer Swamp Wetlands Interpretative Center in Alabama
($225,000); The Girl Scouts Golden Valley Council bridge project in
California ($150,000); Farm crossings in Ventura County, California
($500,000); and Streetlights and a salt dome for Markham, Illinois
($300,000).
The conference report prohibits the use of funding to implement or
enforce any provision of the new hours of service regulations to
operators of utility service vehicles, or to the transportation of
property or passengers to or from a motion picture or television
production site. I find this particularly ironic given the fact that
Congress, as part of the 8-month extension of the highway program
passed in September, mandated that the new hours of service regulations
remain in place for the next year in spite of the decision of the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the regulations as arbitrary and
capricious.
The conference report provides $1.217 billion for Amtrak, $317
million above the amount supported by the President without significant
reform and restructuring, continues strong oversight by the Department
of Transportation, and requires Amtrak to begin paying back its $100
million loan from the Federal Railroad Administration. While I am

[[Page S11729]]

relieved that the appropriators continue to resist Amtrak's pleas for
significantly higher funding, I am concerned about that Amtrak will use
its appropriation to simply continue operating the same train network,
and continue to rack up record operating losses.
I agree completely with the conclusions reached yesterday in a report
by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General on Amtrak's
2003 and 2004 financial performance and requirements. The report states
that ``The bottom line is that the existing system is not sustainable
at current funding levels . . .'' and that ``Amtrak's management must
find ways to reduce its need for operating subsidies and set better
priorities for capital dollars.'' As I have said many times, it is time
to restructure Amtrak. Amtrak should focus on short-distance corridors
where rail service can compete with other modes of transportation, and
the long distance trains should be restructured or eliminated. If
Amtrak won't follow implement this strategy, then it is the
responsibility of Amtrak's Board of Directors, the Secretary of
Transportation, and Congress to make it happen.''
The conference report also contains a provision that would expand an
existing waiver for the state of New Hampshire from the 80,000-pound
truck weight limit on the Interstate System. Trucks would be allowed to
operate at up to 99,000 pounds on Interstates 89 and 93 (in addition to
I-95 which is current law). Bad, Very Bad.
The conferees state that returning the Shuttle fleet to flight should
be NASA's highest priority because it's the first step in the Space
Exploration Initiative. Just two weeks ago, NASA notified the Commerce
Committee that the Shuttle return to flights costs for fiscal year 2005
alone would exceed $762 million. The Commerce Committee awaits NASA's
plan for covering these costs. Whatever the plan, it is only further
complicated by the fact that the conference report contains 16 pages of
earmarks in the NASA budget, including such things as $1,000,000 to the
Southern Methodist University to develop multifabrication manufacturing
technology, $750,000 for the GeoTREE project at the University of
Northern Iowa, and $3,000,000 for our familiar friend, the ultra-long
balloon program at New Mexico State University.
The conferees go on to say that if NASA needs more money just send in
a supplemental request. It would be given full and fair consideration
by Congress. Maybe we should just send the blank check now and ask NASA
to fill it out. This type of behavior represents no accountability and
actually encourages NASA to spend without regard to budgetary reality.
The liberation of NASA continues by the conferees' granting NASA
unrestrained transfer authority between the ``Exploration
Capabilities'' account and the ``Science, Aeronautics, and
Exploration'' account. This was requested by NASA and granted by the
Appropriators under the disguise of the need for flexibility to
transition to full cost accounting. These two accounts represent over
$16 billion. In essence we're saying, ``NASA, do what you want with the
money.'' The statement of managers goes on to say that the transfer
authority can be used for purposes other than addressing full cost
accounting, but that NASA should ``do so with restraint.'' I don't
understand--the statement of managers earlier specifically said that
would have ``unrestrained transfer authority.'' What's the ``do so with
restraint'' all about?
Inserted in the last section of the omnibus, in a miscellaneous
section, is a provision which would modify federal pension laws for
multiemployer pension plans covering employees working in the State of
Alaska.
Title 6 in CJS, Page 170--prevents FCC from implementing February 27,
2004 recommendation of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
Service that universal service fund (USF) support only be provided to
primary lines in order to keep the USF solvent.
This section removes the ability of the FCC to act of the
recommendation of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
advocating that universal service funds should be used only toward
consumers' primary telephone line.
This is a significant limitation on potential action by the FCC. I
object to this provision because it should have been considered,
reviewed and acted upon by the members of the Committee of
jurisdiction, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, before being enacted into law. No member of the
Committee approached me requesting to move legislation on such a
limitation. I am unable to state whether this is a good policy decision
because, similar to the FCC, the Committee of jurisdiction was not
provided the courtesy to review and consider the proposed policy
change.
In CJS, missing page 60--which covers funding for NTIA, which is
under Commerce jurisdiction, so unknown funding levels.
As Chairman of the Committee of jurisdiction over National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), I regret that
I am unable to comment on the appropriations levels for this
administration because the levels were not made available in the text
of the bill. Although this may be merely a clerical error, it is
unacceptable, nonetheless.
In CJS, section 112--Alaska Telecommunications provisions to resolve
several pending FCC proceedings involving investigations into Alaska
rate tariffs and reviews Alaska telecommunication rates.
This section, slipped into the omnibus under the cloak of darkness,
removes the ability of the FCC to act on several pending proceedings
affecting the rates of Alaskan telecommunications services.
I object to this provision because it should have been considered,
reviewed and acted upon by the members of the Committee of
jurisdiction, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, before being enacted into law. Additionally, the FCC
was nearing competition of the proceeding and the Committee could have
acted in response to the FCC's actions if Congress found the outcome to
be detrimental to Alaskan consumers. No member of the Committee
approached me requesting to move legislation to end the tariff
investigation and other proceedings involving Alaska telecommunications
services. While I understand both parties to the tariff dispute support
the provision included in the omnibus, I am unable to state whether I
support it because the Committee of jurisdiction was not provided the
courtesy to hold hearings and mark up legislation on the issue.
I object to the inclusion of this legislation in the omnibus. I
actually support the content of this legislation, which is the product
of lengthy negotiations among the Judiciary and Commerce Committees of
both Houses. The bill ensures that rural consumers will continue to
enjoy network programming, and for the first time, provides a means for
these same consumers to enjoy high definition network programming via
satellite. I nevertheless regret that this important policy was added
to an appropriations vehicle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I send to the desk a joint resolution.
Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate is in a
period for morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10
minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, earlier the Senator from Idaho indicated
this provision that would allow Appropriations staffers, the designees
of the Appropriations Committee leadership, to access any tax return in
the country would not become law. I listened to that. I hoped it was
not the case. But I don't see any way that, if we pass this bill
tonight, this provision does not become law.
Let me just go through where we are, at least my understanding of
where we are. I would like to be corrected if I am wrong.
In this bill, these 3,000 pages that have been put before us today
and we are asked to vote hours later, that spends $388 billion, there
is a provision that says the agents of the Appropriations Committee can
have access to any tax return in the country and that there is no legal
protection for them. That is the provision that is here. It

[[Page S11730]]

has already passed the House of Representatives. If we pass this bill
tonight and it goes to the President for signature, that will become
the law of the land.
I am understanding that Senator Stevens, acting in good faith here--
and he is acting in good faith and he is, I think, doing his level best
to try to correct this--is proposing the passage of a concurrent
resolution that would pass here.
Mr. STEVENS. Joint.
Mr. CONRAD. A joint resolution removing this provision. But that
would be subject to the House acting and the House will not be prepared
to act, I am told, until December 6. At the same time, we are running
out of time on a continuing resolution and the President will be
required to sign this Omnibus bill, I am told, before that continuing
resolution removing this power, this ability to have agents look at any
tax return in the country and release them without any penalty, without
any civil penalty, without any criminal penalty.
When the Senator from Idaho says this will not become law, that is
not right. This will become law if we pass this tonight. That is my
understanding. I would like to be corrected if that is not the case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct that the provision would stay in
the law. But we will pass a joint resolution. It is my understanding
that will be passed and the Speaker of the House and chairman of the
Appropriations Committee guaranteed this would be the case when the
House reconvenes.
Meanwhile, it is our understanding that the President of the United
States will issue a statement when he signs the bill that this section
shall be disregarded because of the action taken by the Senate and the
commitment of the House to act when it comes back. I think that is a
good-faith effort to correct a serious mistake, a terrible mistake.
The Senator is right about the section. But I want to assure him the
implication that either the chairman of the House committee or I, as
chairman of this committee, ever wanted such authority is wrong. We
never sought it. It was an accident, a mistake. A representation was
made by one staff member that the front office in the other body had
cleared this. On the basis of that, it was put into the section.
When it was before the bipartisan staff in both Houses, it was not
even noticed. Under the circumstances, it is something the Senator from
Arizona criticized and I too criticize it. It is something contrary to
anything I have ever had happen in over 30 years on the committee. But
it can be corrected and the law will not be permitted.
By the way, it takes the request of the chairman of either House to
trigger it. We have stated categorically we will not trigger this
section. It is not available to anyone else. It is available only to
the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee or the chairman of
our Senate committee. And I have stated categorically on the record we
would never use that. We didn't seek this authority. We are as appalled
as the Senator from North Dakota. I hope you would rely upon our good
faith to try to correct the staff error. Certainly no Member of
Congress that I know of, other than the person who originally suggested
it in the House, ever sought this. I am led to believe the language is
not what he sought, but it is one of those things that happened at the
last minute. It is a terrible thing.
We are in this situation because we never had a budget. We never
passed our appropriations bills at the time we should have. We had to
construct a ceiling we would operate under. Senator Byrd and I have
tried our best to comply with the circumstances. But we didn't get the
chance to even look at it--the Appropriations Committee on these nine
bills--until after we came back from the August recess. We have been
under pressure now since we came back. We have been under pressure now
for 3 days. Some of my people haven't slept for 2 days, and one of them
made a mistake--one of my staff. I can tell you he had not had sleep
for 2 days.
This is a serious situation. It shouldn't happen. The Senator from
Arizona is right. It should never happen. I pray to God it will never
happen. It will not happen under my watch. My watch is over tonight,
but I guarantee you that during the time I am chairman, I will not use
this authority and it will be taken out of this bill.
The first reaction of the chairman from Florida, Bill Young, was,
take it out; take it out now. I share that reaction.
I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I have no
question about the good faith of the Senator from Alaska--none. His
word is good for me because he has demonstrated repeatedly to me his
word is good.
The problem I have is I am about to be asked to vote for this measure
and it will become law. The President can make any declaration he wants
upon signature of the law that he doesn't consider it effective. That
has no legal standing. The fact is the House has passed this. If we now
pass it, and the President signs it before that joint resolution is
effective, this will become the law of the land. And it is a mistake.
It shouldn't happen. It should never have happened.
I know this was not moved by any Member of the Senate. I know this
happened as a result of something that happened on the House side.
Staff were involved on the House side, and misrepresentations were made
about clearances being made.
The fact is this is in the bill. We have to think about what this law
provides. This says an agent of the Appropriations Committee could get
unlimited access to tax returns in this country and have absolutely no
legal penalty for releasing it to the public. They could call up the
tax return of any Member of the U.S. Senate, any individual in this
country, any writer for any newspaper.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. STEVENS. I don't read anything in this provision that either
chairman can release the information. He makes the assertion that if we
use this power, we can release it. There is no such provision.
Mr. CONRAD. I beg to differ with the chairman. I am an old tax
administrator. I know tax law. This provision says very clearly:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the
disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon
written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate
Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service shall hereafter allow agents designated by
such chairman access to any Internal Revenue Service
facilities and any tax returns or return information
contained therein.

Because it says ``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' that
sweeps aside all of the privacy protections that are available in law.
Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for you. This provision is clear
in terms of its legal impact.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator says he has respect for this Senator, he
will believe me. We didn't ask for that authority. We would not use
that authority. We detest this section, and I am tired listening to
people say somehow or other we intended to use it. We don't intend to
use it. It is going to come out of this bill. It is going to come out
of this law and it is not going to be used. I don't know how I can be
any firmer. I am tired of it. We have been working hard on this bill.
We did not do this. To imply we did--either Congressman Young or I did
it--is wrong, wrong.
Mr. CONRAD. I did not imply that the Senator did this.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator implied that I will use it; that I would
disclose it.
Mr. CONRAD. Senator, it is in the law if we pass this bill tonight.
Senator, I say through the Chair, the point is this: I am not
questioning the chairman. I am not. But I am questioning this body
tonight passing this legislation that has already been passed by the
House, and it becomes the law of the land upon the signature of the
President of the United States. That is wrong.
Part of the reason we are here is because we have a process that has
broken down. We have a process that has produced a 3,000-page bill that
gets slapped on our desk and we are told to

[[Page S11731]]

vote on it in a few hours without knowing what is in it. It is wrong.
It is wrong.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield again?
Mr. CONRAD. I would like to finish and then I would be happy to yield
for any question of the Senator.
Let me say this: For a number of years we have had this process
ongoing. In 1988, President Reagan, in a State of the Union Message,
told us never again; don't send me another bill like it because I am
not going to sign it. He was right. He said in his 1988 State of the
Union that you have sent up here a 1,100-page bill and you had 3 hours
to review it. You don't know what is in it. Nobody knows what is in it.
Don't do it again. Don't send me another bill like this because I will
not sign it.
Here we are tonight. We don't have a 1,200-page bill, or 1,100--we
have 3,300 pages. We don't know what is in this bill. There are a
handful of people who know what is in this bill. Most of us don't know
what is in this bill. If somebody, some sharp staff had not caught
this, we would be making this the law of the land.
Now I find out there is no way to prevent this from becoming the law
of the land if we pass this bill tonight.
That, to me, is a mistake.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to state again the protection for
the minority on this bill was in the people who were with my staff when
it was read through. If there was a mistake in it, it is borne equally
by your side of the aisle as well as ours. I have accepted the total
responsibility as chairman. No question about it; a bad mistake was
made. But let me go back.
Senator Byrd and I begged for a budget resolution in May, in June, in
July, and when we came back in September. We didn't get a budget
resolution. The Senator is on the Budget Committee. Why didn't we get a
budget resolution? We said if we don't, we will have another one of
those nights when we will have a big Omnibus appropriations bill. I
preached it right here on the floor. I will dig it out, if you want. I
said if you don't, we will have a midnight session again trying to get
a bill through that no one knows what is in it because we have had to
move and move these limits.
There are provisions in this bill that must become effective or
people will lose rights as of Sunday. We are trying our best to get it
done. A mistake has been made. I hope the Senate would take my word. It
is my word. I don't think I have ever broken my word to any Member of
this Senate. That was a mistake. It says as chairman of the
Appropriations Committee I can trigger that and ask for access. I have
said I would never do it. I did not seek it. The chairman of the House
did not want it. He is appalled by it. It is a provision that, even if
it becomes law, cannot be utilized except by Bill Young and me, Ted
Stevens. We have said we will not do it.
Isn't that enough? Isn't that enough? Do I have to get down on my
knees and beg the other side?
This bill must become law because people have rights that will be
affected by it if we don't pass it until we come back in December. That
is all there is to it. It is not my fault. I hate working under these
pressures. My staff hates it. As a matter of fact, it is a terrible way
to do business, but I had nothing other than to try to do it.

As a matter of fact, we had to take one bill and do it in the last 3
days because we could not get agreement between the people involved. It
has been a terrible bill to handle.
I hope the Senate appreciates the work that people have done this
last week to try and get to the point where we could pass it before we
left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, with respect to the Budget Committee, I am
on the Budget Committee. I am not the chairman of the Budget Committee.
Our friends on the other side were in control of the House and the
Senate. Failure to get a budget resolution was not on our side. Failure
to get a budget resolution lay on their side.
But that is not the point of this discussion tonight. The point of
the discussion tonight is we have a process that is broken. There is no
better evidence than the fact that we have a provision that would open
the tax returns of every American, every American company, to some
staffer in the Appropriations Committee, with absolutely no penalty on
that staffer if they were to release the private information contained
in that individual's tax return. That is wrong.
The chairman of the committee says, I never sought this power. I
believe him. He said the chairman of the House never sought the power.
I believe him.
The fact is, the provision is here. Somebody wanted it. Somebody got
it in here. The fact is, the current chairman of the committee is not
going to be the new chairman of the committee. And the same is true on
the House side. These two Senators have said they would not use the
power. How about the two Members who are going to be the chairmen? They
would be able to use the power because if we vote for this bill
tonight, with this mistake in it, unfortunately, it will become law.
I don't want to explain to my constituents back home that every tax
return in America is open to some staffer and there is absolutely no
legal penalty for them making it public. That is a serious mistake.
There is a desire to take this out. Let's take it out.
I ask unanimous consent these provisions be deleted from this bill. I
am specifically referring to section 222 of the provisions that are
found on page 1,112 of the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I object.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am a little confused. I am really
confused.
Senator Conrad, who brought this issue to the Senate's attention,
solves the problem by asking unanimous consent to take this offensive
language out of the bill, this ``Big Brother is watching you and your
tax returns'' out of the bill, and the passion showed by Senator
Stevens in his previous remarks, I was really taken in by them. I felt
that he was really upset and that he wanted to resolve this matter. Yet
we have an objection to take this out.
If the House went home, bring the House back. They shouldn't have
gone home with this terrible provision pending.
I don't quite understand what just happened. I guess there will be an
explanation, but let the record be clear there was objection from the
Republican side to take out this offensive language which gives
permission for the chairman of the Senate and House Appropriations
Committee to designate staff to look at any American's tax return, any
business tax return they decide they want to spy on.

There was a unanimous consent request to delete that by Senator
Conrad, and there was an objection. I am confused. We could have
resolved that, and it could have been taken care of, but instead we
have an objection. I am sure there is a good reason. Maybe Senator
Stevens will explain it, but deleting the language resolves it on our
side, and we can get on with the bill.
I have a problem with the health issue in this bill that is going to
adversely affect women of America. I talked to Senator Stevens. He was
very honest and said it had to stay in because of the House, but I was
able to work with Senator Reid and Senator Frist and we got agreement
and I will not object because we will have a chance to vote up or down
on that offensive legislation sometime before April 30.
Senator Conrad made a very wise motion to, essentially, ask unanimous
consent to remove the offending language, and we could have resolved
it.
I am confused.
I yield the floor so my colleague can have his own time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?

____________________