[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 25468-25475]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 25469]]

  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. 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 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

[[Page 25470]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 25471]]

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. 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.

[[Page 25472]]

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 $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.

[[Page 25473]]

  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 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

[[Page 25474]]

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 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

[[Page 25475]]

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.

                          ____________________