[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S389-S391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 2075. A bill to close unjustified corporate tax loopholes, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Conrad and
others, I am introducing S. 2075, the Cut Unjustified Tax Loopholes
Act, or CUT Loopholes Act. This legislation will help us meet three
important goals: Reducing the budget deficit, protecting important
priorities, and restoring some of the fairness to our tax system.
Our legislation would reduce the deficit by $155 billion. It would do
so by closing tax loopholes that favor wealthy individuals and
corporations while raising the tax burden that American families must
carry. It would provide more than enough revenue to pay for a full-year
extension of the payroll tax cut now in place, or put a significant
dent in the deficit reduction we need to avoid draconian automatic cuts
through sequestration.
It is clear to almost everyone that revenue must be a part of our
deficit reduction strategy. Presidents from Reagan to Bush, Sr. to
Clinton have used balanced strategies that included revenue as well as
spending cuts.
I will continue to fight for a number of other revenue measures such
as a surtax on millionaires and billionaires; eliminating tax subsidies
for oil and gas companies; ending the Bush-era tax cuts for those
earning more than $250,000; and ending the carried interest loophole.
We need to make those changes. But so far, they have run into an
ideological brick wall, as many here in Congress refuse to consider
reasonable revenue measures. But even that rigid ideological stance
should allow for ending the kinds of egregious loopholes we are
discussing today.
First is offshore tax haven abuse. The Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, which I chair, has spent years shedding light on how
these abuses aid the wealthy and corporations. Based in part on S.
1346, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, our bill would, in part: Give
Treasury the authority to combat tax haven banks and jurisdictions that
help U.S. clients hide assets and dodge U.S. taxes; crack down on
offshore corporations that are managed from the U.S. from claiming
foreign status to dodge taxes; eliminate tax incentives for moving U.S.
jobs overseas or for transferring intellectual property offshore; and
establish the presumption that, unless a taxpayer proves otherwise, a
corporation formed by, receiving assets from, or benefiting a U.S.
taxpayer is considered under that taxpayer's control for tax purposes.
These provisions and others would reduce the deficit by at least $130
billion over 10 years.
Our bill's second focus is on a tax loophole that subsidizes
corporations giving stock options to corporate executives. Today,
corporations can take massive tax deductions for stock options, but
usually show much lower expense on their books. Our subcommittee found
that from 2005-2009, this loophole allowed excess tax deductions
ranging from $12 billion to as high as $61 billion in a single year.
The CUT Loopholes Act would prevent corporate income tax deductions
for stock options that exceed the expense shown on company books. It
would preserve current tax treatment for individuals receiving options
and
[[Page S390]]
for incentive stock options used by start-up companies.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, these measures would
reduce the deficit by $25 billion over 10 years.
The time for these measures is now.
First, the math is inescapable. We can't reduce the deficit and do
other important things--protect our country, care for our seniors,
educate our young--if tax revenue remains at its lowest level in
decades, and if the effective corporate tax rate is at historic lows,
thanks in part to these and other tax loopholes.
Second, there is a growing recognition among Americans that loopholes
like these and many others leave the deck stacked against them and
their families. Overwhelmingly Americans tell us: Close those loopholes
down.
Third, this is not just a realization by Democrats. Strong majorities
of Independents and Republicans say that we need balanced deficit
reduction, and that closing loopholes is one way to do that. Just this
week, a national poll showed that 90 percent of small business owners--
a majority of them Republicans--believe big corporations use loopholes
to avoid taxes that small businesses still have to pay.
Reducing the deficit and protecting important programs is hard. We
face many tough decisions and difficult fights in the months ahead.
But this decision should be easy. We should close these loopholes and
make a bipartisan statement that we can reduce the deficit, serve
important priorities, and restore fairness to the tax code.
______
By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. Boozman, and Ms. Klobuchar):
S. 2076. A bill to improve security at State and local courthouses;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, Sue Lantto is an advocate of victims of
domestic violence. She often visits a local courthouse in suburban
Minneapolis to help her clients obtain protective orders. Last month,
she wrote an editorial in which she acknowledged that ``[m]ost of us
who work at the courthouse have had moments when we were frightened''
because cases sometimes ``become volatile.''
Patricia Buss handles family court matters in Dakota County, MN. She
says she ``personally think[s] of the risks every time [she] walk[s]
into the courthouses.''
John Baker is an attorney in Maplewood, MN. He is also a retired
marine. He concurs with Sue and Patricia. He says:
I am not saying that we need to create fortresses in our
courthouses, but basic security screening and training can go
a long way. That is not being done.
The local courthouse is a workplace for many people, for secretaries,
custodians, and clerks who clock in and clock out every day. It is also
where justice is administered. It is where we report for jury duty and
fight traffic tickets. It is where adoptions are processed, divorces
are finalized, and misdemeanors are adjudicated. But as Sue, Patricia
and John explained, local courthouses can be dangerous places--stakes
are high, tempers flare, victims confront their assailants, defendants
confront their accusers, prosecutors argue with defense lawyers. A rash
of incidents in late 2011 raised concerns about security at local
courthouses, especially in rural and suburban communities.
In September, a defendant opened fire in the Crawford County
Courthouse in Arkansas, shooting a judge's secretary. Authorities
reported the gunman entered the courthouse unopposed, wearing tactical
gear, armed with semiautomatic weapons. The local newspaper later noted
the shooting ``highlighted the vulnerability of the state's many small,
rural courthouses where the guards, armed police and metal detectors
common in large cities are often too expensive.''
Two days later, there was a shooting in the Adams County Superior
Court in Indiana. According to media accounts, that courthouse did not
have a metal detector either. A local judge observed that there were
``a lot of security problems here that need to be corrected'' and that
the shooting ``really drove home the point that things need to
change.''
Then, in December, a defendant retrieved a gun from his car and
walked into the Cook County Courthouse in Grand Marais, MN. The
courthouse did not have a metal detector and the gunman was not
screened. He shot and wounded the prosecuting attorney and a witness.
The bailiff also was injured during the encounter. After the shooting,
a Minnesota judge wrote to his colleagues expressing concerns about
courthouse security. He put the issue very well. He said: ``I'm no
longer willing to risk my life, the life of court staff, the life of
the public who have no choice about going to court.'' He said he was
worried about being ``carried out in a body bag.''
These are not isolated incidents. The Center for Judicial and
Executive Security in St. Paul tracks court-targeted acts of violence
across the Nation and estimates there were 23 such incidents at local
courthouses in 2010 and 2011 or about 1 per month. This is not the
first time we have confronted this issue in Minnesota. A few years ago,
a man took hostages at the courthouse in Morrison County. After the
shooting in Grand Marais, in December, a local sheriff recalled that
``[t]here were a lot of heroes who really averted something much more
serious.''
I am grateful for those heroes. Minnesota's sheriffs and law
enforcement personnel across our Nation are among them. These brave men
and women have many duties, including the daunting task of keeping our
local courthouses safe. In fact, the National Sheriffs Association sent
me a letter last week. I think it is worth noting, so let me read it.
Sheriffs are typically responsible for the safety and
security of the local courthouses in their counties--along
with performing traditional law enforcement duties and
operating the local jails. Sadly, in recent years, there has
been a spike in violent incidents in courthouses across the
country. This violence places law enforcement, judicial
personnel, and the general public in harm's way. As such, it
is imperative that sheriffs have the resources, particularly
in rural areas where resources are extremely limited, to
ensure courthouses have the appropriate equipment and tools
necessary to improve security, enabling for the protection of
courthouses throughout the United States.
Our sheriffs need support, and we should not wait for the next
courthouse shooting before we give it to them. That is why today I am
introducing the bipartisan Local Courthouse Safety Act. It does three
simple, commonsense things.
First, the bill cuts through bureaucratic redtape, giving local
courts direct access to security equipment that Federal agencies no
longer are using. This provision is modeled after a Defense Department
program that allows the Pentagon to give its excess equipment to local
police and firefighters. The Local Courthouse Safety Act would do the
same thing for local courts. It would give them direct access to the
Federal Government's excess metal detectors, wands, and baggage
screening machines.
Second, the Local Courthouse Safety Act gives States the flexibility
they need to make investments in courthouse security. It clarifies that
States may use their Byrne Justice Assistance grants, the Byrne JAG
grants, and State Homeland Security grants to improve safety at local
courthouses. The bill does not require any new spending, and it does
not impose any new mandates on anyone. It simply says that States can
use existing Federal resources for courthouse security upgrades if they
so choose.
Finally, the Local Courthouse Safety Act provides statutory
authorization for the Justice Department's VALOR Initiative, which
provides training and technical assistance to local law enforcement
officers teaching them how to anticipate and survive violent
encounters.
This is a bipartisan issue, and this should be legislation we can
pass even in this divided Congress. I am proud to introduce this
legislation with Senator Boozman, my Republican colleague from
Arkansas, and a champion for law enforcement personnel in his State and
across the country. I encourage my colleagues from both sides of the
aisle to join Senator Boozman and me in advancing this bill. In doing
so, they will join a long and growing list of groups who support it,
including the National Sheriffs Association, the Conference of Chief
Justices, and the Conference of State Court Administrators.
[[Page S391]]
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. 2076
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 ``Local Courthouse Safety Act
of 2012''.
SEC. 2. PROVIDING LOCAL COURTHOUSES WITH SECURITY TRAINING
AND ASSESSMENTS.
The Attorney General, as part of the Preventing Violence
Against Law Enforcement and Ensuring Officer Resilience and
Survivability Initiative (VALOR) of the Department of
Justice, may provide safety training and technical assistance
to local law enforcement agencies.
SEC. 3. IMPROVING FLEXIBILITY OF STATES TO USE GRANTS TO
PROTECT COURTHOUSES.
(a) State Homeland Security Grant Program.--Section 2008(a)
of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 609(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (12), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (13) as paragraph (14); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (12) the following:
``(13) improving security at courthouses of a State or
local government; and''.
(b) Byrne Grants.--Section 501(a)(1)(B) of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3751(a)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting ``, including programs
to improve security at courthouses'' before the period.
SEC. 4. IMPROVING ACCESS OF LOCAL COURTHOUSES TO EXCESS
FEDERAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 40,
United States Code, is amended by adding after section 529
the following:
``Sec. 530. Excess security equipment
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `excess security equipment' means excess
property that is used to detect weapons, including metal
detectors, wands, and baggage screening devices; and
``(2) the term `qualifying State or local courthouse' means
a courthouse of a State or local government that has less
security equipment than the security needs of the courthouse
require.
``(b) Disposal of Excess Security Equipment.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subchapter, the Administrator of General Services shall
ensure that a State or local government has an opportunity to
request to receive excess security equipment for use at a
qualifying State or local courthouse before the excess
security equipment is made available to any other individual
or entity under this subchapter.
``(2) Disposal.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), upon
request by a State or local government for excess security
equipment for use at a qualifying State or local courthouse,
the excess security equipment shall be made available to the
State or local government without cost, except for any costs
of care and handling.
``(B) Multiple requests.--If more than 1 State or local
government requests a particular piece of excess security
equipment, the excess security equipment shall be distributed
based on need, as determined by the Administrator of General
Services, with priority given to a qualifying State or local
courthouse that has no security equipment.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 5 of title 40, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 529
the following:
``530. Excess security equipment.''.
____________________