An attempt by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, to add language to the omnibus spending bill in Congress to require parental consent for any mental-health screening done to children with federal money has failed.
Posted on 11/21/2004 5:21:35 PM PST by ConservativeMan55
Are you mad!!! It was a 3000 page bill. There is no way to read every line of every bill. That's why they're written the way they are. Bills are written in such verbose language so different groups can slip things in. Is took is one of the good guys, a staunch conservative.
ISTOOK PRESS RELEASE
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Micah Leydorf
November 22, 2004
202-225-2132
Further Statement by Istook Regarding Mistaken Claims About Provision in Omnibus Spending Bill
Washington, DC - Congressman Ernest Istook (R-OK), chairman of the Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee made the following statements Monday morning in reaction to mistaken claims that he included a controversial provision regarding the IRS in the omnibus spending bill.
"I want to reiterate what I said on Sunday, namely that this was not my language. I then spent most of the day tracking down what happened.
"I had nothing to do with inserting this language. I never knew what was happening until it was done. Had I known, I would have intervened to omit or to fix this provision.
"I didn't write it; I didn't approve it; I wasn't even consulted. My name shouldn't be associated with it, because I had nothing to do with it, and didn't even know about it until after the bill was done and was filed."
"We have a problem with how bills like this are put together. On occasions, appropriations staff will take the initiative to insert language they believe will be non-controversial. They do this with the approval of full committee staff, but without the knowledge or approval of subcommittee chairman like me. That is what happened in this case.
"We have a chain of command problem over whether the subcommittee staff are ultimately accountable to the full committee staff-who represent the full committee chairman-or to the subcommittee chairman. The subcommittee chairman should never be bypassed like I was in this case. I will work to fix this as part of the reorganization of the appropriations committee that will take place during the next several weeks.
"I'm satisfied that nobody intended to breach or to weaken the privacy laws that protect people's tax returns. But good intentions are no guarantee of good results."
"Our committee has responsibility for the IRS budget. That includes its personnel, facilities and equipment. This language wasn't sufficiently reviewed because it was drafted by the IRS, so our staff presumed that it was okay. The IRS drafted this language at staff request, in an effort to make it clear that our oversight duties include visiting and inspecting the huge IRS processing centers-but NOT inspecting tax returns. That was also made clear on the House floor when the omnibus bill was brought up.
"Nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized. Honest mistakes were made, but there's no conspiracy."
Well, somebody sure did:
"Hereinafter, 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 allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."
The IRS drafted this language at staff request, in an effort to make it clear that our oversight duties include visiting and inspecting the huge IRS processing centers-but NOT inspecting tax returns.
Then why did the language specifically say tax returns?
"Nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized. Honest mistakes were made, but there's no conspiracy."
What were the "honest mistakes" and what are the NAMES of those who made them?
There is another issue I'd like to hear from Istook on. Why did he not vote on this:
An attempt by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, to add language to the omnibus spending bill in Congress to require parental consent for any mental-health screening done to children with federal money has failed.
Attempt to stop mandatory mental screening fails
From the link in post #20 on the linked thread above:
"Istook" party="R" state="OK" role="legislator">IstookNot Voting
That is flat out illegal
What is what intended to do was give access without infringing on privacy laws. Basically, the same access granted to any IRS employee, and their oversight congress critters wanted the same.
It is too bad the language was written so badly, because it must be a pain in the ass for them to be granted access for oversight reasons. They will need to meet offsite someplace to do oversight.
I do wonder, how this particular language did not describe it's particular purpose? This is usually done and it was not in this case. Maybe it was meant to be a poison pill.
On the mental health screen, it is never good to alert people that a screen test is about to be given. the answers are then tainted.
Mental health screens are usually incorporated into another test. it is only a series of a few questions.
If the person knows they are being tested, they try to answer the questions with what they think the screener wants to see. It screws up the results and could even end up causing a counselor to interview the test taker because the answers are out of whack for the age group or they do not match up with other questions asked to determine insincerity..
Parents usually sign releases and waivers on a list of things at the beginning of the schools year. I would imagine that the screen will be mentioned along with the physical health permissions for the school.
A school is responsible for the health and safety of every child it has under it's roof. In view of this, I have no reason to be against a simple mental heath screen that I and probably everyone living has had and some more than once.
Being conservative does not mean you need to wear a tinfoil hat. If you don't like your kid getting drug tested or taking a simple mental heath screen, then you put my kids at risk.
Send your kid to private school and see what they do to screen students. These are different times. These times require more attention to detail.
Would those questions include ones about guns in the home? Shouldn't we find out before approving it?
If the person knows they are being tested, they try to answer the questions with what they think the screener wants to see. It screws up the results and could even end up causing a counselor to interview the test taker because the answers are out of whack for the age group or they do not match up with other questions asked to determine insincerity..
Are you saying parents shouldn't be notified about the screen?
Parents usually sign releases and waivers on a list of things at the beginning of the schools year. I would imagine that the screen will be mentioned along with the physical health permissions for the school.
Where does the Federal government get the authority to screen all public school kids for mental health?
A school is responsible for the health and safety of every child it has under it's roof. In view of this, I have no reason to be against a simple mental heath screen that I and probably everyone living has had and some more than once.
If the government screeners ask your kids intrusive questions about your home, such as guns, would you have a problem with that?
Being conservative does not mean you need to wear a tinfoil hat. If you don't like your kid getting drug tested or taking a simple mental heath screen, then you put my kids at risk.
That's a bunch of socialist bullcrap. What evidence do you have that these screenings are going to improve the mental health of kids? Do you have that much confidence in government social scientists?
LOL! That would certainly not be on a screen. If it were, it would be highly unethical.
I am aware of the stories about anti-gun doctors having a desire to ask such things, but even with them it is unethical and a total waste of time.
I have met some of these screwballs, and they don't doctor long.(usually end up at the VA where they are miserable for the rest of their careers)
I answered the rest of your rhetorical questions in my post. I suggest you keep that crap confined to the gun threads where insecurity seems the rule rather than the exception.
I am a gun owner and totally secure in my beliefs that the 2nd will survive. I also don't mind people or authorities knowing that I own a gun. In fact, they do! I want them to know!It is always assumed anyway.
I don't even have a clue what is eating you and others about this. I saw the same BS when a car rental agency wanted finger prints for ID.
The reactions to these things just amaze me. It looks like a Bircher convention on this forum at times. Amazing!
Gotta go, I have a CFR meeting............:-)
Think I'll end it on that note of agreement.
An attempt by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, to add language to the omnibus spending bill in Congress to require parental consent for any mental-health screening done to children with federal money has failed.
The passive voice is Satan's gift to weasels.
"The Constitution is a Living Document" has gotten shopworn, and so the left needs a new catchphrase. I suppose that will do as well as any.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.