Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future Act, S. 19, would help restore budget discipline and fiscal responsibility to our Nation's finances. Given the Federal budget's dramatic swing from record surplus to record deficit and debt over the last few years, it is vital that we restore the strong budget enforcement mechanisms that have worked in the past. This legislation would return us to a path of budget discipline by restoring a strong pay-go rule, reinstating sequestration to enforce pay-go and discretionary spending caps, and limiting the use of reconciliation to deficit reduction legislation. The first step we should take to put our Nation's finances back in order is to stop digging the hole deeper. Restoring a strong pay-go rule would help to do exactly that. This legislation would restore the Senate pay-as-you-go rule to require that mandatory spending and tax legislation be fully paid for, or be subject to a 60-vote point of order. Pay-go is one of the crucial budget enforcement tools that allowed the Federal Government to move from deficit to surplus in the 1990s. Unfortunately, the Senate pay-go rule has been weakened in recent years, in order to allow for passage of large tax cuts. Since then, deficits and debt have skyrocketed. In 2004, a Democratic amendment was adopted to the Senate Republican budget resolution that would have restored a strong pay-go rule requiring that both mandatory spending and tax cuts be paid for. However, the Republican leadership refused to accept a budget resolution conference agreement that contained the provision, so the budget resolution was never adopted and the strong pay-go rule was never brought into effect. The Fiscal Responsibility for a Sound Future Act would end the current practice of exempting all mandatory spending and tax cuts assumed in the budget resolution from the pay-as-you-go rule, and extend the Senate pay-go rule currently set to expire in 2008 through fiscal year 2015. The bill would also reinstate sequestration, across-the-board spending cuts, to enforce pay-go and discretionary spending limits. Legislation that exceeds fiscal year 2005 discretionary spending caps, as well as mandatory spending and tax legislation that would increase the deficit, would trigger sequesters. The bill also expresses the sense of the Senate that a statutory discretionary spending limit should be enacted for 2006 to prevent passing more debt on to our children. The bill would also limit the use of the Senate's fast-track ``reconciliation'' procedures, which cut off debate after only 20 hours, to deficit reduction legislation. Legislation that would increase the deficit could still be considered in the Senate, but could not be expedited using reconciliation procedures. This would restore reconciliation to its original purpose of deficit reduction, and ensure that any legislation increasing deficits is subject to full scrutiny, debate, and consideration in the Senate. In addition, the legislation would prohibit the fast-tracking of Congressional budget resolutions that contain a reconciliation instruction that would worsen the deficit. Any budget resolution that includes an instruction to a committee to increase the deficit would be subject to unlimited debate rather than limited to 50 hours. We must return our Nation to a path of fiscal responsibility. We must put an end to these record deficits and record debt. This legislation presents a clear test of whether we are serious about putting our fiscal house back in order. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit Extension Act. This legislation is very important for the expansion and competitiveness of the wind energy sector in North Dakota and the rest of the country. There should be no doubt that the wind energy production tax credit, PTC, is vital for the continued growth of the wind energy sector. The PTC was enacted in 1992. Delays in renewing the PTC have caused a boom- and-bust cycle in the development of new wind projects. These delays of the credit inhibit the development of a favorable and secure investment climate for wind projects and are also economically damaging as companies involved in wind energy lay off workers or put off hiring until the credit is extended. Given the long lead time required to develop new wind projects, short-term extensions of the credit do not give companies enough certainty to expand wind energy production. We need a long-term extension to provide that certainty. Wind energy is an important component of our Nation's energy portfolio. Wind is a clean source of energy that fosters economic development in rural communities. Combined with other domestic sources of energy, the use of wind energy helps reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. In addition, advanced wind energy technology could one day be an important component of a hydrogen-based economy. In order to ensure that wind power remains competitive with other fuels, passage of a longer-term wind PTC is necessary. In my home State, a long-term extension of the wind PTC is especially important. North Dakota is ranked number one in wind energy potential. As in other parts of the country, reliance on Congress to re-extend the wind PTC prevents companies tied to wind energy from adding workers and negotiating long-term contracts. In general terms, this uncertainty inflicts economic costs on communities and certain manufacturers. For North Dakota, a long-term wind PTC extension is vital to continue the development of wind energy resources that are second to none. The bill I am introducing today will extend the wind energy PTC, indexed to inflation, for five years. I believe that Congress has the responsibility to ensure that the wind energy sector in this country grows at its full potential. In my view, wind is a crucial part of our country's energy portfolio and energy security. This bill will help the wind energy industry grow and remain competitive with other types of energy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today the Senate is expected to confirm the nomination of Governor Michael Johanns of Nebraska to be the next Secretary of Agriculture. As we vote on this nomination, we should all recognize just how important this position is to America's farmers and ranchers. Beyond that, the Secretary's responsibilities touch the lives of every American consumer as well as millions of people overseas. This is a point that is being made daily as we seek to provide the needed food aid and assistance to those who have suffered such terrible losses as a result of the recent tsunami. There isn't any question that American agriculture faces significant challenges on many fronts. It is incumbent upon all of us to be the strongest advocates we can be for our producers and their communities. However, the Secretary of Agriculture is unique. The Secretary must provide national leadership and advocacy to promote a greater understanding of the important role our agricultural producers play in our own society and the world. The Secretary's role must be more than just the spokesperson for the administration on agricultural issues. In fact, I believe that one of the most important responsibilities of this position is to be an advocate within the administration to ensure our producers, consumers and rural communities are not short-changed in the domestic and international policy and political processes. Governor Johanns will have a very big job as we confront the pressures that are being placed on agriculture as a result of the budget deficit, weather related disasters, increased food safety and bio-terrorism concerns, environmental issues and opportunities related to agriculture, the economic development needs in rural America, and the level of insecurity that an increasing number of farmers, ranchers and rural main street businesses are feeling as a result of globalization. I am hopeful our new Secretary of Agriculture will provide the leadership necessary to address these issues in a way that advances the interests of all agricultural sectors while enhancing the appreciation of Americans for our agricultural heritage. Two weeks ago I supported the action of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee to advance this nomination to the full Senate with a positive recommendation. Today I offer my support for the action the Senate is about to take in confirming Governor Michael Johanns as our next Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, earlier this month, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee reported to the Senate the nomination of Margaret Spellings for confirmation as Secretary of Education. I am very pleased that the nomination was unanimously reported and I intend to vote in support of her confirmation for this important post. Over the past 4 years since passage of the No Child Left Behind, NCLB, Act, there have been--and continue to be--many questions regarding funding and implementation of the Act. During this period, promises were made to Congress, the education community and parents that adequate funding would be provided to ensure that the various requirements relating to teacher quality and accountability could be implemented without creating an additional financial burden for States and local communities. Additionally, States were assured that sufficient flexibility would be provided to States for the development and implementation of State plans to meet the requirements under NCLB. Regrettably, these two key goals have not been met. The nomination of Margate Spellings is an encouraging development regarding our national education policy. Margaret Spellings brings to this office very significant credentials, including her service as the principal education advisor to President Bush during his term as Governor of Texas. She is recognized for her expertise on education reform and has distinguished herself as Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. Additionally, Margaret Spellings played a key role in development of the No Child Left Behind Act. Most importantly, Margaret Spellings nomination represents a wonderful opportunity for the Department of Education to work more closely with Congress, States and the education community in a realistic implementation of NCLB. Congress supports the goals of improving teacher quality and ensuring that students are fully prepared upon graduation to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It's absolutely essential, however, that the Department of Education be a strong and realistic partner in the implementation of the Act. State and local officials and educators must also be assured that they will not be saddled with extraordinary unfunded mandates or regulations to comply with the act. I commend Margaret Spellings for her commitment to education and am pleased to vote in support of her confirmation as Secretary of Education. I look forward to working with her on critical education issues on a national level and to addressing the very real concerns of educators and school officials in North Dakota on teacher quality, especially the issue of highly qualified teachers and education funding. The No Child Left Behind Act must be an initiative of cooperation and partnership among all parties in the education community and the Federal Government if it is to succeed in improving education for our children.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will join many of my colleagues today in voting for the Intelligence Reform bill; however, I do so with some reservations. First, let me highlight the provisions contained in this bill that are especially important to North Dakota. The bill includes a proposal I authored that would establish a pilot project on the Northern border to enhance security through the use of advanced technologies like remote sensors, cameras, and unmanned aerial vehicles. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report recognized that the Northern border operates with only a fraction of the manpower and resources that are devoted to the Southern border, but poses no less risk for terrorists sneaking across into the United States. This project will help the border patrol in monitoring the border more effectively and efficiently. Additionally, I am pleased that the bill includes a provision directing that at least 20 percent of any increase in the number of Border Patrol agents be assigned to the northern border. Both of these provisions take a step in the right direction to improve the security of our northern border. In considering intelligence reform, I embraced the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They made a major effort to understand what happened on September 11, 2001, and to figure out how we could help prevent future attacks. This legislation never would have passed without their hard work. By adopting one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, this bill takes a major step toward improving our Counter-terrorism efforts. Establishing a National Counterterrorism Center that can both analyze the terrorist threat and do strategic planning for operations to defeat terrorists will make us safer. This bill would never have become law without the commitment of the families of the victims of the 9/11 attacks. They demanded real reform, without any further delay. We in Congress owed those families no less. Some of my colleagues today have said that this bill is the largest reform of our national security agencies since 1947. The provisions I have just mentioned are important reforms. Nevertheless, I remain concerned that creating a new Director of National Intelligence will not do enough. It still leaves too many participants with an opportunity to fail to communicate and cooperate. No one can argue against the basic rationale for creating a Director of National Intelligence. The American intelligence community has suffered from a lack of coordination and communication, as the 9/11 Commission and many other reports have outlined. This lack of coordination and communication comes in part from the absence of any one person in charge and, ultimately, accountable for the accuracy and timeliness of our intelligence. I strongly agree that we need a National Intelligence Director. But such a Director cannot improve the communication and coordination between the intelligence agencies without the full authority and resources necessary to do the job. The concern I have with this final bill is that we have maintained the CIA and all of the other intelligence agencies we had before, and added a National Intelligence Director on top. Instead of consolidating the various intelligence agencies, we have created additional boxes on an organizational chart that I fear will only create more turf battles, thereby undermining our ability to enhance and improve our intelligence capabilities. I was concerned about this issue in the Senate's intelligence reform bill. The final bill has an even weaker Director of National Intelligence. That makes me even more concerned. In my view, this bill simply does not provide the National Intelligence Director with all of the tools he needs to do the job. He will have only a very limited power to move money among the different intelligence agencies. Without strong control over the money, the Director could become just another layer of bureaucratic review. If that was the end of the story, I probably would have to vote against this bill. But I see this bill as a step in the right direction. Its authors have assured me this is a beginning. In the end, the success of the Director of National Intelligence depends on the President creating procedures that place that official at the heart of the intelligence community, with real authority and real accountability. I am counting on President Bush to do so.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague, Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon, in introducing legislation that can help seniors enjoy a more secure retirement. The good news is that Americans are living longer but it also means that people have to plan for a longer period of retirement. A successful retirement income plan is a challenge even for the savvy investor. How much more difficult is this task for the millions of Americans with limited investment experience? For years Congress has encouraged people to save for their retirement. Through the tax code, we encourage asset building through home ownership. We provide significant tax incentives for employer- based pension plans and for dedicated retirement savings programs by individuals, such as IRAs and 401(k) plans. One of the biggest threats to retirement income security for baby boomers is their own longevity. It will not be easy to manage their accumulated assets so that they will last a lifetime. Unprecedented numbers of Americans are now living into their 90s and even past 100. Today, actuaries tell us that about one in six 65-year-old men and one out of three 65-year-old women can expect to live into their 90s. Consequently, people are going to spend more time in retirement than previous generations. Over the course of the 20th century, the percentage of men in the workforce aged 65 years or older dropped from about 66 percent to less than 20 percent. Now our society confronts the impending retirement of 77 million baby boomers. Many of them will not have the guaranteed monthly retirement checks that many of their parents enjoyed as a result of employer-based pension plans. Traditional defined-benefit pension plans have given way to defined contribution plans, which have shifted the retirement income security risk from the employer to the individual. Of course, there are still many Americans who have no access at all to employer-provided pension plans. Some have never been in the traditional workforce; others work in seasonal jobs or part time. In my state of North Dakota, as well as in rural and farming communities across America, there is an acute need for retirement vehicles that will provide a secure lifetime payout. Others who could face difficulty in securing retirement income are widowed individuals--both men and women--who suddenly find themselves having to make a life insurance benefit or proceeds from the sale of a business or family home last a lifetime. The proposal we are introducing today will provide a valuable tool for helping people avoid the risk of outliving their assets. Specifically, we are proposing a tax incentive to encourage Americans to available a portion of their assets annuitize for retirement. If they annuitize--in other words, elect to receive their money from an annuity in a series of payments for the rest of their lives, no matter how long that may be--they would be able to exclude from income a portion of the annuity benefit that represents the accumulation in the annuity above and beyond the original investment. The tax benefit is capped to ensure that tax sheltering activity is not encouraged and that the incentive will be effective for people who would benefit most from securing a lifetime income stream. This proposal we offer today would apply only to life-contingent, nonqualified annuities. A life-contingent annuity that is subsequently modified to a fixed-term payout would be subject to a recapture tax. Baby boomers represent an unprecedented challenge to our retirement security policies. They should have a wide range of options available for responsible retirement planning. Our proposal focuses on non- qualified annuities because it is important to have this option considered as part of the larger retirement income security debate that Congress should have before baby boomers begin retiring in large numbers. Options for making qualified plans more secure should be part of that debate as well. I hope that the 109th Congress will tackle this matter promptly because time is short. That first wave of baby boomer retirees begins in 2008--just over 36 months from today.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend and colleague, Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon, in introducing legislation that can help seniors enjoy a more secure retirement. The good news is that Americans are living longer but it also means that people have to plan for a longer period of retirement. A successful retirement income plan is a challenge even for the savvy investor. How much more difficult is this task for the millions of Americans with limited investment experience? For years Congress has encouraged people to save for their retirement. Through the tax code, we encourage asset building through home ownership. We provide significant tax incentives for employer- based pension plans and for dedicated retirement savings programs by individuals, such as IRAs and 401(k) plans. One of the biggest threats to retirement income security for baby boomers is their own longevity. It will not be easy to manage their accumulated assets so that they will last a lifetime. Unprecedented numbers of Americans are now living into their 90s and even past 100. Today, actuaries tell us that about one in six 65-year-old men and one out of three 65-year-old women can expect to live into their 90s. Consequently, people are going to spend more time in retirement than previous generations. Over the course of the 20th century, the percentage of men in the workforce aged 65 years or older dropped from about 66 percent to less than 20 percent. Now our society confronts the impending retirement of 77 million baby boomers. Many of them will not have the guaranteed monthly retirement checks that many of their parents enjoyed as a result of employer-based pension plans. Traditional defined-benefit pension plans have given way to defined contribution plans, which have shifted the retirement income security risk from the employer to the individual. Of course, there are still many Americans who have no access at all to employer-provided pension plans. Some have never been in the traditional workforce; others work in seasonal jobs or part time. In my state of North Dakota, as well as in rural and farming communities across America, there is an acute need for retirement vehicles that will provide a secure lifetime payout. Others who could face difficulty in securing retirement income are widowed individuals--both men and women--who suddenly find themselves having to make a life insurance benefit or proceeds from the sale of a business or family home last a lifetime. The proposal we are introducing today will provide a valuable tool for helping people avoid the risk of outliving their assets. Specifically, we are proposing a tax incentive to encourage Americans to available a portion of their assets annuitize for retirement. If they annuitize--in other words, elect to receive their money from an annuity in a series of payments for the rest of their lives, no matter how long that may be--they would be able to exclude from income a portion of the annuity benefit that represents the accumulation in the annuity above and beyond the original investment. The tax benefit is capped to ensure that tax sheltering activity is not encouraged and that the incentive will be effective for people who would benefit most from securing a lifetime income stream. This proposal we offer today would apply only to life-contingent, nonqualified annuities. A life-contingent annuity that is subsequently modified to a fixed-term payout would be subject to a recapture tax. Baby boomers represent an unprecedented challenge to our retirement security policies. They should have a wide range of options available for responsible retirement planning. Our proposal focuses on non- qualified annuities because it is important to have this option considered as part of the larger retirement income security debate that Congress should have before baby boomers begin retiring in large numbers. Options for making qualified plans more secure should be part of that debate as well. I hope that the 109th Congress will tackle this matter promptly because time is short. That first wave of baby boomer retirees begins in 2008--just over 36 months from today.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. On Saturday, November 20, 2004, the American taxpayers dodged a bullet. The Congress came close, much too close, to passing legislation that would have stripped every American of their right to privacy with regard to their tax returns. The Senate averted this dangerous step, in part, because members of my staff--and one staffer in particular--came in to work on Saturday and read through more than 3,646 pages of a bill and its explanatory text. As my colleagues know, we were called to the Chamber on Saturday to debate and vote on the conference report on H.R. 4818, the Omnibus appropriations bill. This so-called ``catch-all spending'' package included nine different appropriations bills costing some $388 billion for fiscal year 2005. Many Members of Congress were familiar with some elements of the individual appropriations bills, including funding levels for programs and projects important to our States. But few, if any, Members were able to carefully analyze the bill in its entirety. Because the bill was delivered to each Senator and House Member at 6 a.m., we did not have much time to review the massive bill before we were asked to vote on it. When the bill arrived I asked members of my staff to pore over the bill, each tasked with finding and reviewing sections of the bill where they have policy expertise. It was during this effort to review the bill that one of my staff members discovered an egregious tax provision. Steve Bailey, my tax counsel on the Senate Budget Committee, reading the Transportation-Treasury section of the bill, spotted section 222 and immediately realized it was a huge problem. The paragraph read: 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 Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein. Mr. Bailey, who has worked on tax issues for more than 20 years, knew that if enacted, the provision would endanger the right and expectation of every American. This provision held the very real promise that the privacy of their tax returns could be compromised. Thanks to Mr. Bailey's close reading of the bill and his quick recognition of the negative implications of that 60-word paragraph, I was able to bring the paragraph's existence to the attention of my colleagues. Fortunately, the Senate then firmly and unanimously rejected the paragraph and demanded that the House of Representatives remove the offending language before the bill could be sent to the President's desk for his signature. At the conclusion of my remarks, I would like to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks an editorial from today's New York Times, ``Snookering the Taxpayers.'' This editorial mentions ``a sharp-eyed Democratic staff member [who] spotted the terse paragraph sitting like a toxic clam in the muck of the omnibus spending bill. . . .'' This editorial concludes with a clear understatement, ``Taxpayers can only hope someone keeps reading.'' Well, I can assure my constituents in North Dakota that my staff and I will keep on reading. But I also hope this experience will lead to a new method of doing business next year. The Senate should never again tolerate a process by which we are given a 3,600-page bill and are then asked to vote upon that bill several hours later. As my colleague from Arizona, Senator John McCain, has noted, this process is broken and it must change. I will be working with my colleagues to accomplish that goal next year. I wanted to take this opportunity to recognize and thank Mr. Steve Bailey for his outstanding work and service to me and to the Senate. This past week, his hard work made a big difference to millions of American taxpayers. The editorial follows. [From the New York Times, Nov. 24, 2004] Snookering the Taxpayers It is called a snooker clause in legislative parlance--a last-minute insert into a dense and hurried midnight bill that, if ever disclosed after passage, always leaves legislators shocked, shocked at how such an undemocratic bit of mischief ever came to be. ``No earthly idea how that got in there,'' said Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, after the impenetrable, 14-inch-thick omnibus budget bill turned out to have a provision giving Congressional chairmen and staff members entree to Americans' tax returns without regard to privacy protections. This has been a sacrosanct area ever since the Watergate scandals. Severe civil and criminal penalties were enacted after the Nixon administration's rifling of private tax returns to build the ``enemies list'' aimed at government harassment. A sharp-eyed Democratic staff member spotted the terse paragraph sitting like a toxic clam in the muck of the omnibus spending bill, a 3,000-page disgrace in its own right that capped months of Capitol procrastination. Once the provision was found, everyone felt compelled to denounce it. Senator Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican, growled that it summoned ``the dark days in our history when taxpayer information was used against political enemies.'' The Senate declared the clause void, forcing G.O.P. leaders in the House, where the gambit originated, to sheepishly follow suit. House leaders insisted there was never an intent to pry into taxpayers' lives. The goal, they said, was simply to establish better oversight of the tax collection bureaucracy. Really? Then how come anyone bothering to read the bill (and that did not include many members of Congress) could see what an outrageous license it provided for the appropriations committees to look into tax offices ``and any tax returns or return information contained therein.'' Embarrassed solons had to admit they had no idea what other dangerous items might be in the bill. Taxpayers can only hope someone keeps reading.

Mr. CONRAD

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. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

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.

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.''

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?

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. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. CONRAD. I say, in answer to my colleague, I agree with the Senator from Arizona, the system is broken. The system is completely broken when we have 3,000 pages dumped on our desk and we are told to vote in 3 hours. Now, that does not make sense. Members do not know what is in this. We find egregious provisions such as this one tucked away that people did not review, did not debate, did not discuss, did not have a chance to amend, have not had a chance to vote on, and all of a sudden it is contained in here. That cannot be.

Mr. CONRAD. First, let me answer the question of the Senator from Arizona. Am I surprised? I am not surprised there are things in here almost nobody knows about. I started out by going back to President Reagan's admonishment to us never to permit this to happen again. That was in 1988. This is 2004, and here we are again 16 years later with over 3,000 pages dumped on our desks, and we are told to vote on this in a few hours. Nobody knows what is in here. We have been scouring this bill--thank goodness some sharp-eyed aide of mine saw this little nugget. I must say, I am surprised something such as this could even get through a flawed process like this one. I am amazed we are about to pass in the Congress of the United States a provision that would allow some staffers to look at any tax return of any individual, of any company, and not have civil or criminal penalties apply to them for the release of that information. I tell you, that is serious. That is serious.

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Vermont.

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.

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?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I say to my colleague that there are discussions going on to try to resolve this matter. I think they are about to bear fruit. I just left a conversation in the cloakroom, and they were coming up with a process to try to make certain that this provision never becomes law. It sounds as though they are making progress. Before we proceed, I think we will want to have the leaders here to be able to tell the rest of us what they have arrived at.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will vote against the omnibus appropriations conference report. The bill before the Senate contains 9 appropriations bills, 7 of which were never debated, amended, or voted upon by the Senate. The bill spends $388 billion, and, together with its explanatory language, it is 3,646 pages long. Throughout the day today, I and several members of my staff have been reading and analyzing the provisions of this bill. During the examination, we discovered a particularly egregious provision. It would have allowed an agent of the chairman of the House or Senate Appropriations Committee to look at the tax return of anyone in America. And, further, it would have allowed them to release the private information contained in those returns without any civil or criminal penalty. That would have created the opportunity for an abuse of power almost unprecedented in our history. Thankfully, my staff and I were able to catch this, and after strenuous debate, the provision will be nullified. But this is an indication of how completely flawed this process has become. None of us can know what other inappropriate provisions are in this bill. There simply has not been enough time to thoroughly scour the more than 3,600 pages in this bill. There are a number of provisions in this bill that are good for North Dakota that I worked hard to have included, but it is clear to me this appropriations process is broken. Former President Ronald Reagan in his 1988 State of the Union Address told us we should not do business this way. He was right. For that reason, I am obligated to oppose this conference report.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am relieved at what has been worked out here, because this will prevent this provision from ever becoming law. This provision never should become law. It would open up the possibility and potential for abuse. I want to repeat for the record that I have no doubt Senator Stevens would never have used this provision for an untoward purpose. I feel the same way about Chairman Young. The problem was this would have become the law of the land. There will be future chairmen of the Appropriations Committee. I think we all know enough about human nature that if there is potential for abuse, abuse is likely to occur. This is a place where we could have had very serious abuse, with the opening up of people's tax records and the use of those records to punish people, or to help people, or to do other nefarious things that should never be permitted in this country. So I am relieved this will not ever become law.