Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make corrections in the enrollment of H.R. 4818.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 866 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is a beautiful Saturday morning all across America and people are waking up and taking their morning coffee, reading the paper, getting the kids off to soccer practice, and slipping into the woods to do a little hunting.

As I say, on this glorious Saturday morning, people are going about their lives and doing the things that they do, enjoying time with their family and their business, and they are undoubtedly thinking to themselves, as they find out that Congress is in session on a Saturday, that it is about time those guys did some work.

It is an important issue indeed that finds us here doing the people's business this weekend as we wrap up a very productive 108th Congress. The omnibus package that is here before us today, this rule, H. Res. 866, provides for consideration of H.R. 4818, making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, this rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Section 2 of the resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 114 under a closed rule and provides for one hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit H.J. Res. 114.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a tremendous amount of work on the part of our appropriators, working in conjunction with the authorizing committees on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this omnibus represents the work of nine different subcommittees on appropriations. There are nine different bills combined in there, but it is not because of the work of the House that that is the case. The House has passed all but one of those bills, and, unfortunately we find ourselves here at the end of the 108th Congress passing them en blanc as a result of issues not related to the House, as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the ranking member of that committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), have done a tremendous job of making sure that the House appropriation train runs on time.

This legislation includes funding for the majority of our agencies and departments, along with very important infrastructure appropriations and needs. It is vital that we pass this to ensure the smooth and continued operation of the Federal Government. The final spending package fully complies with the spending targets agreed to by the Congress and the administration, totaling $821.9 billion in fiscal year 2005 discretionary spending.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note and to reinforce the fact that this fully complies with the spending targets laid out by this Congress and represents a freeze, or zero percent growth, in nondefense discretionary spending. Total discretionary spending in this bill is $388.4 billion. All additional spending is paid for by an across-the- board cut of 0.83 percent in all nondefense and nonhomeland security spending, a $300 million recession in nonwar, nonemergency defense funds, and $283 million from limitations on expenditures from the Crime Victims Fund.

Mr. Speaker, discretionary funding in the fiscal year 2001 budget, the last budget of the last administration, was 15 percent. Fifteen percent. Mr. Speaker, for the past 4 years, we have been able to hold the line on discretionary spending. This year's freeze demonstrates this Congress' commitment to fiscal responsibility during a time when our men and women in uniform are in harm's way.

In our restraint, however, we continue to make provisions for those who rely on America's promises. The bill provides a record level of resources for veterans health, including a total of over $30 billion for the Veterans Health Administration; $19.5 billion for medical services; $4.7 billion for medical administration; $3.7 billion for medical facilities; and $385 million for medical research. In addition, the bill does not contain additional fees or surcharges for America's veterans.

The bill also provides a significant boost in the manpower and resources of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The bill includes over $5 billion for the FBI, an increase of over $625 million above last year, and $100 million above the President's request. This funding provides enhanced training, information technology, and staff to the tune of over 1,100 new positions for the FBI to improve intelligence and counterterrorism capabilities, while continuing to fight white collar and violent crime.

The package we consider today prioritizes our Nation's needs in a fiscally responsible manner, and I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the gentleman's concern about the situation that people up north find themselves in. It is a situation, to be honest, that is somewhat unfamiliar to me, having been raised in Florida and never having seen snow until I was 30. But I understand the plight. I am proud of the work that the appropriators have done, undoubtedly from the Northeast and around the country, who share the gentleman's concern at funding LIHEAP at $2.2 billion, an increase of $84 million over last year. They are certainly doing everything they can to make sure that the winters in Boston are a little bit less cold and a little bit less dark.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a distinguished physician.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee who has played a key role in putting this bill together.

(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Cunningham), a decorated war hero and outspoken supporter of all men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am delighted to see that the work of the appropriators has been so well received as it relates to transportation needs and defense needs and continuing our support for international issues and the fight against AIDS and malaria and tuberculosis, the investments that they have made in basic medical research. I am glad to see that their work is so highly regarded that the focus of the opposition is limited to a single issue.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman has presented two rhetorical questions, and I will respond to one. It is a pleasure to be here with the distinguished gentleman from Washington, a man who represents a very technologically savvy constituency and a very environmentally concerned constituency. And that tremendous pile of paper was available on the Web last night at 12:15 that would have taken advantage of the skills that are out there as well as saving a few trees.

This is an important work. And I might also ask how long it took for the gentleman to read cover to cover all of the nine bills that had already passed this House in due time?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), who also serves on the Committee on Appropriations and has worked very hard toward this final product.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just point out that this bill is within budget and that the House has done its work in hearing and passing the individual spending bills, and whatever inadequacies there may be in this process would not be a result of this half of the legislative branch.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly tip my hat to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules. The gentleman has served on that committee for 26 years, and I certainly wish him and his family all the best.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to bring the debate on this rule over this critically important continuation of the Federal Government to a close. I want to thank our great Floridan, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for what he and his staff, his great committee, have done in meeting the needs and prioritizing the needs of this Nation.

As a Nation and as a State, we are indebted to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the leadership and service he has provided. As a Congress, we are indebted to him for the patience and honor and dignity and demeanor that he has brought to these ever-so-difficult times. No one can understand the burdens that are placed on the chairman, and he has always handled them so well.

As we debate the issues contained within this omnibus and what it means for this Nation going into the Thanksgiving week, it is important that we keep in mind as we celebrate that uniquely American holiday that the safety and comfort that is provided for us by the men and women who are funded by this bill and the infrastructure that takes us to be with family and friends is provided by investments made in this bill. And as we give thanks to the Almighty for our family and our friends and for the blessings, it is important to take the opportunity to give thanks for the blessings of just being an American and the liberty and freedom that that means and the people who provide it for us who are in uniform, who are in law enforcement and who benefit greatly by the priorities in this bill.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Putnam

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. 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.

An omnibus appropriations bill is the last thing you want to do to get the appropriations bills passed.

Now, appropriations bills have to pass. You cannot adjourn and not complete the appropriations bills, because then the government shuts down. I am happy and proud to say during my chairmanship, on my watch, we did not have any government shutdowns, we did not have any appropriations bills vetoed, and we had pretty good votes on most all of the appropriations bills. In fact, this year we never got less than 300 votes on an appropriations bill in the House. That is not a bad record.

The reason that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I both pushed our subcommittees, majority and minority Members, so hard to get our work done on time was to avoid an omnibus appropriations bill, and we did that. The last bill of the 13 bills was reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on July 22, 4\1/2\ months ago, the final bill. The last bill that we passed in the House was September 22, 2\1/ 2\ months ago.

The thirteenth bill would have also been passed that same month, except we were not given time to put the bill on the floor. The House would have had its job completed. Then we could have paid attention to 13 bills, each one individually, each one separately, so there would have been time to have a more thorough evaluation of what was in those bills.

But, the other body would not pass their bills. They would not put them on the floor, for whatever reason. So there were nine bills in this omnibus appropriations bill. It was a bad way to do business, but it was the only alternative left to us in order to get the job finished in the time that we had to get it done.

The bill itself has passed. The House passed it with 344 votes. The Senate passed it with approximately 60 votes. The bill has passed. What we are dealing with now is a technical correction. We have all agreed to it. We just ought to go ahead and do it, get the bill transmitted down to the President, and clear the decks so that the new Congress and the new administration, can start with a clean slate.

Hopefully there will be decisions made that will allow the appropriations and budget process to work more effectively. There are some who say that the process is broken. I disagree with that. I do not think the process is broken, because the House passed all of our bills. What broke down was the opportunity to go to conference with the other body, because they did not pass their bills.

The budget process might also be a little bent out of shape because we have not had a budget in a couple of years. The gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) deserves credit. He passed a resolution in the House setting a budget, but, again, there was never any conference agreement with the Senate to bring that budget forward and to have the full force of a budget.

So in the House we deemed the budget number to be that as the House passed it, and the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), although we had different approaches, we worked hard to stay within that budget number.

Mr. Speaker, we stayed within the budget. We did not exceed the budget. The omnibus bill does not violate the budget as deemed by the House. But it would be far better if we could have the budget process work to the point that the House would pass it, the Senate would pass it, we would conference it, and then both of us work from the same budget.

We had to end up with the same number on appropriations bills, and the way we did it was to have this omnibus appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, you know how hard I pushed to get this work done. And we did our job. I am proud of this House, and I am proud of the Committee on Appropriations, on both sides of the aisle. We did our job. But we are part of a bicameral legislature. The saying is, ``It takes two to tango.'' Well, it takes two Houses to appropriate. That has been one of our problems.

There is a lot more I would like to say about this, but I am not going to. It is time to get rid of this resolution, H. Con. Resolution 528, and allow this appropriations bill to be transmitted to the President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that we have an argument going between two gentlemen, neither of whom who had any responsibility for the problem that occurred.

The responsibility for this problem lies squarely on the shoulders of the majority party leadership because they knew that they could not bring their appropriation bills to the floor in the Senate and pass them before the election, so they created the situation in which, after the election, all of these appropriation bills were jammed together. They were then dealt with by the staff night after night. The staff worked with no sleep, and, as a result, language that should have been caught and corrected was not corrected.

That is what happens when Members do not respect the processes of the House. That is what happens when you do not give Members of the majority or minority enough time to actually know what they are doing. The House has egg on its face because the majority party leadership had an agenda on appropriation bills that precluded their ability to get votes for them in the other body until after the election. That is a sad fact as to what happened, and the way to correct this is to see that we have enough time to do our jobs, that we quit suspending the rules around here so Members have enough time to read conference reports, and we make compromises ahead of time so the House can get its appropriations work done in an orderly way. That is what has been sadly lacking over the past year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, in 1973, Congress passed the Church Amendment to protect the conscience rights of hospitals and health care providers from being forced into involvement with abortion. The amendment provides that the receipt of Federal funds in various health programs will not require hospitals or individuals to participate in abortions if they object based on moral or religious convictions. It also forbade hospitals in these programs to make, willingness or unwillingness to perform abortions a condition of employment.

Since 1973, and I think many Members know this, various conscience protections, many of which deal specifically with abortion, have been enacted into law. Unfortunately, over the years, gaps in the protection of existing law have been exploited by pro-abortion organizations which have now undertaken a nationwide campaign to require all health care providers to participate in abortion. That campaign has met with some success, and there are a number of those which I will put into the Record, including trying to compel Catholic hospitals as a condition of a merger and acquisition to provide abortions. In one case in my own State, they compelled a $2 million settlement that had to go into a trust that paid for abortions. That's outrageous. To counteract this extreme campaign--to force health care providers to participate in abortion--Federal conscience law when signed by President Bush, will now be strengthened.

The principle of the Hyde amendment was that no one should be forced to participate in abortions in any way, and that needs to be affirmed. That is what this Weldon-Hyde amendment will do. The addition of conscience protection to the Hyde amendment remedies current gaps in Federal law and promotes the right of conscientious objection by forbidding federally funded government bodies to coerce the consciences of health care providers who respect fundamentally the right to life and basic human rights for the unborn.

The Campaign To Force Hospitals to Provide Abortion

Forty-five States and the Federal Government protect the

right of health care providers to decline involvement in

abortion. Pro-abortion groups seek to abolish these legal

protections:

abortion access project

Operating in 24 States, the project's goal is ``increasing

access to abortion services by expanding . . . the number of

hospitals offering abortion services.'' The project admits

that its tactics include ``pressuring hospitals'' and it does

so through both political and legal pressure.

The ``Hospital Access Collaborative'' division reports on

the State projects' legal and regulatory interventions

challenging mergers. See www.abortionaccess.org/AAP/ campaigns/hospital/hospital.htm (accessed 09/07/03).

american civil liberties union--reproductive freedom project:

``Religious refusals and reproductive rights.''

The ACLU has published a report and advocacy kit aimed at

requiring all hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, to

provide abortions. The report argues: ``When . . .

religiously affiliated organizations move into secular

pursuits--such as providing medical care or social services

to the public or running a business--they should no longer be

insulated from secular laws. In the public world, they should

play by public rules.'' ACLU, ``Religious Refusals and

Reproductive Rights,'' January 2002, page 11, www.aclu.org/ Reproductive Rights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=10516&c=30

(accessed 09/10/03).

george gund foundation, pro-choice resource center and aclu

reproductive freedom project national meeting

``Much of the debate focused on strategy, with participants

wonder whether it was better to work toward improving and

narrowing conscience clauses or to fight to eliminate them

altogether . . . Although reproductive rights activists

should still work to improve conscientious exemptions, [ACLU

executive director Ira Glaser] said, their ultimate goal

should be getting rid of them.'' See ``Conscientious

Exemptions and Reproductive Rights,'' Executive Summary, page

10, www.prochoiceresource.org/about/CERR_Body.pdf (accessed

09/07/03).

In one session at the national meeting, the group analyzed

a same conscience protection which ``allowed hospitals, their

staffs, or `any other person' to opt out of providing

abortions, sterilizations, and contraception if they objected

to such services.'' The participants decided ``the measure

couldn't be fixed and should be opposed at all costs.'' Id.

at page 11.

Maryland NARAL Hospital Provider Project

``The goal of the Hospital Provider Project is to increase

access to abortion services by requiring Maryland hospitals

to provide abortion . . .'' www.mdnaral.org/initiatives.htm

(accessed 04/05/2002).

Planned Parenthood Federation of America

``While everyone has the right to their [sic] opinions

about reproductive health care, including . . . abortion, it

is important to remember that the conscience that matters

most belongs to the patient . . . Health care providers who

object to providing certain services still have an obligation

to respect the rights of their patients and to enable them to

access the health care they need.''

www.plannedparenthood.org/articles/exemptions.html (accessed

09/12/03).

pro-choice resource center

``Through its Spotlight Campaign, PCRC [Pro-Choice Resource

Center] organizes regional meetings to build a network of

opposition to `conscience' or patient abandonment clauses

that allow doctors, pharmacists and entire hospital systems

to deny women access to services like abortion . . .'' See

www.prochoiceresource.org/programs/rg_meet.html (accessed 09/

05/03).

``Right now, so-called `conscience' clause laws are in

place in 45 or 50 States, allowing doctors, pharmacists,

clinics, hospitals, managed care plans and even employers to

refuse to provide, or to pay for, abortion . . . The

MergerWatch program is taking action to expose and overturn

these `conscience' clauses.'' See. www.prochoice

resource.org/programs/spot.html (accessed 09/05/03).

current threats

Unfortunately, gaps in the protections of existing laws

have been exploited by proabortion organizations, which have

undertaken a nationwide campaign to require all health care

providers to participate in abortion. That campaign has met

with some success. Novel legal and administrative strategies

have resulted in:

Forcing a private community hospital to open its doors for

late-term abortions,

Denying a certificate of need to an outpatient surgical

center that declined involvement in abortion, after an

abortion rights coalition intervened in the proceedings,

Forcing a private non-sectarian hospital to leave a cost-

saving consortium, because the consortium abided by a pro-

life policy in its member hospitals,

Dismantling a hospital merger, after abortion advocates

approached a State attorney general to challenge the merger,

Pressuring a hospital to place $2 million in trust for

abortions and sterilizations before allowing the hospital to

consolidate,

Attempting to require a Catholic hospital to build an

abortion clinic and pay for abortions,

Threatening a Catholic-operated HMO with loss of State

contracts because it declines to provide abortions,

Prohibiting hospitals from ensuring that the property they

sell is not used for abortions.