[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 132 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5460-S5462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JOHANNS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Lugar, Mr. 
        Boozman, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Paul, Mr. Johnson of Wisconsin, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
        Enzi, Mr. Moran, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. 
        Chambliss, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mrs. McCaskill):
  S. 1528. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to limit regulation of 
nuisance dust in areas in which that dust is regulated under State, 
tribal, or local law, to establish a temporary prohibition against 
revising any national ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse 
particulate matter, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor many times, as 
we all do, to discuss issues that are important to our States, in my 
case the State of Nebraska, on issues that are important for our 
Nation. Many times those comments deal with what seems to be the 
constant regulatory assault on our Nation's job creators.
  In meetings across Nebraska--and I did 15 townhall meetings in 
August--the second and third questions I often got, if not the very 
first, concerned the regulatory burden our Federal agencies are placing 
on our job creators.
  This administration has generated nothing short of a mountain of 
redtape, including hundreds of new regulations. Of these, at least 219 
have been categorized as significant. What that means is they will cost 
more than $100 million per year, $100 million taken out of our economy 
to finance regulation. The administration doesn't even dispute the 
mountain of redtape, nor does it dispute the size of the mountain that 
is created.
  In a letter from the President to Speaker Boehner, the White House 
identified seven regulations on its agenda, each costing not $100 
million but at least $1 billion per year. These costs take important 
capital out of our economy. These costs weigh on our job creators. 
These costs punish the little guy, and there is no doubt about it.
  This mountain is so massive, the administration has had to expand the 
Federal workforce itself to write the regulations and to enforce them. 
Employment at Federal agencies is up 13 percent since President Obama 
took office.
  With unemployment in excess of 9 percent, and underemployment greater 
than that, this administration is expanding the size of government to 
fuel more job-suppressing restrictions, and it makes no sense. It makes 
no sense to me as an individual Senator, but it makes no sense to the 
people of Nebraska.
  For this reason, I am introducing legislation with the senior Senator 
from Arizona to press the pause button on this massive wave of redtape 
before it engulfs our very economy.
  Our legislation is very straightforward. It says: Our small 
businesses are getting crushed; our citizens can't find jobs. Freeze 
the regulatory onslaught through 2013.
  But our work simply cannot stop there. We also need some targeted 
regulatory reforms to rein in government bureaucracies that are simply 
out of control. Thus, I will also be introducing two other pieces of 
additional legislation today to help temper the endless quest for 
additional power, jurisdiction and, therefore, regulation.
  The first one would close a loophole that allows agencies to grab 
power

[[Page S5461]]

without opportunity for Congressional review.
  Under the current state of the law, the Congressional Review Act 
permits Congress to use special procedures to step in and to disapprove 
of agency rules. However, in this administration, agencies have 
recently chosen to use what they call ``guidance documents'' instead of 
rules to achieve their policy preferences and to expand their power.
  I am troubled by this trend because their efforts appear to 
deliberately and intentionally circumvent American law specifically 
crafted to protect citizens from aggressive bureaucracies. We have an 
example, but there are many. I wish to use this one.
  I am talking about a guidance document issued jointly by EPA and the 
Army Corps of Engineers on May 2 of this year. It is very recent. The 
guidance documents's goal is clear--to expand Federal power over 
waterways.
  But don't take my word for it. According to the EPA's own analysis, 
the guidance would significantly expand the waters of the United States 
subject to Federal control and regulation.
  The Midwestern Farm Bureau has said the guidance ``defines 
jurisdiction in the broadest way possible.''
  This is a page straight out of this administration's playbook. If 
their policy goal is rejected by Congress, they use their regulatory 
power to accomplish their agenda any way they can. Stretch the law, 
ignore the law, claim that the statute is too ambiguous, circumvent it, 
put out a guidance document to interpret it. That is exactly what they 
are doing. We have seen this playbook used over and over by this 
administration and its Federal agencies.
  They should have gotten the message after an unsuccessful attempt 
during the last Congress to vastly expand their jurisdiction over 
virtually all waters, from irrigation ditches to farm ponds. But like a 
child that hears ``no'' from his parents, they jumped ahead, the 
administration went ahead anyway through this guidance document.
  As the North Dakota Farm Bureau president described it, the EPA's 
guidance is an end run around Congress, and I am quoting:

       If you can't get what you want with Congress' blessing, 
     make an end-run around them. That seems to be what is 
     happening here. And make no mistake. If this guidance is 
     adopted, EPA could regulate any or all waters found within a 
     State, no matter how small or seemingly unconnected to a 
     Federal interest.

  The agencies could not convince Congress to change the law. So now 
what is happening? The same goal is being pursued in a different way 
that bypasses us. Notably, both the House and the Senate have expressed 
strong concern about this guidance document. Twenty Senators sent a 
letter noting that it represents a dramatic expansion of Federal power 
over private land.
  In another letter, 41 Senators asserted that making changes to the 
scope of the agency's activities through guidance instead of through 
rulemaking is ``fundamentally unfair.'' This letter requested the 
agencies ``abandon any further action on this guidance document.'' This 
is a very significant concern. This guidance document also has shown us 
that there is a huge loophole through which agencies can circumvent the 
rulemaking process in its entirety, as well as circumventing 
congressional intent in order to expand Federal power.
  The legislation I introduced today closes the loophole. It amends the 
Congressional Review Act to cover both traditional rules and guidance 
documents--no more end run around Congress. Consequently, agencies 
would be on notice that the loophole through which they intend to 
circumvent our will and the will of the American public is now a closed 
door. In other words, citizens would have another layer of protection 
from agencies seeking to unfairly expand Federal jurisdiction.
  Finally, today I am introducing the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention 
Act. Farmers and ranchers across this Nation are concerned about the 
EPA's efforts to regulate dust. Despite what the administrator is 
saying in farm country, EPA is still in the midst of their review of 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter or, 
put simply, ``farm dust.'' In rural America, farm dust is a fact of 
life. I grew up on a farm. It is dusty there. We kick it up while 
driving on unpaved roads or working in farm fields. Farm dust has long 
been considered to have no health concern at ambient levels. However, 
EPA is considering bringing down the hammer by ratcheting down that 
standard to a level that would be economically devastating for many in 
our rural areas. That defies common sense.
  To restore common sense to these burdensome job-threatening 
regulations and to give certainty to rural America, I am introducing 
this legislation. The bill simply says no to EPA regulating dust in 
rural America. Yet it maintains the protections of the Clean Air Act to 
public health. It provides immediate certainty to farmers in rural 
areas by preventing revision of the current dust standard for a year. 
Afterward, EPA could regulate farm dust but only if they followed a 
scientific standard. First, they would need to show scientific evidence 
of substantial adverse health effects caused by dust. Thus far, the 
strongest the EPA can conjure up in terms of science is to say it is 
``uncertain.'' Second, EPA would need to show that the benefit of 
additional regulation outweighs economic costs. These are commonsense 
standards. Yet the EPA has unfortunately been unable to see the light, 
making this legislation necessary.
  These are three commonsense regulatory reforms that are sorely 
needed: a 2-year moratorium on job-constraining regulations; No. 2, 
making agency guidance documents subject to a simple up-or-down vote by 
Congress; and stopping the ill-advised farm dust regulation. They would 
provide much certainty and relief for our Nation's job creators and our 
American workers.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor these important efforts. I urge the 
White House to support us. The runaway train of regulation is weighing 
down on America's ingenuity and job creation. It is time to unshackle 
American workers with these commonsense reforms.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President I congratulate the Senator from Nebraska 
on his typically commonsense, reasonable presentation about how we 
might take steps to deal with the smothering regulations that are 
putting a big wet blanket on job growth in this country, and the idea 
of a timeout to stop the avalanche of new regulations makes sense. Farm 
dust--the idea of regulating farm dust makes no sense. Slowing down the 
ability of Federal agencies to get around the regulatory process by 
issuing guidance, that is commonsense. These are three sensible steps 
that would help create an environment that would make it easier and 
cheaper for job creators to create private sector jobs in this country 
and I congratulate the Senator from Nebraska for his comments.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
  S. 1534. A bill to prevent identity theft and tax fraud; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today I am filing legislation 
aimed at stopping criminals from filing fraudulent tax returns with 
stolen Social Security numbers.
  Specifically, the bill unveiled today would make it a felony 
punishable by as much as five years in Federal prison and/or a fine of 
no less than $25,000 for using another's Social Security number or 
other identifiable information to file a federal tax return and 
increases penalties for negligent or reckless disclosure of taxpayer 
information by tax preparers; require the IRS to develop a nationwide 
PIN system in which identity theft victims can receive a pin number to 
put on their tax return; and, allow identity theft victims to ``opt-
out'' of electronic filing of their Federal tax returns; protect Social 
Security numbers of deceased taxpayers by restricting public access to 
the records; direct an investigation by the Treasury Inspector General 
for Tax Administration to examine the role of prepaid debt cards and 
commercial tax software in facilitating fraudulent tax refunds; and 
permanently extend the information-sharing authority between the IRS 
and Federal and state correction authorities needed to prevent inmate 
tax fraud and require the agency to work specifically with state and 
local law enforcement officials on criminal investigative matters that 
involve violations at Federal and State or local level.

[[Page S5462]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1534

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Identify Theft and Tax Fraud 
     Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR USING A FALSE IDENTITY IN 
                   CONNECTION WITH TAX FRAUD.

       (a) In General.--Section 7207 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Any person who willfully'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(a) In General.--Any person who willfully'',
       (2) by striking ``Any person required'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b) Information in Connection With Certain Exempt 
     Organizations.--Any person required'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Misappropriation of Identity.--Any person who 
     knowingly or willfully misappropriates another person's tax 
     identification number in connection with any list, return, 
     account, statement, or other document submitted to the 
     Secretary shall be fined not less than $25,000 ($200,000 in 
     the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 
     years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to returns and information submitted after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. INCREASED PENALTY FOR IMPROPER DISCLOSURE OR USE OF 
                   INFORMATION BY PREPARERS OF RETURNS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6713(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$250'' and inserting ``$1,000'', and
       (2) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$50,000''.
       (b) Criminal Penalty.--Section 7216(a) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$1,000'' and 
     inserting ``$100,000''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to disclosures or uses after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. PIN SYSTEM FOR PREVENTION OF IDENTITY THEFT TAX 
                   FRAUD.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury (or 
     the Secretary's delegate) shall implement an identify theft 
     tax fraud prevention program under which--
       (1) a person who has filed an identity theft affidavit with 
     the Secretary may elect--
       (A) to be provided with a unique personal identification 
     number to be included on any Federal tax return filed by such 
     person, or
       (B) to prevent the processing of any Federal tax return 
     submitted in an electronic format by a person purporting to 
     be such person, and
       (2) the Secretary will provide additional identity 
     verification safeguards for the processing of any Federal tax 
     return filed by a person described in paragraph (1) in cases 
     where a unique personal identification number is not included 
     on the return.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 
                   APPROPRIATIONS TO USE FOR TAX FRAUD 
                   ENFORCEMENT.

       For any fiscal year, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 
     may transfer not more than $10,000,000 to the ``Enforcement'' 
     account of the Internal Revenue Service from amounts 
     appropriated to other Internal Revenue Service accounts. Any 
     amounts so transferred shall be used solely for the purposes 
     of preventing and resolving potential cases of tax fraud.

     SEC. 6. LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT LIAISON.

       (a) Establishment.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue 
     shall establish within the Criminal Investigation Division of 
     the Internal Revenue Service the position of Local Law 
     Enforcement Liaison.
       (b) Duties.--The Local Law Enforcement Liaison shall--
       (1) coordinate the investigation of tax fraud with State 
     and local law enforcement agencies;
       (2) communicate the status of tax fraud cases involving 
     identity theft, and
       (3) carry out such other duties as delegated by the 
     Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

     SEC. 7. REPORT ON TAX FRAUD.

       Subsection (a) of section 7803 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Annual report on tax fraud.--The Commissioner shall 
     submit to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Ways and Means of the House or Representatives 
     an annual report detailing--
       ``(A) the number of reports of tax fraud and suspected tax 
     fraud received from State and local law enforcement agencies 
     in the preceding year, and
       ``(B) the actions taken in response to such reports.''.

     SEC. 8. STUDY ON THE USE OF PREPAID DEBIT CARDS AND 
                   COMMERCIAL TAX PREPARATION SOFTWARE IN TAX 
                   FRAUD.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a 
     study to examine the role of prepaid debit cards and 
     commercial tax preparation software in facilitating 
     fraudulent tax returns through identity theft.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives a report 
     with the results of the study conducted under subsection (a), 
     together with any recommendations.

     SEC. 9. RESTRICTION ON ACCESS TO THE DEATH MASTER FILE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall not 
     disclose information contained on the Death Master File to 
     any person with respect to any individual who has died at any 
     time during the calendar year in which the request for 
     disclosure is made or the succeeding calendar year unless 
     such person is certified under the program established under 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Certification Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall establish 
     a program to certify persons who are eligible to access the 
     information described in subsection (a) contained on the 
     Death Master File.
       (2) Certification.--A person shall not be certified under 
     the program established under paragraph (1) unless the 
     Secretary determines that such person has a legitimate fraud 
     prevention interest in accessing the information described in 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Imposition of Penalty.--Any person who is certified 
     under the program established under subsection (b), who 
     receives information described in subsection (a), and who 
     during the period of time described in subsection (a)--
       (1) discloses such information to any other person, or
       (2) uses any such information for any purpose other than to 
     detect or prevent fraud,
     shall pay a penalty of $1,000 for each such disclosure or 
     use, but the total amount imposed under this subsection on 
     such a person for any calendar year shall not exceed $50,000.
       (d) Exemption From Freedom of Information Act Requirement 
     With Respect to Certain Records of Deceased Individuals.--
       (1) In general.--The Social Security Administration shall 
     not be compelled to disclose to any person who is not 
     certified under the program established under section 9(b) 
     the information described in section 9(a).
       (2) Treatment of information.--For purposes of section 552 
     of title 5, United States Code, this section shall be 
     considered a statute described in subsection (b)(3)(B) of 
     such section 552.

     SEC. 10. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO DISCLOSE CERTAIN RETURN 
                   INFORMATION TO PRISON OFFICIALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6103(k)(10) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subparagraph (D).
       (b) Report From Federal Bureau of Prisons.--Not later than 
     6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     head of the Federal Bureau of Prisons shall submit to 
     Congress a detailed plan on how it will use the information 
     provided from the Secretary of Treasury under section 
     6103(k)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 
     prison tax fraud.
       (c) Sense of Senate Regarding State Prison Authorities.--It 
     is the sense of the Senate that the heads of State agencies 
     charged with the administration of prisons should --
       (1) develop plans for using the information provided by the 
     Secretary of Treasury under section 6103(k)(10) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce prison tax fraud, and
       (2) coordinate with the Internal Revenue Service with 
     respect to the use of such information.

     SEC. 11. TREASURY REPORT ON INFORMATION SHARING BARRIERS WITH 
                   RESPECT TO IDENTITY THEFT.

       (a) Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury (or the 
     Secretary's delegate) shall review whether current federal 
     tax laws and regulations related to the confidentiality and 
     disclosure of return information prevent the effective 
     enforcement of local, State, and federal identity theft 
     statutes. The review shall consider whether greater 
     information sharing between the Internal Revenue Service and 
     State and local law enforcement authorities would improve the 
     enforcement of criminal laws at all levels of government.
       (2) Consultation.--In conducting the review under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall solicit the views of, and consult 
     with, State and local law enforcement officials.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     with the results of the review conducted under subsection 
     (a), along with any legislative recommendations, to the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways 
     and Means of the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________