[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 159 (Tuesday, December 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13505-S13506]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BAUCUS:
  S. 2092. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
authorize review by the Joint Committee on Tax of Federal income tax 
returns of United States Supreme Court nominees, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Greek philosopher Plato warned, ``where there is an 
income tax, the just man will pay more, and the unjust man will pay 
less on the same amount of income.'' This phrase is telling.
  The way people fill out their tax returns is an important window into 
their private ethical conduct. And it is a good barometer of their 
integrity, character, and suitability for office. Paying one's fair 
share of the tax burden is one of an American's most important 
patriotic duties. Americans from all walks of life pay their taxes out 
of obligation and fidelity to their country. Isn't it fair to know 
whether individuals who have been nominated for lifetime positions to 
the highest court in the land have faithfully paid their taxes?
  The legislation that I introduce today, The Supreme Court Tax 
Accountability Act of 2005, would require that nominees to the Supreme 
Court--including Judge Samuel Alito--provide 3 years of tax returns for 
an independent review to ensure compliance with the law. Specifically, 
the legislation would require the nonpartisan Joint Committee on 
Taxation to review a Supreme Court nominee's returns and report on the 
nominee's tax compliance to the Judiciary and Finance Committees. The 
bill does not extend the power to inspect tax returns to any persons 
who do not currently

[[Page S13506]]

have such authority. And the bill ensures that private taxpayer 
information is not shared unscrupulously. Certainly, these returns 
would not be released to the public.
  This approach has precedent. Thirty years ago, Supreme Court Justice 
William O. Douglas retired from the bench. Within days, President Ford 
nominated John Paul Stevens for the vacancy. The President hoped that 
the nomination of a moderate who had been given the American Bar 
Association's highest rating would help restore confidence in 
government in the wake of the Watergate scandals. As the confirmation 
hearings drew near, six members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote 
Chairman Eastland requesting ``the most thorough practicable 
investigation of the nominee.'' The Senators' letter requested full 
disclosure of Stevens' personal health and finances, including a 
complete and thorough review of his Federal and state tax returns. 
Stevens promptly complied.

  When the full Senate took up the nomination, Chairman Eastland urged 
the confirmation of Stevens saying, ``his personal integrity, as 
reflected in his financial statements and income tax returns, is of the 
highest order.'' The Senate confirmed Stevens by a vote of 98 to 0 and 
he took the oath of office 2 days later at the age of 55.
  Washington is now under a similar ethical cloud. But the White House 
has resisted my efforts to have the Joint Committee on Taxation review 
the tax returns of Chief Justice John Roberts, Ms. Harriet Miers, and 
Judge Samuel Alito. The administration's decision to put its Supreme 
Court nominees' tax returns off limits is consistent with its penchant 
for secrecy.
  Its refusal to heed this most basic document request, however, is a 
barrier to the rigorous due diligence process required for prospective 
Government officials that come before the Senate Committee on Finance. 
All nominees, from Cabinet secretaries to Tax Court judges, have their 
tax returns scrutinized. On more than one occasion, the Finance 
Committee has admonished the administration for failing to do a better 
job of determining a candidate's compliance with the tax laws. In some 
cases, tax issues have contributed to the withdrawal of nominees who 
were before the Senate.
  Despite these warnings and withdrawals, the administration still 
doesn't do a particularly good job of catching nominees' tax problems. 
Therefore, it is vital to the constitutional process of advice and 
consent for the Senate to have the information necessary to ensure 
fitness to serve. The Senate must not rely on the executive branch to 
provide oversight.
  Finally, I am introducing this bill today to apply to all nominees--
those nominated by Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents. 
Careful oversight of nominees to the highest Court in the land should 
not be a partisan issue. It was Ronald Reagan who famously said, 
``trust, but verify.'' This bill aims to embody President Reagan's 
maxim. Trust in government is an issue that Republicans, Democrats, and 
Independents value.
  The noted Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis said that ``secrecy 
necessarily breeds suspicion.'' The American people have a right to 
know that public officials--particularly those appointed for life--have 
faithfully and fully paid their taxes. Blocking Congressional access to 
Supreme Court nominees' returns creates questions that can breed public 
distrust in government. Providing access to those returns can help to 
provide the transparency and trust Americans deserve in the Supreme 
Court nomination process. I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to get this bill enacted.
                                 ______