[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 138 (Tuesday, August 3, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5701-S5706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       INVESTING IN A NEW VISION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND SURFACE 
                TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICA ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to start by wishing our friend and 
colleague Senator Lindsey Graham a speedy recovery. Yesterday, Senator 
Graham shared that he had tested positive for COVID-19. We are all 
relieved to hear his symptoms are mild, and we look forward to seeing 
him back in the Chamber once he recovers.
  I hope everyone at home follows Senator Graham's example by getting 
vaccinated. In Senator Graham's words, ``[W]ithout vaccination, I am 
certain I would not feel as well as I do now.''
  The Delta variant is no joke. COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations are 
surging across America, and they are surging the most in those parts of 
the country where large numbers of people are unvaccinated.
  Over 90 percent of the most recent infections, hospitalizations, and 
deaths are among people who were not vaccinated. The good news is, 
vaccinations are starting to trend upward. Thanks to the leadership of 
the President and the urging of many health professionals, as of 
yesterday, it has been reported that 70 percent of adults have received 
at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. That is an important milestone. 
Our Nation is slowly, slowly headed in the right direction, but we need 
to pick up the pace.
  Experts say that more than 80 percent of the population needs to get 
vaccinated before we can start anticipating herd immunity. So please 
listen to my friend Senator Graham's advice and get vaccinated. It will 
save your life as well as the lives of those you love.


                   DC Metropolitan Police Department

  Mr. President, on another matter, yesterday we received word that a 
fourth police officer who responded to the January 6 insurrection here 
in the Capitol has died by suicide.
  Officer Gunther Hashida was a member of the DC Metropolitan Police 
Department, and he was a hero. I also want to note that hours after 
Officer Hashida's death was announced, the Metropolitan Police 
Department confirmed that another officer, Kyle DeFreytag, died by 
suicide last month.
  As we all witnessed last week, many of the Capitol and Metropolitan 
Police officers who defended us--defended us--and the Capitol on 
January 6 are still grappling with the physical and emotional trauma of 
that day. We have to do everything we can to support them, from 
providing access to mental and emotional support to ensuring that 
everyone who bears responsibility from the January 6 insurrection is 
held accountable. It is my understanding that 600 people have already 
been charged with wrongdoing for what occurred on that day, and many 
more will be charged.
  The supplemental funding package that the Senate passed last week was 
a good starting point. To deny what January 6 was about is literally 
adding insult to injury for those officers--brave officers--who 
defended us. They deserve better. They deserve justice, and we deserve 
the truth.
  To the friends and families of Officers Hashida and DeFreytag, we are 
so sorry for your loss. We grieve with you. We will honor their memory.
  To all of the other police officers and National Guard members who 
defended the Capitol on January 6, despite what you hear from some of 
the politicians in Congress, we thank you, and we appreciate your valor 
and your sacrifice.
  Earlier this morning, Senators Klobuchar and Blunt introduced a 
bipartisan resolution to award these heroes the Congressional Gold 
Medal. I am proud to support that effort.


                       Clean Water Infrastructure

  Mr. President, on one more topic, ``forever chemicals.'' It is a 
phrase that sounds ambiguous and ominous. Some of these pollutants--
known as PFAS chemicals--are used in cleaning supplies, stain-resistant 
clothing, cosmetics, polishes, waxes, and the kind of foam that 
firefighters use to fight fires.
  And although they have their practical applications, these ``forever 
chemicals'' present a major problem: They don't go away. They don't 
break down. Once they are introduced into the environment, they stick 
around forever.
  A growing body of research suggests that ``forever chemicals'' are 
linked to a whole host of human health complications: cancer, kidney 
disease, liver damage, birth defects. Sadly, it is estimated that most 
people already have trace amounts of these chemicals in their bodies. 
But imagine if you or your children were forced to ingest these toxic 
``forever chemicals'' multiple times a day, every day. That is the 
dangerous reality for many American families. I am sorry to report that 
includes thousands of families in my home State of Illinois.
  On Friday, the Chicago Sun Times published a story on the presence of 
these chemicals in water systems in the Chicago area, Lake Forest, 
Waukegan, and South Elgin. Water system managers in these areas have 
found enough evidence of chemicals that the Illinois EPA is calling for 
further testing. That additional testing is just in the preliminary 
stage.
  As I mentioned, these contaminants are impressively imperishable, and 
they are being found everywhere. As an example, a few years ago, a 
dairy farmer in Maine discovered that one of these ``forever 
chemicals'' had seeped into his farmland through a fertilizer that he 
used. He only found out because the chemicals were showing up in

[[Page S5702]]

the milk of his cows. He ended up having to shut down his dairy farm 
that had been in the family for generations. He had to destroy his 
dairy herd, and he lost his savings.
  If these contaminants are too dangerous for a dairy farm, too 
dangerous for cows, they are certainly too dangerous for our kids. We 
must protect our communities and families from ``forever chemicals'' 
immediately.
  Unfortunately, eliminating this public health threat is proving 
challenging. For one, in Illinois, it is not clear where it came from. 
According to the Sun Times article, ``among the water system managers 
contacted by the [newspaper], none of them could identify the culprit 
causing the contamination.''
  The Environmental Working Group has identified more than 1,700 
potential sources in my State, from sewage treatment facilities to 
landfills. The culprit could be any one or a combination. As of now, 
there is no definitive answer. In other words, the analogy is, an 
arsonist is still running through the forest, and the only signs are 
the trees he leaves burning.
  The other difficulty in meeting this public health threat is that it 
costs money. As we all learned from Flint, MI, repairing and replacing 
the entire city's drinking water system is no small task. Municipal 
officials throughout my State are still waiting on State officials to 
provide guidance, as well as funding, to remove these ``forever 
chemicals'' from their water system.
  But when it comes to protecting our children's health and well-being, 
solutions cannot wait, and States like Illinois cannot address this 
threat on their own. Pending before the U.S. Senate at this moment is 
the bipartisan infrastructure deal. This deal is good for us, good for 
America, and starts to address this problem.
  This historic bipartisan plan will make our Nation's largest ever 
investment in clean water. That investment includes $10 billion for 
addressing the ``forever chemical'' challenge and other emerging 
contaminants from drinking water and wastewater systems throughout 
America. That is a big deal. It is estimated that more than 200 million 
Americans--nearly two-thirds of this country's population--could be 
drinking ``forever chemicals'' in their tap water.
  With the bipartisan infrastructure deal, lawmakers on both sides of 
the aisle are coming together as we should, to help ensure every family 
in America has access to clean and safe drinking water. Because the 
infrastructure package will also invest billions of dollars to replace 
dangerous decaying lead service lines throughout the country, it is a 
game changer. It is a game changer for the city of Chicago, which I am 
proud to represent in my home State of Illinois.
  You see, there is no acceptable level for lead consumption--none, 
zero. Much like ``forever chemicals,'' lead service lines that hookup 
the water main in the street to your home, business, school, daycare 
center--these lead service lines can cause lasting harm to the growing 
bodies and minds of our kids. And, as lawmakers, we have an obligation 
to correct the mistakes made by previous generations of Americans.
  I understand that until about 35, 40 years ago, lead service lines 
were mandated in construction in Illinois--in my State--in some areas. 
We made a mistake. Now we know it. What are we going to do about it? 
This bill addresses this.
  I want to thank my colleague, Senator Tammy Duckworth. When it comes 
to water infrastructure, she is just leading the pack in the U.S. 
Senate. She really cares about this, as a Senator, for sure, but 
equally important as a mom with two lovely little girls.
  We can establish a new, healthier foundation for future generations 
if we pull together. That is exactly what this bill will do. Marshaling 
the resources of our Federal Government so that all of America's kids 
can grow up and lead healthy, productive lives, that is what 
bipartisanship is all about. And I look forward to joining my 
colleagues in voting in favor of this bill in the next few days.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, the provisions of section 80603 for the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included in this amendment 
provide clarity to information reporting requirements to improve tax 
administration and tax compliance with respect to trading and digital 
assets.
  Senator Sinema has joined me in asking the nonpartisan Joint 
Committee on Taxation to make available to the public a technical 
explanation of section 80603, ``Information Reporting for Brokers and 
Digital Assets,'' of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The 
technical explanation expresses these Senators' understanding and 
legislative intent behind this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the technical explanation 
of section 80603 from the Joint Committee on Taxation of the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  TECHNICAL EXPLANATION OF SECTION 80603, ``INFORMATION REPORTING FOR 
BROKERS AND DIGITAL ASSETS,'' OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND JOBS 
                                  ACT

 Prepared by the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation--August 2021

          Information Reporting for Brokers and Digital Assets


                              Present Law

     In general
       The IRS gathers independent information about income 
     received and taxes withheld to verify self-reported income 
     and tax liability reported on tax returns. The use of 
     reliable and objective third-party verification of income 
     increases the probability of tax evasion being detected and 
     increases the cost of evasion to the taxpayer, thereby 
     decreasing the overall level of tax evasion by taxpayers. 
     Ample empirical evidence shows that the introduction of 
     third-party information reporting in tax administration leads 
     to more accurate reports of income on tax returns.
       Information reporting assists taxpayers receiving such 
     reports to prepare their income tax returns and helps the IRS 
     determine whether such returns are correct and complete. The 
     reporting of most relevance to the determination of 
     individual income tax generally falls under one of two types. 
     First, there are reports and disclosures required from 
     taxpayers about themselves. Second, there are reports 
     required to be reported to the IRS with respect to 
     transactions with other persons, including employers, known 
     as third-party information reporting. Third-party information 
     reporting rules had predecessors in early tax statutes. The 
     first third-party information reporting requirement in the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, regarding payments 
     by persons engaged in a trade or business of $600 or more in 
     the course of the payor's trade or business, is a successor 
     to an almost identical provision in the 1939 Code, as is the 
     provision requiring reporting of dividends and corporate 
     earnings and profits.
       Third-party information reporting has expanded 
     significantly since then, addressing numerous types of 
     payments. These include reporting with respect to advance 
     payments of credit for health insurance costs; gross proceeds 
     paid to an attorney; substitute payments in lieu of dividends 
     or tax-exempt interest; and payments by a Federal executive 
     agency for services. Congress continues to expand third-party 
     information reporting, reflecting the importance of IRS 
     access to reliable and objective third-party verification of 
     payments in detecting noncompliance.
       Persons required to submit such returns generally must 
     furnish a statement that includes the information contained 
     on such return to the person whose information was reported 
     to the IRS. If a reporter prepares 250 returns or more, the 
     reporter must do so electronically. The scope of reporting 
     encompasses brokers of a variety of transactions, including 
     securities, real estate, and barter transactions, but to 
     date, no regulations under section 6045 have been issued to 
     address transactions involving digital assets.
     Broker reporting
       Section 6045(a) requires brokers to file with the IRS 
     annual information returns showing the gross proceeds 
     realized by customers from various sale transactions, when 
     required by the Secretary to do so. A return must provide 
     such details regarding gross proceeds realized by customers 
     from various sale transactions and other information as 
     required by the Secretary. Brokers are required to furnish to 
     every customer written statements with the same gross 
     proceeds information that is included in the returns

[[Page S5703]]

     filed with the IRS for that customer. These written 
     statements are required to be furnished by February 15 of the 
     year following the calendar year for which the return under 
     section 6045(a) is required to be filed.
       Because gross proceeds constitute income only to the extent 
     that they exceed the seller's adjusted basis, reliable 
     recordkeeping of original basis and necessary adjustments are 
     required. In 2008, the reporting requirements for brokers 
     were revised to provide that every broker that is required to 
     file a return under section 6045(a) reporting the gross 
     proceeds from the sale of a covered security must include in 
     the return (1) the customer's adjusted basis in the security 
     and (2) whether any capital gain or loss with respect to the 
     security is long-term or short-term. Specific rules for 
     determining a customer's adjusted basis are provided.
     Covered securities
       A covered security is any specified security acquired on or 
     after an applicable date if the security was (1) acquired 
     through a transaction in the account in which the security is 
     held or (2) transferred to that account from an account in 
     which the security was a covered security, but only if the 
     transferee broker received a statement under section 6045A 
     (described below) with respect to the transfer. Under this 
     rule, certain securities acquired by gift or inheritance are 
     not covered securities.
       A specified security is any share of stock in a corporation 
     (including stock of a regulated investment company); any 
     note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of indebtedness; any 
     commodity, or a contract or a derivative with respect to the 
     commodity, if the Secretary determines that adjusted basis 
     reporting is appropriate; and any other financial instrument 
     with respect to which the Secretary determines that adjusted 
     basis reporting is appropriate.
       For stock in a corporation (other than stock for which an 
     average basis method is permissible under section 1012), the 
     applicable date of section 6045(g) is January 1, 2011. For 
     any stock for which an average basis method is permissible 
     under section 1012, the applicable date is January 1, 2012. 
     Consequently, the applicable date for certain stock acquired 
     through a dividend reinvestment plan and for stock in a 
     regulated investment company is January 1, 2012. A regulated 
     investment company is permitted to elect to treat as a 
     covered security any stock in the company acquired before 
     January 1, 2012. For any specified security other than stock 
     in a corporation or stock for which an average basis method 
     is permitted, the applicable date is January 1, 2013, or a 
     later date determined by the Secretary. Consequently, for a 
     note, bond, debenture, or other evidence of indebtedness, or 
     for a commodity or a contract or derivative with respect to 
     the commodity, or for any other financial instrument treated 
     as a specified security, the applicable date is January 1, 
     2013, or a later date determined by the Secretary.
     Time for providing statements to customers
       February 15 of the year following the calendar year 
     reporting period is the deadline for furnishing certain 
     written statements to customers, including (1) statements 
     showing gross proceeds (under section 6045(b)) or substitute 
     payments (under section 6045(d)) and (2) statements with 
     respect to reportable items (including, but not limited to, 
     interest, dividends, and royalties) that are furnished with 
     consolidated reporting statements (as defined in 
     regulations). The term ``consolidated reporting statement'' 
     refers to annual account statements that brokerage firms 
     customarily provide to their customers and that include tax-
     related information.
       To enable brokers to comply with these requirements, 
     section 6045A provides for broker-to-broker reporting under 
     which a broker or applicable person within the scope of 
     section 6045 that transfers to a broker a security that is a 
     covered security when held by that transferor broker must 
     furnish to the transferee broker a written statement that 
     allows the transferee broker to satisfy the basis and holding 
     period reporting requirements under section 6045. Section 
     6045B requires the issuer of a covered security to file a 
     return describing any organizational action (such as a stock 
     split or a merger or acquisition) that affects the basis of 
     the specified security, the quantitative effect on the basis 
     of that specified security, and any other information 
     required by the Secretary, and to provide copies of that 
     return to holders of specified securities and nominees like 
     brokers.
     Penalties for failure to comply with information reporting 
         requirements
       A person who is required to file information returns but 
     who fails to do so by the due date for the returns, includes 
     on the returns incorrect information, or files incomplete 
     returns generally is subject to a penalty of $250 for each 
     return with respect to which such a failure occurs, up to a 
     maximum of $3,000,000 in any calendar year, adjusted for 
     inflation. Similar penalties, also with a $3,000,000 
     calendar-year maximum, apply to failures to furnish correct 
     written statements to recipients of payments for which 
     information reporting is required. Brokers may be subject to 
     such penalties for failure to file the returns required under 
     section 6045, or for failure to provide statements to others 
     as required by section 6045A.
     Cash received in trade or business
       Section 6050I requires any person engaged in a trade or 
     business to report any transaction (or two or more related 
     transactions) in which the person receives more than $10,000 
     in cash. For this purpose, cash includes foreign currency 
     and, to the extent provided by the Secretary, any monetary 
     instrument (whether or not in bearer form) with a face amount 
     of not more than $10,000. Returns required under section 
     6050I parallel reports required from merchants and services 
     providers under the Bank Secrecy Act. Failure to file such 
     returns and failure to provide customers with copies of such 
     returns are subject to the penalties under sections 6721 and 
     6722, respectively.
     Current guidance on digital assets
       Most of the statutory provisions requiring third-party 
     information reporting predate the advent of digital assets 
     and none expressly addresses its treatment. In 2014, the IRS 
     published its first guidance on digital assets in a Notice in 
     the form of frequently asked questions. The Notice refers to 
     ``virtual currency,'' defined as property that is ``a digital 
     representation of value that functions as a medium of 
     exchange, a unit of account, and/or a store of value.'' The 
     Notice further identifies a subset of virtual currency 
     (``convertible virtual currency'') as the only digital asset 
     within the scope of the guidance. The Notice defines 
     convertible virtual currency as virtual currency which has an 
     equivalent value in real currency or acts as a substitute for 
     real currency.
       The Notice stated that ``a payment made using virtual 
     currency is subject to information reporting to the same 
     extent as any other payment made in property.'' The Notice 
     refers to the need for reporting on a Form 1099-MISC, 
     Miscellaneous Income, if a payment of fixed and determinable 
     income is made in the course of a trade or business using 
     convertible virtual currency with a fair market value of $600 
     or more. This requirement parallels the requirements under 
     section 6041 and the regulatory guidance thereunder, which 
     provide that payments made in property rather than money must 
     be reported by including the fair market value of the 
     property paid. As the use of digital assets has developed, 
     the G-7 Finance ministers have committed to developing common 
     standards and principles to guide the public policy and 
     regulatory issues, while recognizing the potential benefits 
     of the market.


                        explanation of provision

       The provision amends section 6045(c)(1) so that the 
     definition of broker expressly includes any person who (for 
     consideration) is responsible for regularly providing any 
     service effectuating transfers of digital assets on behalf of 
     another person. The change clarifies present law to resolve 
     uncertainty over whether certain market participants are 
     brokers. The change is not intended to limit the Secretary's 
     authority to interpret the definition of broker.
       In addition, the provision specifies that the definition of 
     specified security includes a digital asset, which, except as 
     provided by the Secretary, is defined as any digital 
     representation of value which is recorded on a 
     cryptographically secured distributed ledger or any similar 
     technology as specified by the Secretary. A digital asset 
     acquired through a broker on or after January 1, 2023, is a 
     covered security subject to basis reporting under section 
     6045(g).
       In section 6045A(a), the provision strikes the words ``a 
     security which is'' which makes clear that broker-to-broker 
     reporting applies to all transfers of covered securities 
     within the meaning of section 6045(g)(3), including digital 
     assets. The provision also adds new section 6045A(d), which 
     generally applies to transfers by a broker to a person that 
     is not a broker. Section 6045A(d) requires a broker to file a 
     return with the IRS for a calendar year, with respect to any 
     transfer (which is not part of a sale or exchange executed by 
     the broker) during the calendar year of a covered security 
     which is a digital asset from an account maintained by the 
     broker to an account which is not maintained by, or an 
     address not associated with, a person that the broker knows 
     or has reason to know is also a broker. The return will be in 
     such form as determined by the Secretary, showing the 
     information otherwise required to be furnished with respect 
     to transfers subject to section 6045A(a).
       The reporting requirement in new section 6045A(d) is 
     limited to transfers that are not otherwise subject to 
     reporting under section 6045 (because those transactions are 
     already reported to the IRS, for example, in the case of a 
     transfer that is part of a sale effectuated by a broker) or 
     under section 6045A(a) (because those transactions are 
     already reported to transferee brokers, for example, in the 
     case of a direct broker-to-broker transfer of a digital 
     asset). The return required under the provision is added to 
     the definition of information return for purposes of section 
     6724 and related failure to file penalties under section 
     6721.
       The provision expands the definition of cash solely for 
     purposes of section 6050I to include any digital asset (as 
     defined under amended section 6045(g)(3)). No inference is 
     intended that digital assets are treated as cash for any 
     other purpose.
       Nothing in the provision or the amendments made by the 
     provision is to be construed to create any inference, for any 
     period prior to the effective date of the amendments, with 
     respect to whether any person is a broker under section 
     6045(c)(l) or whether any digital asset is property which is 
     a specified security under section 6045(g)(3)(B).


                             effective date

       The provision applies to returns required to be filed, and 
     statements required to be furnished, after December 31, 2023.

[[Page S5704]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


           Amendment Nos. 2354 and 2245 to Amendment No. 2137

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number: 
No. 1, Van Hollen, No. 2354; and the second is Johnson, No. 2245; 
further, that at 7:30 p.m. today the Senate vote in relation to the Van 
Hollen amendment, and at 11 a.m. tomorrow morning the Senate vote in 
relation to Johnson, No. 2245, with no amendments in order to the 
amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with 60 
affirmative votes required for adoption of the amendments and 2 minutes 
for debate equally divided prior to the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2354 to Amendment No. 2137

  The clerk will report the amendments.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Van Hollen, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2354 to amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To include a payment and performance security requirement for 
                   certain infrastructure financing)

        At the end of title II of division A, add the following:

     SEC. 12___. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TIFIA ELIGIBILITY AND 
                   PROJECT SELECTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 602(c) of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Payment and performance security.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     design and construction of a project carried out with 
     assistance under the TIFIA program shall have appropriate 
     payment and performance security, regardless of whether the 
     obligor is a State, local government, agency or 
     instrumentality of a State or local government, public 
     authority, or private party.
       ``(B) Written determination.--If payment and performance 
     security is required to be furnished by applicable State or 
     local statute or regulation, the Secretary may accept such 
     payment and performance security requirements applicable to 
     the obligor if the Federal interest with respect to Federal 
     funds and other project risk related to design and 
     construction is adequately protected.
       ``(C) No determination or applicable requirements.--If 
     there are no payment and performance security requirements 
     applicable to the obligor, the security under section 3131(b) 
     of title 40 or an equivalent State or local requirement, as 
     determined by the Secretary, shall be required.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to any agreement for credit 
     assistance entered into on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.


                Amendment No. 2245 to Amendment No. 2137

  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Johnson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2245 to amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

   (Purpose: To prohibit the cancellation of contracts for physical 
  barriers and other border security measures for which funds already 
  have been obligated and for which penalties will be incurred in the 
case of such cancellation and prohibiting the use of funds for payment 
                           of such penalties)

        At the appropriate place in division I, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. PROHIBITING THE CANCELLATION OF CERTAIN CONTRACTS 
                   FOR PHYSICAL BARRIERS AND OTHER BORDER SECURITY 
                   MEASURES.

        Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security and any other Federal official may not--
       (1) cancel, invalidate, or breach any contract for the 
     construction or improvement of any physical barrier along the 
     United States border or for any other border security 
     measures for which Federal funds have been obligated; or
       (2) obligate the use of Federal funds to pay any penalty 
     resulting from the cancellation of any contract described in 
     paragraph (1).

  Mr. CARPER. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 MS-13

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor because I am greatly 
concerned as to whether the Department of Justice is committed to 
fighting the violent crime committed by the gang known as MS-13.
  MS-13 is a violent gang that operates on the streets of the United 
States and throughout Mexico and Central America. MS-13's informal 
motto is--can you believe this--``kill, steal, rape, and control.''
  Under the Trump administration, the Department established a task 
force to fight the murders and other serious crimes committed by MS-13 
gang members, but the Department of Justice hasn't released any news or 
updates on this task force, called Task Force Vulcan, since way back on 
January 14 of this year. Right before President Biden's inauguration is 
when that January 14 date was. So you can see we haven't seen anything 
since this President has been sworn in. So we have no idea what the 
Department of Justice is doing to combat MS-13.
  From 2017 to 2020, U.S. Customs and Border Protection found or 
arrested over 3 million people, averaging about 750,000 people a year. 
In that same time period, Border Patrol apprehended an average of 294 
MS-13 gang members every year.
  This year, however, Customs and Border Protection has already 
encountered or arrested over 1.2 million, well above the previous 
averages. But, this year, Customs and Border Protection has only 
apprehended 71 MS-13 members trying to enter the United States, 
suggesting many dangerous MS-13 gang members are successfully sneaking 
past Border Patrol as agents are focused on dealing with unaccompanied 
children at the border or asylum seekers.
  One Border Patrol chief in Laredo stated that MS-13 members are using 
the high number of migrants entering the United States to blend in and 
get past agents. We know MS-13 is still trying to sneak into the 
country; however, they are just more successful now.
  Customs and Border Protection is still arresting MS-13 members when 
they can identify them. In April alone, Customs and Border Protection 
arrested an MS-13 member who was a convicted felon with an outstanding 
warrant and one female MS-13 member traveling with a convicted 
murderer.
  Here, next to the Capitol, police in Maryland arrested an MS-13 
member after he lured a 15-year-old girl into an apartment and tried to 
rape her.
  So even if Border Patrol agents in the field and local police are 
doing their best to stop MS-13, we still don't know what the Department 
of Justice is doing about MS-13 since they haven't released any updates 
on Task Force Vulcan since January. We don't even know if Task Force 
Vulcan still exists. This is a problem because we know MS-13 is 
ruthlessly operating on American streets.
  Congress and the American people deserve to know what the Department 
of Justice is doing to keep our streets safe and to keep us safe from 
dangerous criminal organizations like MS-13. So I will be seeking 
answers to this question from the Department of Justice. It is a pretty 
basic question: Do you have anything to update the American people 
about? We should know what the status of all this is.


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. President, on another matter, President Biden and his allies in 
Congress are champing at the bit to grease the wheels for a partisan 
$3.5 trillion spending spree before they leave for the August break. At 
a time when our national debt is set to exceed levels not seen since 
World War II, this is not only irresponsible, but dangerous.
  Hard-working Americans are already paying the price for excess 
spending in the form of inflation, with prices rising throughout the 
economy. And, of course, poll after poll shows Americans are becoming 
increasingly concerned about inflation.
  Instead of adding to these concerns in the pursuit of wish-list 
priorities, Congress should focus on addressing the real priorities of 
the American people. For instance, we should be taking action to 
address the crisis at our southern border. In June, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection encountered 188,000 people. That is up 471 percent 
from the same time last year.
  As a result of the Biden administration's irresponsible immigration 
policies, Customs and Border Protection has encountered over 1.1 
million illegal

[[Page S5705]]

immigrants at the southern border during this fiscal year. That is five 
times larger than the population of Iowa's capital city, Des Moines.
  The crisis is undeniable. The Senate Democrats are trying hard to 
deny it. Instead of taking action to secure our borders and deter 
illegal immigration, Senate Democrats are attempting to use a reckless 
tax-and-spending bill to offer amnesty to millions of illegal 
immigrants living in the United States.
  It is deeply irresponsible. It will only encourage more of this 
illegal immigration, and it will only make the border crisis worse.
  Illegal immigration isn't the only crime cascading over the border. 
Mexican cartels are pouring record high amounts of hard drugs--
methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl--across the border with 
impunity.
  Fentanyl has become the choice drug because it is highly potent and, 
of course, highly profitable, particularly for the cartels. A tiny 
amount, even as small as a grain of salt, can result in an overdose 
and, of course, in death. Fentanyl is increasingly laced into other 
drugs, which heightens potency, often without the user even knowing it.
  In 2020, over 93,000 Americans died from drug overdoses. That is 
almost the entire population of Davenport, IA. The primary driver of 
this surge in overdose deaths is fentanyl coming in from 
Mexico. Instead of working on curbing cartels at the border and cutting 
off their extensive power in the United States, Senate Democrats choose 
to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that fentanyl isn't deadly.

  The border crisis is, then, very obviously a drug crisis.
  And on top of that, police departments across the country are still 
having a hard time getting enough officers. Violent crime is soaring. 
Homicide rates are through the roof.
  Iowa families don't redecorate their houses when the plumbing is 
leaking.
  These issues are dinner table issues. So Congress must focus on them, 
instead of on reckless and partisan spending proposals that are going 
on in the U.S. Senate now by the majority party.


                          Taxpayer Information

  Mr. President, in the past few weeks, there has been a lot of talk 
about increasing IRS enforcement to bring in more money to the 
government. That would be fine if we could trust the IRS to keep 
taxpayer information safe and secure and actually using that 
information to enforce the Tax Code.
  Now, unfortunately, that notion is waffling on pretty shaky ground at 
this very moment.
  In June, the nonprofit journalism web page ProPublica began 
publishing stories that appear to contain confidential taxpayer 
information that might have come from the IRS. Unfortunately, attention 
is focused more on the private tax affairs of the victims of these 
actions than on the apparently illegal actions taken to produce the 
data that forms the basis of these ProPublica stories.
  By law, the confidentiality of taxpayer information is sacrosanct. 
That comes from section 6103 of the Tax Code, a section that was put in 
law in the 1970s, I believe, to see that what Nixon did to use the IRS 
to go after his enemies never happened again.
  So why is this information sacrosanct? Because a Federal income tax 
return contains some of the most sensitive information that there is 
about our fellow Americans. A tax return is essentially a blueprint for 
how families and individuals live their lives. Aside from detailing 
where and how taxpayers support themselves and earn money, tax returns 
potentially detail what charities, including even religious 
institutions, that a taxpayer supports. Tax returns can also detail 
where and how they take care of their children, their medical status, 
and lots of other deeply personal information.
  In part to promote tax compliance, Congress decided that in exchange 
for collecting sensitive information needed to enforce the Internal 
Revenue Code, the IRS must treat this information carefully and protect 
it from unauthorized access and disclosure. That is what section 6103 
is all about. It carries with it significant criminal and civil 
penalties for any violations of those terms.
  Nevertheless, the ProPublica stories published in a series entitled 
``The Secret IRS Files Inside the Tax Records of the .001%'' are 
plainly derived from the confidential taxpayer information.
  The folks in charge of enforcing the Tax Code quickly recognized that 
they had a big problem here. That very morning, IRS Commissioner Rettig 
was testifying before the Senate Finance Committee and said that he 
appreciated the confidential nature of the information collected by the 
IRS and how very important it is that people are able to trust the IRS 
with that information.
  Commissioner Rettig isn't the only Treasury official to express that 
concern. When asked about this apparent abuse of taxpayer information 
at the Finance Committee hearing on the President's fiscal 2022 budget 
request, held on June 16, Treasury Secretary Yellen said she agreed the 
situation was very serious and that the matter had been referred to the 
Justice Department.
  The week before, appearing before a different Senate Committee, 
Attorney General Garland also said this was a very serious matter and 
that people are entitled to the privacy regarding their tax 
information.
  I agree with Commissioner Rettig, Secretary Yellen, and Attorney 
General Garland that the apparent leak of confidential information is a 
very serious issue.
  For one thing, we don't know exactly where the information came from. 
Was it a leak? Was it a hack? We don't seem to know. We also don't know 
the full scope of the information at risk.
  According to ProPublica, it has ``obtained a vast trove of Internal 
Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands of the Nation's 
wealthiest people, covering more than 15 years.''
  Let me say that again. ProPublica claims that it has thousands of tax 
returns
  Americans know the risk of having their private information unsecured 
in the wind. They know the risk, for example, of fraud and identity 
theft. And, of course, Nixon's political enemies knew the risk of 
letting the IRS run loose.
  According to the most recent IRS Electronic Tax Administration 
Advisory Committee Annual Report to Congress, issued in June of 2021, 
185,000 identity theft affidavits were filed with the IRS in 2020. The 
report also notes that due to pandemic relief, higher levels of 
identity theft are expected during the 2021 filing season.
  Sure, in this case, ProPublica has decided that the wealthiest 
individuals are the ones worth targeting. But again, we don't know the 
full scope of the information that is at risk. Maybe you are not the 
owner of a sports team or the head of a multinational company or 
haven't built a vehicle in which you have recently traveled to outer 
space. The unauthorized access and disclosure of taxpayer information 
should be a concern to all taxpayers. If someone can expose the most 
private and sensitive information of the Nation's wealthiest citizens, 
they can do it to anyone.
  Regardless of what anyone thinks about the known victims of this 
disclosure, no one should be absolutely confident that their 
information hasn't been compromised.
  As soon as the apparent disclosure of taxpayer information was known, 
I pressed authorities in the executive branch to take action. I 
questioned Commissioner Rettig about it during the Finance Committee 
hearing that very day. Three days later, I sent a letter with Leader 
McConnell and Finance Ranking Member Crapo. I sent this letter with 
those two individuals to Attorney General Garland and FBI Director 
Christopher Wray, asking them to take action on this very important 
matter.
  In part, the letter reads:

       Find those responsible for these disclosures and ensure 
     they are punished as directed by law. Unless you do, ordinary 
     Americans will fall victim to these politicalized and 
     criminal disclosures, and trust in the IRS and our tax system 
     will continue to erode.

  That is the end of the quote of the letter I sent with Leader 
McConnell and Finance Ranking Member Crapo.
  On the same day, I joined every other Republican on the Finance 
Committee on a letter to the Treasury inspector general for the Tax 
Administration, asking for an immediate investigation.
  Following Treasury Secretary Yellen's June 16 appearance before the 
Finance Committee, I also submitted several questions to her in 
writing. My

[[Page S5706]]

questions asked pretty simple questions about the scope of the leak and 
the hack and whether or not anyone with advanced knowledge of the first 
ProPublica piece had reached out to the Treasury or to the IRS.
  On June 16, I sent a letter to Attorney General Garland and FBI 
Director Wray, with other Judiciary Committee Republicans, seeking a 
briefing and a confirmation that the FBI or the Department of Justice 
is investigating. Now, as usual, I have not received a single response 
to any of my written inquiries.
  There appears to be a massive flaw somewhere in our system of tax 
administration. Our job, through constitutional oversight, is to 
determine exactly what this situation is, how it happened, and how we 
can fix it.
  Unfortunately, it appears that some are using the apparent illegal 
disclosure of taxpayer information and the violation of taxpayer rights 
to advance a partisan agenda. That probably doesn't surprise a lot of 
people, that politics would be involved in this.
  It is important to note that the ProPublica pieces aren't talking 
about tax evasion but, generally, tax avoidance, which is a legal 
minimization of taxes owed.
  On June 24, ProPublica published a story about Roth IRAs, using the 
information of a wealthy tech investor. The purpose of this story was 
to show that this investor ``and other ultrawealthy investors have used 
them to amass vast untaxed fortunes.''
  The next day, on June 5, ProPublica published a story highlighting a 
senior Democratic Senator's legislation intended to crackdown on large 
Roth IRA accounts, the same type of accounts criticized in the previous 
day's articles.
  And you are talking about abuse of Roth IRAs? It is in the law.
  A different ProPublica story seemed intended to wield private 
taxpayer information to affect the outcome of an election.
  Now, listen to this. On June 16, ProPublica published a story 
containing taxpayer information of a candidate in the Democratic 
primary to be the next district attorney of Manhattan. It seems to me 
like somebody is using political things to hurt people in their own 
political party.
  Given how concerned many of my colleagues have been about potential 
election interference, I am really very shocked that this story 
completely missed their attention.
  If a candidate's confidential, legally protected information is 
somehow disclosed less than a week before an election, especially when 
we don't know the ultimate source of the confidential information or 
how it was even obtained, shouldn't that raise a red flag to a lot of 
people in this town or does it only matter depending upon who the 
candidate is?
  Finally, I want to address ProPublica's role in this situation.
  Although they may be very well-intentioned, in my opinion, they are 
facilitating an abuse of power by publishing stolen confidential 
information of individual citizens who are, by all appearances, 
complying with their legal obligations. They think they are informing 
the public of information they need to know. They are really telling 
the public that their tax return information is not private. That could 
have serious consequences for the proper administration of our tax laws 
that are based on the proposition that people are going to give honest, 
correct information because they know it is going to be public and 
because they owe taxes and they are honest people.
  Plainly, this isn't about tax cheats who broke the law; it is about 
certain people not paying what ProPublica thinks they should pay 
regardless if they are paying every dollar that the law requires that 
they pay. So it is really about promoting changes to tax law that 
ProPublica and certain Members of this body would support. The identity 
of specific taxpayers that we know have had their information violated 
is not an excuse.
  The notion that taxpayers' information--every taxpayer's 
information--should be protected is not a view only held by this 
Senator. I have quoted the Treasury Secretary; I have quoted the 
Attorney General--all holding that same view.
  The use of this information to advance partisan objectives and, 
apparently, to influence an election should concern all of us. We need 
to get to the bottom of what happened. We need to know what taxpayer 
information is at risk, how many taxpayers have been compromised, and 
then determine what we can do going forward.
  So I implore Secretary Yellen and Attorney General Garland to respond 
to my questions and my letters so that we can get on with our very 
important work.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________