[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 137 (Monday, December 6, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H10899-H10906]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DIRECTING CLERK OF THE HOUSE TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN
ENROLLMENT OF H.R. 4818
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
concur in the Senate amendment to the concurrent resolution (H. Con.
Res. 528) directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make
technical corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 4818.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment:
At the end of the resolution, insert the following:
Strike Section 222 of Title II of Division H.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
{time} 1415
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House, H. Con. Res. 528,
directs the Clerk of the House to make technical corrections in the
enrollment of the bill H.R. 4818, the Omnibus Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2005. Members
[[Page H10900]]
may recall that the House passed this resolution, H. Con. Res. 528,
along with the omnibus appropriation bill on November 20, 2004. Today
we are considering an amendment which was added by the Senate to the
concurrent resolution that would make a further correction to the
omnibus appropriations bill by deleting section 222 of the bill which
deals with IRS oversight.
I think it is important to take just a minute or two to say some
things about this provision. I explained why this provision was
included, and I included this statement in the Congressional Record in
part of the debate on the last continuing resolution. I want to be
clear, though, that the Committee on Appropriations never had any
intention to review or investigate individual tax returns. That is the
prerogative of the Committee on Ways and Means in the House and the
Committee on Finance in the Senate.
However, it is important to note that the IRS had requested an
increase of $500 million, a half a billion dollars, for their programs
and functions in the IRS. The Committee on Appropriations does have an
obligation to review and provide oversight of that kind of an
expenditure. That was the purpose of the language. It was never
intended to have anything to do with individual income tax returns.
I stated this very clearly in a colloquy with the chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means. I will also point out that section 203 of
the same division of the bill includes an IRS general provision which
has been carried for years. The section reads, ``The Internal Revenue
Service shall institute and enforce policies and procedures that will
safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information.'' IRS would have
had the authority they needed to protect taxpayer privacy.
It is an unfortunate set of circumstances that have led many to
misinterpret the section in question and the intent of that section,
section 222, of the appropriations bill. However, in order to eliminate
the confusion that has been created around this issue, I ask that the
House agree with the amendment by the Senate to this concurrent
resolution and ask the Members to support it.
Before the Omnibus Appropriations bill, which has been passed by the
House and the Senate, but before it can be sent to the President for
his signature, this concurrent resolution has to be passed.
I would like to read for the Record the colloquy I just referenced.
Mr. Thomas said, Mr. Chairman, I understand section 222 of the
Transportation, Treasury and Postal title provides the Committee on
Appropriations with proper access IRS facilities for oversight purposes
but not the ability to examine individual tax returns, data, or
information and that it is the intent of the Committee on
Appropriations that all access to taxpayer information would remain
governed by the disclosure and privacy rules of section 6103 of the
Internal Revenue Code. Is that correct?
I responded by saying the gentleman is correct. The Committee on
Appropriations needs access to IRS field facilities to do our oversight
work. That work does not require the Committee on Appropriations to
review individual tax returns under section 6103, but it does require
access to the facilities.
This colloquy can be found on page H10191 of the Congressional Record
of November 20, 2004.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I do not stand here to get involved in a
jurisdictional fight between the Committee on Ways and Means and the
Committee on Appropriations, and there is not a Member of this House
that I have more respect for than the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations. We have served together over the years, and sometimes
even forgot we were Republican and Democrat because he has been such a
gentleman even when we disagreed on issues.
I am just surprised there is not more outrage on the process. Whether
it is Ways and Means or Appropriations, the whole idea that a staff
member can contact the Internal Revenue Service, and the Internal
Revenue Service drafts a provision of law and then somehow it finds
itself in a conference report is something that takes away the
integrity, and not of the tax-writing committee or the appropriation
committee, but the United States Congress, the House and the Senate.
This is outrageous when we are talking about such a sensitive issue.
The United States is one of the few republics which has a democracy
which has a volunteer system for the filing of income tax. True, we
have the threat of what happens if a taxpayer is so unlucky that they
are audited and found to have done something wrong, but the whole basis
of the system is having confidence that what you are telling them is
being held private. It is not too unusual to find things coming into
conference reports that did not pass the House and did not pass the
Senate, but at least the majority has the chutzpah enough to waive
points of order. At least they say they are cheating and have already
waived the authority of the minority to have any input in what they are
doing in the conferences wherever they are held. But to say that the
privacy of filing income tax, and some people say they do not know how
it got in here, but the IRS certainly knows how it got in here, and the
appropriations staff person certainly knows how it got in here, the
only people who do not know how this happened are Members of Congress
because we have reached a point where we do not read your bills
anymore, we just take your word for it.
Mr. Speaker, I hope as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) leaves
the leadership of this committee that we might find more outrage when
things like this happen, regardless of which committee it is. We have
to find some way that staffs cannot legislate for the House, for the
Senate, and for the Congress. We cannot blame staff when we give them
the authority to do such a thing. I do not care whether it is the
Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Appropriations or what
committee it is, we are losing each and every day a lot of confidence
from the voters, and if we start losing them in the taxpayers and, we
have a taxpayers' revolt as well as a political revolt, there will be
no winners in this House, Republicans or Democrats.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I will say to the gentleman that unlike some committees
in this House who do their work in secret, this committee does its work
in public, in the open. We may have to work late hours, all night long,
weekends, and that is a fact. The fact of the matter is this provision,
along with every other provision of that section that we are concerned
about here, was read word for word, comma by comma, period by period,
by 17 staff members who supposedly reported to their chairmen and their
ranking members. These 17 staff members were Republicans, they were
Democrats, they were from the House committee, and they were from the
Senate committee, and they read the entire section, and they reported
to the leadership of their respective committees. It was done in
public. We do not do our bills in secret.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the gentleman from
Florida (Chairman Young), stealing in public to me is no different than
stealing in the middle of the night. If this thing is so repugnant that
it is on the suspension calendar to take it out, why is the gentleman
so proud that you put it in?
What I am talking about is not the gentleman and not this committee,
but a process that is repugnant to everything that a House Member or
Member of Congress should believe in. I do not mean to take this out on
the gentleman from Florida personally. I said Members should not allow
staff to do this. If it was read at 3 in the morning or 3 in the
afternoon, what difference does it make? We are taking it out now, and
that means it was wrong to put it in there, and we are proud to take it
out.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond
to the gentleman.
The problem is not in the House. This issue was discussed openly in a
colloquy with the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. We
discussed this issue thoroughly, and we
[[Page H10901]]
made it clear what the intent was. Why we are removing the provision
today is because the other body amended our resolution and said they
wanted it out. We are a bicameral legislature, and we have to work with
the other body.
In fact, this whole comedy of errors of an omnibus appropriations
bill would not have happened if the other body, and I am not allowed by
the House rules to say who or what or why, but the other body did not
pass their bills.
I really get offended when I hear the news media reporting the
Congress did not get their job done. The House did. The Committee on
Appropriations passed all of its bills. By the end of July, we had all
of our bills reported, and we had all but one through the House floor,
and that one could have gone through the House floor, but we were not
given time to do it on the floor. The other body did not do their job,
so we had to do this omnibus package rather than doing 13 separate
bills. There is the answer to the gentleman's question.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that we have an argument going between two
gentlemen, neither of whom who had any responsibility for the problem
that occurred.
The responsibility for this problem lies squarely on the shoulders of
the majority party leadership because they knew that they could not
bring their appropriation bills to the floor in the Senate and pass
them before the election, so they created the situation in which, after
the election, all of these appropriation bills were jammed together.
They were then dealt with by the staff night after night. The staff
worked with no sleep, and, as a result, language that should have been
caught and corrected was not corrected.
That is what happens when Members do not respect the processes of the
House. That is what happens when you do not give Members of the
majority or minority enough time to actually know what they are doing.
The House has egg on its face because the majority party leadership had
an agenda on appropriation bills that precluded their ability to get
votes for them in the other body until after the election. That is a
sad fact as to what happened, and the way to correct this is to see
that we have enough time to do our jobs, that we quit suspending the
rules around here so Members have enough time to read conference
reports, and we make compromises ahead of time so the House can get its
appropriations work done in an orderly way. That is what has been sadly
lacking over the past year.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose a
series of legislative provisions that were included in the
Transportation and Treasury section of the Omnibus Appropriations Act
without consulting or even notifying the committee of jurisdiction, the
Committee on Government Reform.
We strenuously oppose section 522 requiring that each Federal agency
have a privacy officer to carry out duties relating to the privacy and
protection of personally identifiable information. These Federal
information security functions are an intrinsic part of existing
Federal information policy.
They are the responsibility of the agency chief information officer
in the agencies. Therefore, privacy officers are unnecessary. They are
duplicative, and it is confusing.
Further, section 522 attempts to address information security
concerns that are already addressed in the Federal Information Security
Management Act, the Clinger-Cohen Act, the Electronic Government Act,
and the Paperwork Reduction Act. These laws are currently implemented
by Federal agencies.
Section 522 merely creates a layer of bureaucracy that contradicts
existing Federal information policy currently executed by the CIOs.
The Committee on Government Reform and Federal agencies have worked
hard to ensure the Federal Government has coherent information security
policies and guidelines in place. Section 522 reverses the progress the
Federal Government has made to modernize itself in order to function
more efficiently and cost-effectively in a digital age.
In addition, this section is a fine example of legislating on
appropriation bills. But worse, there was no attempt to even discuss
this provision with our committee, the committee with jurisdiction over
Federal information policy. For years we have performed an aggressive
legislative and oversight agenda.
We have introduced a bill now to repeal this section, but the
disregard for the committee of jurisdiction in this section of the
omnibus did not stop there. In July, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on behalf of the
Committee on Government Reform raised and the Chair sustained 12 points
of order against legislative provisions in the Transportation and
Treasury Appropriations Act. Nine of these were rewritten in the
omnibus, in violation of House rules, without consulting our committee,
and despite our requests that these provisions not be reinserted
including:
1. An amendment that runs contrary to the reauthorization of the Drug
Control Policy Act passed by the House last year; and
2. Several legislative provisions that will add unneeded red tape and
expense to the Federal procurement process.
What does it say about our institutional integrity, our rules, ours
state of affairs, when points of order are sustained and subsequently
ignored.
My concerns have been overshadowed by a certain tax provision that
also appeared in the Omnibus. But they are symptoms of the same
disease.
It is the willingness of appropriators and their staff to legislate
on appropriations bills without consulting the committees of
jurisdiction that caused the mess over the ill-considered tax provision
and this trend is the basis of my concern as well.
The authorizing committees are Congress's experts on the law, and the
appropriations process should not be used as an end-run around their
consideration.
I recognize that politics and process will sometimes require that
legislation be included in appropriations; and,
I have always been willing to work with appropriators to include
suitable legislation in their bills. Looking forward to next Congress,
it is my hope that this episode will inspire a greater willingness on
the part of the appropriators and their staffs to consult and cooperate
with the authorizers before legislating on appropriations acts.
Finally, I ask for the appropriators support in repealing the badly
considered Chief Privacy Officer provision that was surreptitiously
included in the Omnibus at the 11th hour.
{time} 1430
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished ranking member,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for yielding me this time and
once again commend him and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our
chairman, for their service and leadership to our country and this
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, 16 days have come and gone since this House passed the
omnibus appropriations bill. Yet not one Member of Congress is willing
to take responsibility for jeopardizing the privacy of more than 180
million American taxpayers. Instead, a Republican staff member came
forward late last week stating that he inserted the provision without
mentioning it to the Republican Member of Congress who employed him.
Success, it is said, has many fathers, but failure is an orphan.
Let us be clear, this assault on the privacy of America's taxpayers
has failed because it is an outrage to the American people and to most
of the Members of this body. From the Constitution's protections of
freedom of association and political expression to its protection
against unlawful searches and self-incrimination, our citizens expect
and deserve a government that respects their privacy and does not
discriminate against them on the basis of political beliefs.
Yet the provision we are repealing today would have granted sweeping
authority to the appropriations committee chairmen and their staffs to
review individual tax returns without the restrictions in current law
that make it a crime to use private tax information improperly. As a
result, private
[[Page H10902]]
taxpayer information would be vulnerable to unwarranted scrutiny, and
taxpayers would have no resource or assurance against the improper use
of their private financial information. This sweeping disregard for the
protection of taxpayer privacy is deeply troubling and all too
familiar.
Just 30 years ago, the Judiciary Committee of this House, on a
bipartisan basis, voted to impeach President Nixon for violating the
Constitution, including using the Internal Revenue Service to persecute
those on his enemies list. Article two of the Articles of Impeachment
specifically stated that President Nixon endeavored to obtain from the
Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of
citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns.
This disgraceful episode is a sad part of our history, but it was not
all that long ago. Many of us remember. In fact, the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Rangel), and the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers),
were both serving on the Judiciary Committee in 1974, and they continue
to serve here, obviously, today. We are grateful for their steadfast
courage and determination in defending our Constitution. They know that
it is our constant duty to protect and defend our civil liberties, our
freedoms, and the Constitution of the United States. That is the oath
of office that we take, and we must never let our guard down.
Lacking the support of a majority of this body, this assault on
taxpayer privacy was possible only because of the Republicans' repeated
willingness to abuse their power. My colleagues, as we all know, the
rules of this House mandate that Members be given a minimum of 3 days
to review legislation. That is a rule of the House. Yet the Republican
leadership frequently resorts to the use of martial law to push through
legislation by requiring a same-day vote. In the 108th Congress alone,
the Republican leadership proposed same-day votes nearly 30 times. This
excessive use of martial law rules subverts the will of Congress by
denying Members the opportunity to examine critical legislation, thus
allowing egregious measures such as the taxpayer privacy persecution
provision to pass. It was only caught in the Senate because they had
more time to review the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court noted in an 1886 forfeiture case that
illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing by
silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure.
Before us today is a glaring example of what can happen when slight
deviations from legal modes of procedure are allowed to go forward. To
prevent future instances of hasty and dangerous decision-making, the
House of Representatives must obey its own current rules that require
Members of Congress be given at least 3 days to read legislation before
voting on it. That is a rule of the House for all legislation. Why
would it not be even more important for a 3,000-page bill containing
nine appropriations bills, the omnibus bill, that had other extraneous
matter in it as we can see? Before us today is again what can happen
when slight deviations from legal modes of procedure are allowed to go
forward.
I urge my colleagues to remove this taxpayer privacy persecution
provision and to demand an end to the irresponsible use of martial law
rules. Only if we determine to obey the rules of the House can we truly
expect the American people to think that we realized what happened in
this bill was wrong and we are determined that it will not happen
again.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the provision that is
before us today.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely regrettable incident. The House is
gathered here today, long after the session is supposed to be over,
because we had language inserted in an appropriation bill which, if
read on its face, would create a grave threat to the privacy of
individual taxpayers. I am personally confident that that was not what
was meant. I do not believe that this language has been placed in this
omnibus appropriations bill because of any conspiracy to invade
privacy. I do not believe that at all.
I do believe, however, that the House has been operating under a
different kind of conspiracy and that has been a conspiracy to, in
essence, shut down the congressional consideration of appropriation
bills until after the election because of the knowledge on the part of
the majority party leadership that the funding levels for a variety of
programs were so tight in areas such as education and science and
health that the leadership knew that those votes could not pass the
Senate before the election. And then after the election, the
appropriations committee, its members and its staff, were then given
marching orders to produce bills in virtually no time. Those bills were
then brought to the floor.
This is the report, the conference report, now some 3,000 pages of
original text. Those bills were brought to the floor with no
opportunity for any Member, including the gentleman from Florida and
myself as the chairman and ranking member of the committee, to actually
take the time to review what was in the language of all 3,000 pages and
the language was produced by staff that was sleep-deprived, harried and
harassed and under orders only to get the job done within a certain
time window laid out by the majority party leadership.
The Washington Post contained the following paragraph in an article
written by Dan Morgan in describing the situation. That paragraph in
Mr. Morgan's story reads as follows:
``But a reconstruction of what happened suggests less a sinister
conspiracy than problems arising from the legislative practices of the
present Congress, in which sleep-deprived staffers often take on much
of the burden of writing major bills under deadline pressure, and
legislation drafted in secret is rushed through both Chambers before
lawmakers, let alone the general public, have a chance for review.
``Senator Kent Conrad, ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee,
warned that `something really seriously bad is going to happen if we
let this continue.' Senator John McCain said, `This process is broken.'
''
So says the story in The Post.
I think that story is accurate. And I would point out that when we
have legislation that is produced under those conditions and then when
that legislation is brought to the floor under conditions in which the
rules of the House are suspended so that Members do not have the normal
time to look at a bill, what happens is that there are items in the
bill that are not only hidden from members of the opposition party;
there are items in the bill that are hidden from the majority's own
caucus.
I think that rank-and-file Members of both parties are grossly
disserved, and I think the appropriations committee is grossly
disserved when we are not given sufficient time to review actions taken
by staff and to review actions taken by conferees.
This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world.
It is a far cry from that when you are asked to swallow 3,000 pages,
when a bill is filed at 1 o'clock in the morning and then brought to a
floor vote with no opportunity to really read the fine print.
So I simply think, Mr. Speaker, that the way to gain something out of
this experience is to determine that in the future we are not going to
suspend the rules on massive appropriation bills; that we are going to
allow people to have the time to review the contents.
But even more importantly, there needs to be a determination to begin
the process with a realistic budget resolution so that the majority
party can bring its bills to the floor and pass them. I am probably not
going to like the priorities in those bills. But the House is better
served and Members of both parties are better served when there is an
orderly process so that we can debate these differences honestly. Right
now we are all paying a price and this institution is paying a price
because that has not happened in the past year. I have made quite clear
where I think the responsibility for that lies.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask Members to remember this incident
when we vote on rules changes for the coming Congress. I would ask
Members to remember that there are reasons why we should not suspend
these rules.
[[Page H10903]]
If it is important for us to pass something quickly and if there is
bipartisan agreement on that necessity, you can get two-thirds to bring
up these bills. Many times we have cooperated procedurally to move
appropriation bills forward, but we need to have the safety valve of
those rules in order to prevent future mistakes like this which
embarrass the institution.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we remember that when we are
asked to vote on rules changes at the beginning of the next Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, we understand the problems that have been created here,
mainly confusion. I certainly endorse what the gentleman from Wisconsin
has said about how this came about and what the intent was. The intent
was to provide the proper oversight of a half-a-billion-dollar request
for an increase in an agency's budget. But this is not the best way to
do business.
{time} 1445
An omnibus appropriations bill is the last thing you want to do to
get the appropriations bills passed.
Now, appropriations bills have to pass. You cannot adjourn and not
complete the appropriations bills, because then the government shuts
down. I am happy and proud to say during my chairmanship, on my watch,
we did not have any government shutdowns, we did not have any
appropriations bills vetoed, and we had pretty good votes on most all
of the appropriations bills. In fact, this year we never got less than
300 votes on an appropriations bill in the House. That is not a bad
record.
The reason that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I both
pushed our subcommittees, majority and minority Members, so hard to get
our work done on time was to avoid an omnibus appropriations bill, and
we did that. The last bill of the 13 bills was reported by the House
Committee on Appropriations on July 22, 4\1/2\ months ago, the final
bill. The last bill that we passed in the House was September 22, 2\1/
2\ months ago.
The thirteenth bill would have also been passed that same month,
except we were not given time to put the bill on the floor. The House
would have had its job completed. Then we could have paid attention to
13 bills, each one individually, each one separately, so there would
have been time to have a more thorough evaluation of what was in those
bills.
But, the other body would not pass their bills. They would not put
them on the floor, for whatever reason. So there were nine bills in
this omnibus appropriations bill. It was a bad way to do business, but
it was the only alternative left to us in order to get the job finished
in the time that we had to get it done.
The bill itself has passed. The House passed it with 344 votes. The
Senate passed it with approximately 60 votes. The bill has passed. What
we are dealing with now is a technical correction. We have all agreed
to it. We just ought to go ahead and do it, get the bill transmitted
down to the President, and clear the decks so that the new Congress and
the new administration, can start with a clean slate.
Hopefully there will be decisions made that will allow the
appropriations and budget process to work more effectively. There are
some who say that the process is broken. I disagree with that. I do not
think the process is broken, because the House passed all of our bills.
What broke down was the opportunity to go to conference with the other
body, because they did not pass their bills.
The budget process might also be a little bent out of shape because
we have not had a budget in a couple of years. The gentleman from Iowa
(Chairman Nussle) deserves credit. He passed a resolution in the House
setting a budget, but, again, there was never any conference agreement
with the Senate to bring that budget forward and to have the full force
of a budget.
So in the House we deemed the budget number to be that as the House
passed it, and the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), although we had different approaches, we worked
hard to stay within that budget number.
Mr. Speaker, we stayed within the budget. We did not exceed the
budget. The omnibus bill does not violate the budget as deemed by the
House. But it would be far better if we could have the budget process
work to the point that the House would pass it, the Senate would pass
it, we would conference it, and then both of us work from the same
budget.
We had to end up with the same number on appropriations bills, and
the way we did it was to have this omnibus appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, you know
how hard I pushed to get this work done. And we did our job. I am proud
of this House, and I am proud of the Committee on Appropriations, on
both sides of the aisle. We did our job. But we are part of a bicameral
legislature. The saying is, ``It takes two to tango.'' Well, it takes
two Houses to appropriate. That has been one of our problems.
There is a lot more I would like to say about this, but I am not
going to. It is time to get rid of this resolution, H. Con. Resolution
528, and allow this appropriations bill to be transmitted to the
President.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will support this resolution.
But the fact we are considering it should be a source of embarrassment
for our Republican colleagues and their leaders.
The resolution would delete from the omnibus appropriations bill a
provision that would put at risk the privacy of every American's
income-tax return. The Senate passed the resolution after the discovery
of that provision led the chairman of their Appropriations Committee to
publicly apologize and after it was agreed that the appropriations bill
itself would not be sent to the President until the deletion was made.
Certainly this was an embarrassing development. But it should not
have come as much of a surprise, because it was the result of a badly
flawed process.
Rolling together nine separate appropriations measures--including one
that had not been considered by either chamber and several that had
been considered only by the House--is not the way Congress should do
its work. And, as in previous years, the Republican leadership made
things outrageously worse by rushing the massive measure to the floor
under a ``martial law'' rule that prevented Members from having time to
carefully review its thousands of pages.
That was the situation that faced us on November 20th, when the House
took up the measure, and when each of us had to decide whether to
support or oppose its passage.
I finally decided to support it, but the decision was not an easy one
and came only after as much review as my staff and I could give to the
measure and after giving serious consideration to voting against it.
On the one hand, a review of the measure showed that its enactment
would have many benefits for Colorado and the country.
For example, its enactment would assure that the cleanup of the Rocky
Flats site would be able to stay on the schedule that aims for
completion and closure by the beginning of 2006, and that there would
be funds for much-needed work at the NIST laboratories in Boulder.
It also would mean that the Interior Department could complete the
purchase of the lands in the San Luis Valley that will become the new
Baca National Wildlife Refuge adjoining the newly designated Great Sand
Dunes National Park. It would mean that other Colorado lands could be
added to the national forests, including more of the lands in the
Beaver Brook watershed that the City of Golden is eager to sell for
that purpose as well as the Miller tract near Grand Lake and other
sensitive lands in other parts of the state. And it would provide other
needed funds for ongoing work related to federal lands or other natural
resources in our state being done by the National Park Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
In addition, it would provide funds for important projects for the
benefit of many Colorado communities--including Boulder, Eldorado
Springs, Idaho Springs, to mention only some in the Second
Congressional District--and institutions, including National Jewish and
Avista Hospitals, the Bonfils Blood Center, and the National Sports
Center for the Disabled.
Further, both our Nation's leadership in science and Colorado firms
would benefit from the $291 million to be used by NASA for servicing
the Hubble space telescope--which the statement of managers said
``should be one of NASA's highest priorities''--and from the bill's
provision of $28.2 million for the space grant program. And I was
encouraged by the amounts the bill would provide for renewable energy
research and development--including
[[Page H10904]]
$4.8 million for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) as
well as an additional $6.7 for construction of NREL's Science and
Technology facility--and for research regarding abrupt climate change.
I wanted to support these provisions, particularly because many of
them would not have been included in a long-term continuing resolution
that was the most likely substitute if the omnibus bill did not pass.
On the other hand, I was sure that any appropriations bill with such
a large number of specifically-earmarked funds must include allocations
for low priority projects or questionable purposes--something of
particular concern when the federal government is operating in the red.
Further, the conference report retained an objectionable provision
that would allow virtually any health care entity to refuse to provide,
cover, pay for, or even refer patients for abortion services, even when
such actions are otherwise legally mandated by the federal or a state
government. The same provision also would allow health care providers
who receive public money to refuse to provide women with unintended
pregnancies information concerning all their legal options. I thought
this provision should not have been included. In another problematic
provision, the bill cuts funding for NREL's photovoltaics program,
which could mean a loss of as many as 40 jobs at NREL. This would be a
devastating loss for the development of PV technology, for NREL
overall, and for Colorado.
And I was very concerned that there was a distinct possibility that
by voting for the bill I would be supporting other new legislation
whose specific details--and possibly objectionable features--I would
only be apparent if there were more adequate time to review the bill.
The fact that the bill included the tax-return provision addressed by
the resolution before us today shows this concern was well-founded. And
I would have been even more apprehensive if I had known that the
statement of managers not only failed to fully explain many provisions,
but in some instances was completely silent about important parts of
the bill.
For example, the statement of managers omitted any mention of the
fact that the bill included legislation for a full decade's extension
of the recreation-fee demonstration program--legislation that I had
opposed when it was considered by the Resources Committee and that in
my opinion should not have been a part of any appropriations bill.
Finally, after as careful a review as possible under the
circumstances and after weighing the decision carefully, I decided to
vote for the omnibus bill despite the defects that I recognized and
likelihood that there were others I had not found.
I will stand by that vote. The decision was mine and I recognize that
I am accountable to my constituents for it. But I object to the
circumstances under which that vote was cast--and my objections have
only become stronger in the time between that vote and the one that we
will cast on the resolution to remedy one--but hardly all--of the
omnibus bill's flaws.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the extraordinary
situation in which we find ourselves today. We're debating a resolution
to belatedly strike a provision from the fiscal year 2005 omnibus
appropriations act because there was a provision in the bill inserted
with the knowledge of only a handful of individuals in this body that
would have seriously undermined the privacy rights of all American
taxpayers.
We find ourselves in this situation because of the mismanagement of
the Congress and the federal budget process by the majority in the
House. The Congress never passed a budget this year. That led to the
total implosion of the annual appropriations process. Only two bills
were approved by Congress and signed into law by the start of the 2005
fiscal year on October 1, 2004. Two additional bills were approved in
mid-October.
The remaining nine bills totaling hundreds of billions of dollars and
running more than 3,000 pages in length were cobbled together behind
closed doors by just a few staff members with oversight by just a
couple of Republican leaders in Congress. The text of this monstrosity
was brought to the House floor only a few hours prior to the vote on
Saturday, November 20th. That is clearly not enough time for any of us
to read the bill, understand it, and ensure tax dollars are being spent
wisely.
Despite this ridiculous process, I voted in favor of the bill because
the alternative would have hurt the people I represent in Oregon. The
alternative to the omnibus was to fund virtually the entire Federal
Government on autopilot for the next year via a continuing resolution.
This would have negated the increased funding in the omnibus for
veterans at a time when thousands of troops are returning home from
Iraq and Afghanistan, threatening to overwhelm the VA health care
system.
It also would have meant Oregon would lose millions of dollars I
secured in the omnibus for critical infrastructure projects, including
projects at the North Bend Airport; the Port of Brookings;
transportation improvements like the Coburg/I-5 Interchange; and water
infrastructure projects for Sweet Home, Coburg, and Coquille.
So, while I supported the omnibus because it is beneficial for
Oregon, I would urge the House Republican leadership to never again
bring a bill to the House floor under these circumstances. Never again
should the federal budget process be allowed to implode as it did this
year. Never again should the House leadership bring a bill to the floor
that is drafted behind closed doors by only a few Members and staff.
Never again should the House leadership bring a bill to the floor with
no time for Members to actually read what they will be voting on.
Finally, while I am pleased we have the opportunity to belatedly
remove the provision from the omnibus that undermines taxpayer privacy,
I am disappointed that two other provisions I asked the House
leadership to schedule separate votes on will be allowed to remain in
the bill without any further consideration. These controversial
provisions--one of which will expand the number of immigrants allowed
into the United States under H-1B visas, the other which imposes a
recreation tax on citizens using public lands--should be considered on
their own merits rather than rolling them into a must-pass measure.
With respect to the immigration provision, under current law,
businesses are limited to hiring no more than 65,000 workers annually
through the H-1B visa program. A provision in the omnibus will allow
multinational corporations to make an end run around this cap to hire
up to 20,000 additional foreign workers for employment in the United
States.
An expansion of H-1Bs is not necessary. There is no evidence of a
shortage of qualified American workers. Even Bureau of Labor Statistics
data compiled by the Bush administration show rising unemployment among
American engineers and computer scientists. In fact, for the first time
in more than 30 years, the unemployment rate for tech workers is higher
than the overall jobless rate. This pool of American workers should be
tapped first before even considering an expansion of the H-1B program.
Further, there is growing evidence that the importation of foreign
workers is driving down the wages of American workers.
Given all of these obvious negatives, there are a significant number
of members on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about expanding
the H-1B program and feel strongly that this is an issue of protecting
American jobs and American workers' standard of living.
I am also disappointed that the House leadership included in this
omnibus a 10-year authorization for new and more expansive recreation
fee taxes for use of public land. The original Recreation Fee
Demonstration program was established by a rider to the 1996 Interior
appropriations bill. Since its establishment, fee demonstration has
been amended or extended numerous times, but has never gone through the
proper authorizing process. Now, Congress is prepared to adopt a 10-
year authorization through back channels, even though it has never been
taken up by the full House, and is opposed by the committees of
jurisdiction in the Senate. There is also strong opposition in the
House from Members of both parties who serve on the committees of
jurisdiction.
Fees for dispersed recreation on public lands amounts to nothing more
than a stealth double tax for hikers, hunters, picnickers, or anyone
wishing to spend a day at the beach or in the forest with their family.
An omnibus appropriations bill is not the place to impose increased
taxes on Americans.
Besides, the land management agencies have utterly failed to
demonstrate that they deserve an expanded fee program. Within the
Forest Service, for example, only 50 cents of every dollar collected
actually goes toward maintaining or improving our public lands, the
purpose for which Congress originally designated the fees. The rest is
eaten up by administrative and collection costs. Losing 50 percent of
funds to overhead signals that this is not an effective government
program. In addition, the Forest Service doesn't know if these taxes
are helping to relieve the maintenance backlog, or even to what extent
it has a maintenance program.
This body should be ashamed of the process under which this
legislation was drafted and brought to the floor. The American people
deserve better from this Congress.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today we are removing language that allows
Appropriations Committee members and their staff to look at citizen's
tax returns. This language was in a 3,500 page spending bill, which
Members only had hours to review before voting. Privacy was at stake
here and it is right to correct this wrong.
But another provision in this bill also threatens privacy. The
privacy of women and their conversations with their doctors. The
Federal Refusal Clause language inserted in this bill robs women of
their right to access comprehensive health care. No matter how you
[[Page H10905]]
look at it, this provision goes one step further by making it
impossible for women to exercise their reproductive choices and once
again subjects them to the wrath of the anti-choice movement. This was
a misguided measure that has dangerous implications for women's
reproductive health and for our health care system as a whole. If we
were truly correcting the bad policy inserted in this bill we would be
removing this language as well.
Mr. Speaker, our constituents want us to get it right the first time
around. Let's not make a mistake now that we have a second chance. I
urge my colleagues to support the removal of this anti-choice, anti-
privacy language.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I support this provision to
strike the insertion in the omnibus appropriations bill, which allows
Appropriations Committee Congressional staff to review individual tax
returns.
However, I strongly protest the insertion into the omnibus-spending
bill of a provisions that essentially eliminates the Federal Prison
Industries Program. This provision was inserted into the 3,000-plus
page spending bill without the knowledge of most Members and without an
opportunity for the House to remove or modify it. This provision was
stricken from the House to remove or modify it. This provision was
stricken from the House Transportation, Treasury and Independent
Agencies appropriations bill because it was found to violate House
rules of legislating on an appropriations bill. This provision should
not have been inserted into the omnibus bill when neither the House nor
Senate passed this measure. The opponents of FPI are trying to achieve
through the back door what they could not achieve in the normal
legislative process. It is wrong and certainly anti-democratic.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. The mistake it
corrects was actually caught before the appropriations bill left the
House, and a commitment to correct it was made before the House ever
voted on that bill.
It wasn't necessary for House Members to return to Washington for
this vote; the mistake could have and would have been corrected almost
2 weeks ago under a unanimous consent request. That would have been
simpler and better, and would have involved less political posturing
than we've heard.
I'm satisfied it was an honest error, although a significant one.
Those who claim this is part of some sinister plot to snoop into tax
returns are just wrong; they're pushing one of those ``black
helicopter'' conspiracy theories.
Of course, we never should have had this problem. We can and should
take these three steps to avoid any recurrence:
(1) Get the other body to help us to move the spending bills on-
schedule, so we can avoid the big omnibus bills that generate problems.
(2) Avoid the late-session rush to get out-of-town, which also pushes
decision-making into the wee hours when people are weary, and more
prone to make mistakes.
(3) We should always be able to trace clearly the authorship of every
provision in every bill. Every committee should enforce a requirement
that no congressional staffer should take it on themselves to insert
any language--even supposedly minor language--that has not been cleared
by the appropriate members of the House. Certainly that violates the
standing orders that I have always given to staff; I've always directed
that each and every provision must be brought to my personal attention.
Things like this should not be blamed on one person. Multiple
congressional staff, in both parties and both houses of Congress, had
the opportunity to catch this and to fix it. But when haste and
weariness set in, the error wasn't caught until after the bill had been
filed with the House clerk.
Yes, this was a sad and embarrassing event. But the problem was
caught and it's being fixed before that provision could ever become
law. What would be sadder and more embarrassing is if we failed to
learn lessons, to make sure that something like this never happens
again.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great
delight to announce the FY2005 omnibus appropriations package that is
scheduled to be approved by Congress today includes the text of
legislation I authored, H.R. 2792, that reauthorizes refugee
eligibility for children of Vietnamese re-education camp survivors.
The Communist government of Vietnam, by its actions in imprisoning
Catholic priests, Buddhist monks, and ordinary citizens whose only
crime is to speak out for freedom and democracy, is saying loudly and
clearly and consistently to the United States: We want your investment
dollars, and we are willing to learn from your economic system; but
your values of religious and political freedom are not welcome.
We need to do more to respond to this message of oppression with our
own message of freedom. Human rights need to be central to our foreign
policy toward Vietnam. One small step we can take is to save as many as
possible of the people who are still being persecuted by the Communist
authorities because of their wartime associations with the United
States or simply because they share our values.
Until April 1, 1995, former Vietnamese prisoners of war who were
accepted for resettlement by the United States as refugees could bring
their sons and daughters, even those above the age of 21, so long as
they had never married and were members of the refugee parent's
household. On April 1, 1995, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) changed its interpretation of the law, to exclude children who
were over 21, even if they were unmarried and living with their
parents. This change in policy forced a brutal choice on ex-political
prisoners: either decline the opportunity to find freedom in the United
States, or abandon their children in a country that has persecuted
them.
For South Vietnamese combat veterans and others who had suffered with
their children long terms in re-education camps because of their
wartime associations with the United States, this imposed a
particularly harsh burden. These children had already been without
their fathers while they were in re-education camps, in some cases for
10 or 15 years. Then the refugees were given a choice between living
forever under a Communist dictatorship or leaving their children behind
when they immigrated to the United States. These children are marked as
members of a ``counterrevolutionary family'' and denied educational and
employment opportunities by the government of Vietnam. They would
certainly go on suffering in Vietnam because of their family's
participation in the war.
Recognizing these realities, Congress on three occasions has adopted
the ``McCain amendment,'' which changed the INS interpretation of the
law, so that refugees who are survivors of re-education camps can once
again be accompanied by the unmarried sons and daughters.
The latest extension of the McCain amendment expired on September 20,
2001. Hence, I introduced and Congress passed H.R. 1840 in the 107th
Congress to reauthorize the McCain amendment through September 30,
2003. The original language did not apply to children who were
mistakenly rejected before April 1, 1995, for reasons other than age.
Even if new evidence surfaced that showed someone rejected before 1995
was actually the child of a refugee, families had no recourse to
challenge the decision. The original language also excluded refugee
sons and daughters who were denied access to an INS interview by
corrupt and/or vindictive Communist officials who often serve as
gatekeepers for the U.S. refugee program. My bill fixed these problems.
In addition, the legislation permitted unmarried children over the age
of 21 to immigrate to the United States even if the surviving parent is
currently living in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, today I stand here before you as this important
provision has once again expired. Fortunately, with the help of Senator
John McCain (R-AZ), the text of H.R. 2792, which extends this provision
until September 30, 2005, was added to the FY2005 omnibus
appropriations package that we are set to approve today.
H.R. 2792 is a fair and equitable bill that provides family
reunification and allows us to keep our promise to the people who
fought alongside U.S. troops during the Vietnam war. Their courage and
valor must never be forgotten.
I want to thank Senator McCain for his leadership and his staff for
their assistance in passing the H.R. 2792 language. Furthermore, I
would like to thank the co sponsors of my bill Representatives Zoe
Lofgren, Chris Smith, Jim Moran, and Loretta Sanchez who have given
this issue their steadfast support.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request to be excused from the
floor, on Monday, December 6, 2004, on legislative and personal
business. I will be present on Tuesday, and the balance of the week,
and I will be able to participate in the key votes that are expected
during that time.
The reason for my absence on Monday is that I have been invited--as a
proud parent, and Congressman from the Inland Empire--to attend the
swearing in of my son, Joe Jr., as a member of the California State
Assembly. This moment is very significant, because this is the same
seat I held when I represented the Inland Empire in the state Assembly.
I am sure you will join in my immense pride and joy I have as a father,
on this historic occasion--one that reflects the continued ascendancy
of Hispanics into leadership ranks, as well as the political coming of
age of the next generation.
I understand that, at present, leadership has no plans to being up on
Monday the 9/11 Implementation Act, and Democrats are not whipping
attendance for the suspension items on Monday, but I remain in ongoing
communication with, and at the disposal of, the Democratic leadership
team, should the situation change.
I also have been informed that he repeal of the Taxpayer Persecution
Act will be undertaken through the suspension process this
[[Page H10906]]
evening. Like you, I was disturbed that the Republicans gave their
staff the power to scrutinize Americans' tax returns, without
safeguard, and I was even more outraged that this provision ended up in
a bill that no one had read, hastily brought to a vote under martial
law rules. If I were present, I would vote to strip this provision out
of the appropriations bill, by voting ``yes'' on H. Con. Res. 528.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 528 and to express my
deep concern about this Congress undermining our democracy. The
taxpayer persecution language in the appropriations omnibus was an
abuse of Congressional power. This language would allow members of
Congress and their staff to read the tax records of any American and
disclose the information.
Unfortunately, this provision is just one more example of an abuse of
power by the majority party of this Congress. The process that the
Republican majority has resorted to is the reason that such outrageous
provisions were approved. The Republican majority has used martial law
to speed through legislation without giving members the change to read
it over.
Democracy suffers when members of Congress are given only a few short
hours to read thousands of pages of law and it is the American citizen
who must bear the burden of our actions. Democracy suffers when the
minority is denied a seat at the table and the chance to be a part of
the process. It is not the Members of Congress who lose out. The
American citizens they are here to represent are the ones who lose out.
The taxpayer persecution language is a frightening example of a
Republican majority that is willing to oppress the minority, undermine
democracy, and cast the shadows of Big Brother. Rule by the majority of
the majority is not a democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I speak out in frustration of a Republican party run
government that seems to have little regard for the elected
representatives of half of this country, and even less regard for the
American citizens they represent. When our founding fathers created the
United States Congress this was not what they had in mind.
We need to bridge together the widening divisions in our country. We
need to begin by bringing comity and bipartisanship back to this
chamber, and in so--to the Nation. We must not allow our legislative
process to fail us again.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) that the House
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H. Con. Res.
528.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________