A Deeply Flawed Process (Part 2 of 2)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I speak in strong opposition to a very troubling provision in this bill that will potentially take away American taxpayers' right to privacy regarding their personal income tax return.
The section I refer to is Section 222 of the bill. This section will allow any agent designated by the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee access to tax returns and tax return information.
Section 222 provides this sweeping new authority while at the same time it throws aside years of detailed strict statutory protections for taxpayers that also ensure the privacy of taxpayer information.
Given that the language in this section can be interpreted to eliminate all restrictions on access to taxpayer information and publication of taxpayer information, there is nothing to prohibit the Appropriations Committee from obtaining taxpayer information, information about a corporation, information about an individual and releasing it to the press without fear of penalty.
There is no reason that the Appropriations Committee cannot obtain taxpayer information, your 1040, and just posting it on the Web.
This poorly drafted and even more poorly conceived legislation will bring us back to the doorstep of the days of Nixon, Truman and similar dark periods in our tax history when tax return information was used as a club against political enemies.
My colleagues may find these concerns over the top but I can assure you that when it comes to protection of taxpayer information the history has been a very troubling one and it is only through constant vigilance that we have been able to give Americans confidence that their tax return information will be protected and private.
I find it especially troubling that this language which will harm the volunteer tax system and make the work of the IRS harder comes in an appropriations bill that fails to even provide the the full funding requested for the IRS by President Bush.
What is more important, providing more money to the IRS to combat tax shelters, or allowing Appropriations staffers the right to dance through private citizens' tax returns at will? This is an outrage.
Just so my colleagues understand the claim for this language is that it is to allow the appropriations committee with access to IRS facilities for oversight purposes but not the ability to examine individual tax returns, data or information.
This is the statement that was made in colloquy between the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the other body.
The statement between the two members further states that it is the intent of the Appropriations Committees that all access to taxpayer information remains governed by the disclosure and privacy rules of Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code.
For my colleagues information, Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code generally governs and protects taxpayer information.
What is particularly frustrating is that Section 6103 already provides the Appropriations Committee a means to have access to taxpayer information-within the protections and limitations provided by law to protect taxpayer privacy.
The Appropriations Committee can seek permission for access to taxpayer information from the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee or myself, in the Senate, the chairman of the Finance Committee. I have received no request for access to taxpayer information from the Appropriations Committee during my time as chairman.
However, I would say that my colleagues know my reputation for oversight and encouraging oversight and I have been very open minded about granting such requests. In addition, any committee can appeal for such authority to the House or Senate for authority-that also has never taken place by the Appropriations Committee to my knowledge. Again, if that authority is granted the protections provided under Section 6103 are still in place.
This provision in the omnibus bill reflects a mindset that Members or, more likely, their staff-don't want to be bothered with such longstanding successful mechanisms to provide access for legitimate congressional oversight and have instead opted for the "easy way out."
And let me be clear, the "easy way out" contained in this bill will jeopardize taxpayer privacy and taxpayer information.
Let me make a final point. This section places the Commissioner of the IRS in the position of possibly forcing him to violate the law under Section 6103. The Commissioner of the IRS is still covered by Section 6103 and the penalties for improper disclosure.
It is my early review of this language that this Section 222 will put the Commissioner in the position of an improper release of tax information in violation of 6103. In such a case it is my view that the Commissioner should not release any tax information under this Section 222.
They say haste makes waste. In this case, with Section 222, haste has made a hash of years of efforts to protect taxpayer information and ensuring that taxpayer information is kept private. It is disgraceful that all this is being done because some Members of the Congress can't be bothered with following the simple rules in place to protect taxpayer information.
Now, I have been satisfied since this has come to our attention that this goes much further than what the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has desired, or even more so, that he was not aware of the sweep of this legislation and that it will be corrected shortly in other action taken by this body under the leadership of the Senate Appropriations Committee-and presumably, I am also told, with the adherence of the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. So this may no longer be an issue.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield.
Mr. STEVENS. I would like to tell the chairman of the Finance Committee as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I
checked with Chairman Young, BILL YOUNG of the House
Appropriations Committee. Neither of us was aware this had been inserted in the bill. It was inserted at the request of one staff to another, reliance on the statement made by one that the front office had been briefed and is fine with this.
That was not right. No Member had ever seen it. It came out during the readout. I am pleased that after it was presented to the body, it was found. It does not represent the policy of the Appropriations Committee. None of us have even ever discussed in a meeting either on this side or the House of Representatives any further access to taxpayer information. It came strictly from a staff request to another staffer.
It is absolutely a mistake. I apologize to the Senate. I am sorry that both the Senator from Iowa and his colleague, Chairman
Thomas in the House, properly were exercised over it. It is a mistake. It will be deleted.
We have made an agreement it will be totally deleted from this bill.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. Would this not be, the explanation just provided by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, incredibly
disturbing, that we would have a bill before us, that we would have a few hours of debate, and if it had not been for the alert staff, one of the staffers over here, this would have been passed into law?
This would have been passed into law. Now we find out how it happened. One staffer had an agreement with another staffer, and it was placed into a multithousand-page document that none of us had ever seen or read.
Doesn't the Senator from Iowa find this incredibly disturbing, that there will be all kinds of pressure we vote as soon as possible on this bill because we all want to get out of here, that it is just discovered, but it was done by two staffers?
Has this system broken down completely here in the U.S. Senate?
Mr. GRASSLEY. To the Senator from Arizona, I cannot disagree with what he says. But we do have a bill before us. And the fact is, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee has assured me-and he is a man of his word-that he is going to take action to get this out of here. That does not detract anything from what the Senator from Arizona said about the bill, but I am satisfied as far as this egregious provision being taken care of.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, I do. But I want to say thank you.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Arizona is absolutely warranted in his comments. As I said, I apologize to the Senate. We thought we had these bills read through twice. Both sides read them through twice by people who are involved in them.
I have to tell the Senator from Arizona, I do not sit there for 10 hours as that is being read. I rely on the people who have been with us now for years and years to tell us that it has been checked properly, that there is nothing in the bill that has not been approved by the bodies respectively and in conference.
But this error happened. I do apologize to the Senate. It is unfortunate. And it is more than a mistake; it is a terrible disaster, and we will have to examine our whole procedures to see if there is any way we can prevent it in the future. But it has happened now, and we do apologize.
Congressman Young is as disturbed about it as I am, and his statement was: "Take it out now." And that is what we are going to do.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I think the Senate should be assured.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I was present in the caucus when the Senator from North Dakota raised this issue and read the language, and I think I have listened to all of the commentary. I very much respect the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I have served on that committee for 10 years now.
I have a very hard time accepting that this is just an inadvertent staff submission, and I wanted to say why. Because this section 222, if you read it in its entirety, is really an egregious abuse of power. If you go down to line 17, it says: "allow agents." We are not talking-this is not even staff. This is anyone the chairman of the Appropriations Committee would designate, in written form, would have "access [to all] Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information" such as legal information, cases brought.
I cannot believe that some staffer, for some technical reason, wanted to insert this in the bill. I think this is an egregious overreach of power. I think we ought to do the right thing by it, and the right thing, for me, is to vote down this bill, call the House back, have them reconference the bill, and do it the right way. I do not think this language should be active for 1 minute, let alone 1 day. It is just a terrible, egregious abuse of power.
I do not tend to be suspicious. But I see the Senator from Idaho there, and I see the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee here. Does anyone believe, really, that some staffer, without any permission, thought up a scheme by which a chairman's "agent" could have access to every IRS facility anywhere in this Nation, and every single IRS filing of every citizen of this Nation?
I mean, you know, we were not born yesterday. We did not come down with the first snow. I think that is asking for an impossibility. How can we believe that? I think to just shuffle this off----
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator from California yield for a quick question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I will.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Could you see that this information might be used in a political campaign?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely. Absolutely. I can even see it being used to go after some district attorney in Texas.
I find this an egregious abuse of power. I think we ought to spend some time on it. We ought to talk about what it means. I do not think any Member of this body ought to accept the fact. And if some staff does have the power to simply put something in that is so widespread, have the House of Representatives already pass it-and a bright staffer of Senator Conrad's found this. What if we had passed this bill?
Senator McCain is absolutely right. This place is broken. And it starts by having one party left out of conference, which has become more and more an accepted trait. That is how this place is broken. You are going to have one party where one person can insert things in the dead of night, in huge bills, which come to this Chamber. It has already passed 345 Members of the House of Representatives.
Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. It has been floating around here that this is somehow a staffer who put this in. I do not know the answer to that question. But certainly someone is responsible and certainly it should not take an investigation lasting a year to find out who. Someone was responsible for this.
I ask the Senator from California, does the Senator feel we ought to know who the person responsible is, and certainly anyone who would exceed his or her authority as a staff person to put in that kind of language, I ask the Senator, does the Senator think that person ought to continue employment in either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think there certainly ought to be an investigation. I cannot conceive of a staffer doing this without authorization. I cannot conceive of a staffer-if this is so staff can go and look at tax loopholes, in the first place, the Appropriations Committee does not need this. The Finance Committee can do that. Why does the Appropriations Committee need this authority? It does not make any sense.
Not only that, if you are going to copy the legislation that relates to the chairman of the Finance Committee, there is a sanction there, a very heavy sanction for misuse of that information.
Mr. HARKIN. Civil and criminal.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If you are going to copy it, why not copy that part of it? This is not a copy job. This is somebody's innovative
thinking of how they could get their minions access to the tax returns of individuals who might be political opponents or who might come up against them in some way or for general resource information to use against an individual, against a company, against a member of the press, at any given time.
Everything we have tried to do, with Social Security numbers, with privacy, is to protect individuals' rights to their own privacy.
Every stricture of the IRS is to protect an individual's right to privacy.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me just finish. I am just getting wound up. Let me just finish this windup.
Here, in the dead of night-this is not poorly thought out. This is very carefully thought out. Whoever did this knew exactly what they were doing, and they got it through one House.
Please, don't shuffle this under our desks with a resolution. This bill should be defeated. It should go back. The House of Representatives, which passed it, should at least have to come back to Washington and correct their error. This is the way I feel. I think the American people would be just appalled if they knew this was in the bill.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will yield, certainly.
Mr. CONRAD. It was represented on the floor that there was a colloquy on the House side, and in that colloquy they suggested there was no intent for this language to permit access to individual tax returns.
In that colloquy, they suggested, there was no intent. Now, the Senator has read this language. Do you believe the representation that has been made on the House floor that this didn't intend to access individual tax returns?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Absolutely not, because twice on line 14 and lines 19 and 20, it reinforces that it is a tax return or return information. It broadens it from tax return.
Mr. CONRAD. I might say to the Senator, if you go to lines 18 and 19, that says " ..... allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. It gives them free access to every IRS facility anywhere in America, to go and rummage through and do whatever dirty work they want to do.
Mr. CONRAD. I will ask a second question. On the House floor, they made the representation that this was intended to preserve the protections for individuals' rights to privacy. Now, I ask the Senator from California, is there anything in here that has a protection for taxpayers of their private return information?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I worked on privacy legislation, and this absolutely does not have any protection for an individual.
Mr. CONRAD. In fact, it completely sweeps aside all of the protections that are in law because what it says is:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Committee of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein.
There is no protection; it is out the window. There is no criminal penalty, no civil penalty. They could call up the return of the Senator from Arizona, if they didn't like the speech he gave on the floor of the Senate; they could get that return and they could release it to the press and have absolutely no penalty.
Mr. McCAIN. I think I would be the first.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may make a comment-and then I will defer to a question by the Senator from Idaho. I think this is so Machiavellian-to realize this power is being given to just one Member of the House and one Member of the Senate, and it is a power that I think is broader than that which now exists with sanctions for the Chairman of the Finance Committee. It is not just a staffer, it is an agent that can go. You can hire an investigator. You can have your campaign chairman designated to go in writing. That is the broad fashion in which this phrase or this section is written. It is a very frightening thing.
As I say, I don't often get exercised or upset about things, but the more I read, the more I saw that it was very carefully put together. It is extraordinarily dangerous and a real abuse of power.
I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I share the Senator's outrage. I agree that the Appropriations Committee chairman and ranking member and/or their staffs or designees do not need this authority. You heard the Finance Committee chair
speak, and the ranking member has spoken; they have this authority. But in them gaining this authority, there are very real sanctions against any disclosure.
I know this is an opportunity to make a substantial amount of hypotheticals. Agents are also our staffs. That is what is intended within the law, and that is what is in the law today as it relates to the Finance Committee. I agree with the Senator; this ought to come out. You heard the chairman of the Appropriations Committee say it will come out. It is now not law, nor will it become law. I think that is what is most important.
Is the system broken? Yes. This represents a broken system. What is not broken about it are the keen eyes of all of us and our staffs. The ranking member of the Budget Committee and his staff have found this, so the system is not broken; it just got discovered. It is not in the dark of night; it is a dark early evening. It is 6 o'clock and we are doing the business of the country.
The Senator from California is absolutely right in what she says. I am not going to play hypothetical. That is the politics I will not enter into. But I agree with her and I suggest that we can talk a great deal about this section, but it will never become law because you and I and the Senator from North Dakota, and everybody else on this floor, by a vote of probably 100-0, will not allow it to happen. I thank the Senator for his diligence.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. I send to the desk a joint resolution.
Ms. LANDRIEU addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate is in a period for morning business with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, earlier the Senator from Idaho indicated this provision that would allow Appropriations staffers, the designees of the Appropriations Committee leadership, to access any tax return in the country would not become law. I listened to that. I hoped it was not the case. But I don't see any way that, if we pass this bill tonight, this provision does not become law.
Let me just go through where we are, at least my understanding of where we are. I would like to be corrected if I am wrong.
In this bill, these 3,000 pages that have been put before us today and we are asked to vote hours later, that spends $388 billion, there is a provision that says the agents of the Appropriations Committee can have access to any tax return in the country and that there is no legal protection for them. That is the provision that is here. It
has already passed the House of Representatives. If we pass this bill tonight and it goes to the President for signature, that will become the law of the land.
I am understanding that Senator Stevens, acting in good faith here-and he is acting in good faith and he is, I think, doing his level best to try to correct this-is proposing the passage of a concurrent resolution that would pass here.
Mr. STEVENS. Joint.
Mr. CONRAD. A joint resolution removing this provision. But that would be subject to the House acting and the House will not
be prepared to act, I am told, until December 6. At the same time, we are running out of time on a continuing resolution and the President will be required to sign this Omnibus bill, I am told, before that continuing resolution removing this power, this ability to have agents look at any tax return in the country and release them without any penalty, without any civil penalty, without any criminal penalty.
When the Senator from Idaho says this will not become law, that is not right. This will become law if we pass this tonight. That is my understanding. I would like to be corrected if that is not the case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct that the provision would stay in the law. But we will pass a joint resolution. It is my
understanding that will be passed and the Speaker of the House and chairman of the Appropriations Committee guaranteed this would be the case when the House reconvenes.
Meanwhile, it is our understanding that the President of the United States will issue a statement when he signs the bill that this section shall be disregarded because of the action taken by the Senate and the commitment of the House to act when it comes back. I think that is a good-faith effort to correct a serious mistake, a terrible mistake.
The Senator is right about the section. But I want to assure him the implication that either the chairman of the House committee or I, as chairman of this committee, ever wanted such authority is wrong. We never sought it. It was an accident, a mistake. A representation was made by one staff member that the front office in the other body had cleared this. On the basis of that, it was put into the section.
When it was before the bipartisan staff in both Houses, it was not even noticed. Under the circumstances, it is something the Senator from Arizona criticized and I too criticize it. It is something contrary to anything I have ever had happen in over 30 years on the committee. But it can be corrected and the law will not be permitted.
By the way, it takes the request of the chairman of either House to trigger it. We have stated categorically we will not trigger this section. It is not available to anyone else. It is available only to the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee or the chairman of our Senate committee. And I have stated categorically on the record we would never use that. We didn't seek this authority. We are as appalled as the Senator from North Dakota. I hope you would rely upon our good faith to try to correct the staff error. Certainly no Member of Congress that I know of, other than the person who originally suggested it in the House, ever sought this. I am led to believe the language is not what he sought, but it is one of those things that happened at the last minute. It is a terrible thing.
We are in this situation because we never had a budget. We never passed our appropriations bills at the time we should have. We had to construct a ceiling we would operate under. Senator Byrd and I have tried our best to comply with the circumstances. But we didn't get the chance to even look at it-the Appropriations Committee on these nine bills-until after we came back from the August recess. We have been under pressure now since we came back. We have been under pressure now for 3 days. Some of my people haven't slept for 2 days, and one of them made a mistake-one of my staff. I can tell you he had not had sleep for 2 days.
This is a serious situation. It shouldn't happen. The Senator from Arizona is right. It should never happen. I pray to God it will never happen. It will not happen under my watch. My watch is over tonight, but I guarantee you that during the time I am chairman, I will not use this authority and it will be taken out of this bill.
The first reaction of the chairman from Florida, BILL YOUNG, was, take it out; take it out now. I share that reaction.
I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I have no question about the good faith of the Senator from Alaska-none. His word is good for me because he has demonstrated repeatedly to me his word is good.
The problem I have is I am about to be asked to vote for this measure and it will become law. The President can make any declaration he wants upon signature of the law that he doesn't consider it effective. That has no legal standing. The fact is the House has passed this. If we now pass it, and the President signs it before that joint resolution is effective, this will become the law of the land. And it is a mistake. It shouldn't happen. It should never have happened.
I know this was not moved by any Member of the Senate. I know this happened as a result of something that happened on the House side. Staff were involved on the House side, and misrepresentations were made about clearances being made.
The fact is this is in the bill. We have to think about what this law provides. This says an agent of the Appropriations Committee could get unlimited access to tax returns in this country and have absolutely no legal penalty for releasing it to the public. They could call up the tax return of any Member of the U.S. Senate, any individual in this country, any writer for any newspaper.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. STEVENS. I don't read anything in this provision that either chairman can release the information. He makes the assertion
that if we use this power, we can release it. There is no such provision.
Mr. CONRAD. I beg to differ with the chairman. I am an old tax administrator. I know tax law. This provision says very clearly:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall hereafter allow agents designated by such chairman access to any Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein.
Because it says "notwithstanding any other provision of law," that sweeps aside all of the privacy protections that are available in law.
Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for you. This provision is clear in terms of its legal impact.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator says he has respect for this Senator, he will believe me. We didn't ask for that authority. We
would not use that authority. We detest this section, and I am tired listening to people say somehow or other we intended to use it. We don't intend to use it. It is going to come out of this bill. It is going to come out of this law and it is not going to be used. I don't know how I can be any firmer. I am tired of it. We have been working hard on this bill. We did not do this. To imply we did-either Congressman Young or I did it-is wrong, wrong.
Mr. CONRAD. I did not imply that the Senator did this.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator implied that I will use it; that I would disclose it.
Mr. CONRAD. Senator, it is in the law if we pass this bill tonight. Senator, I say through the Chair, the point is this: I am not
questioning the chairman. I am not. But I am questioning this body tonight passing this legislation that has already been passed by the House, and it becomes the law of the land upon the signature of the President of the United States. That is wrong.
Part of the reason we are here is because we have a process that has broken down. We have a process that has produced a 3,000-page bill that gets slapped on our desk and we are told to vote on it in a few hours without knowing what is in it. It is wrong. It is wrong.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield again?
Mr. CONRAD. I would like to finish and then I would be happy to yield for any question of the Senator.
Let me say this: For a number of years we have had this process ongoing. In 1988, President Reagan, in a State of the Union Message, told us never again; don't send me another bill like it because I am not going to sign it. He was right. He said in his 1988 State of the Union that you have sent up here a 1,100-page bill and you had 3 hours to review it. You don't know what is in it. Nobody knows what is in it. Don't do it again. Don't send me another bill like this because I will not sign it.
Here we are tonight. We don't have a 1,200-page bill, or 1,100--we have 3,300 pages. We don't know what is in this bill. There are a handful of people who know what is in this bill. Most of us don't know what is in this bill. If somebody, some sharp staff had not caught this, we would be making this the law of the land.
Now I find out there is no way to prevent this from becoming the law of the land if we pass this bill tonight.
That, to me, is a mistake.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to state again the protection for the minority on this bill was in the people who were with my staff when it was read through. If there was a mistake in it, it is borne equally by your side of the aisle as well as ours. I have accepted the total responsibility as chairman. No question about it; a bad mistake was made. But let me go back.
Senator Byrd and I begged for a budget resolution in May, in June, in July, and when we came back in September. We didn't get a budget resolution. The Senator is on the Budget Committee. Why didn't we get a budget resolution? We said if we don't, we will have another one of those nights when we will have a big Omnibus appropriations bill. I preached it right here on the floor. I will dig it out, if you want. I said if you don't, we will have a midnight session again trying to get a bill through that no one knows what is in it because we have had to move and move these limits.
There are provisions in this bill that must become effective or people will lose rights as of Sunday. We are trying our best to get it done. A mistake has been made. I hope the Senate would take my word. It is my word. I don't think I have ever broken my word to any Member of this Senate. That was a mistake. It says as chairman of the Appropriations Committee I can trigger that and ask for access. I have said I would never do it. I did not seek it. The chairman of the House did not want it. He is appalled by it. It is a provision that, even if it becomes law, cannot be utilized except by BILL YOUNG and me, TED STEVENS. We have said we will not do it.
Isn't that enough? Isn't that enough? Do I have to get down on my knees and beg the other side?
This bill must become law because people have rights that will be affected by it if we don't pass it until we come back in
December.
That is all there is to it. It is not my fault. I hate working under these pressures. My staff hates it. As a matter of fact, it is a terrible way to do business, but I had nothing other than to try to do it.
As a matter of fact, we had to take one bill and do it in the last 3 days because we could not get agreement between the people involved. It has been a terrible bill to handle.
I hope the Senate appreciates the work that people have done this last week to try and get to the point where we could pass it before we left.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, with respect to the Budget Committee, I am on the Budget Committee. I am not the chairman of
the Budget Committee. Our friends on the other side were in control of the House and the Senate. Failure to get a budget resolution was not on our side. Failure to get a budget resolution lay on their side.
But that is not the point of this discussion tonight. The point of the discussion tonight is we have a process that is broken. There is no better evidence than the fact that we have a provision that would open the tax returns of every American, every American company, to some staffer in the Appropriations Committee, with absolutely no penalty on that staffer if they were to release the private information contained in that individual's tax return. That is wrong.
The chairman of the committee says, I never sought this power. I believe him. He said the chairman of the House never sought the power. I believe him.
The fact is, the provision is here. Somebody wanted it. Somebody got it in here. The fact is, the current chairman of the committee is not going to be the new chairman of the committee. And the same is true on the House side. These two Senators have said they would not use the power. How about the two Members who are going to be the chairmen? They would be able to use the power because if we vote for this bill tonight, with this mistake in it, unfortunately, it will become law.
I don't want to explain to my constituents back home that every tax return in America is open to some staffer and there is absolutely no legal penalty for them making it public. That is a serious mistake. There is a desire to take this out. Let's take it out.
I ask unanimous consent these provisions be deleted from this bill. I am specifically referring to section 222 of the provisions that are found on page 1,112 of the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I object.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am a little confused. I am really confused.
Senator Conrad, who brought this issue to the Senate's attention, solves the problem by asking unanimous consent to take this offensive language out of the bill, this "Big Brother is watching you and your tax returns" out of the bill, and the passion showed by Senator Stevens in his previous remarks, I was really taken in by them. I felt that he was really upset and that he wanted to resolve this matter. Yet we have an objection to take this out.
If the House went home, bring the House back. They shouldn't have gone home with this terrible provision pending.
I don't quite understand what just happened. I guess there will be an explanation, but let the record be clear
there was objection from the Republican side to take out this offensive language which gives permission for the chairman of the Senate and House Appropriations Committee to designate staff to look at any American's tax return, any business tax return they decide they want to spy on.
There was a unanimous consent request to delete that by Senator Conrad, and there was an objection. I am confused. We could have resolved that, and it could have been taken care of, but instead we have an objection. I am sure there is a good reason. Maybe Senator Stevens will explain it, but deleting the language resolves it on our side, and we can get on with the bill.
I have a problem with the health issue in this bill that is going to adversely affect women of America. I talked to Senator Stevens. He was very honest and said it had to stay in because of the House, but I was able to work with Senator Reid and Senator Frist and we got agreement and I will not object because we will have a chance to vote up or down on that offensive legislation sometime before April 30.
Senator Conrad made a very wise motion to, essentially, ask unanimous consent to remove the offending language, and we could have resolved it.
I am confused.
I yield the floor so my colleague can have his own time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?