[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 150 (Wednesday, September 25, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6413-S6415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 8292

  Madam President, No. 3, the House passed a bill dealing with the 
sanctity of taxpayer records.
  In another life, I worked in State government. I worked for like, I 
don't know, 16 or 17 years--I don't remember because it went by in a 
flash--as State treasurer, which was an elected position. But before 
that, I was in an appointed position, a position appointed by the 
Governor. It was a political position called the secretary of the 
Department of Revenue, and that was a fancy title for ``tax 
collector.'' I was the State's tax collector for, I don't

[[Page S6414]]

know, 3\1/2\ years, until I left the position to go run for State 
treasurer.
  One of the things I learned was the sanctity of people's income 
taxes. I mean, I am sure there are some documents that are more 
private--maybe our medical records--but they are not that much more 
private to us and precious to us than our tax records.
  At the Louisiana Department of Revenue, which is where I worked, we 
had a hard-and-fast rule, and every employee knew it, and they 
respected it, by God. If you leaked somebody's tax returns, we would 
chase you like you stole Thanksgiving, and we would punish you. And we 
would not only fire you, but we would prosecute you if we had to. So, 
consequently, we had almost no leaks--none.
  I wish I could say that for the IRS. Through the years, they have had 
a bunch of leaks. I don't want to overstate it, but they have. Not that 
long ago, back in 2019, they had a leak, and it actually came from a 
vendor that was working for the IRS.
  By the way, the sanctity of those tax returns and whatnot and the 
importance to protect them also applies to contractors for the tax 
Agency.
  But, anyway, one of the vendors for the Internal Revenue Service 
leaked 8,000 tax returns--8,000. Not 80, not 800--8,000 tax returns. 
And they gave these tax returns to a media organization. The person who 
leaked it--he didn't do it because he was trying to show tax fraud; he 
did it to try to embarrass the people. A lot of them were really 
wealthy, and he wanted to embarrass them just out of the meanness in 
his heart.
  Some very famous people--I think Mr. Jeff Bezos was on the list. 
President Trump was on the list. But if you looked at this list, this 
list was as long as King Kong's arm. You could stack this list here and 
paint that ceiling--8,000. And it embarrassed a lot of people. It would 
have embarrassed you if your name was all over the Internet with your 
personal information and your home address and your signature. It was 
just wrong.
  It took years for the IRS to track this down. We kept pushing them 
and raising fresh hell and saying: This is not right.
  Well, I don't think they did it on their own; I think they got 
outside help. They finally caught this person. Do you know what his 
penalty was? He got 5 years, and they fined him $5,000. I just don't 
think that is enough of a deterrent--I don't--when you add up all the 
misery that this one meathead caused to 8,000 people, none of whom were 
cheating on their taxes. He was just trying to embarrass them, and that 
is just wrong.
  So the House passed a bill the other day that basically says the 
penalty is going to be increased. It is no longer going to be a minimum 
of 5; it is going to be 10 years. But also, instead of a $5,000 fine, 
the maximum fine is going to be $250,000.
  And here is the thing. You can't--let me put it another way. Every 
document--every tax return that you release is a different count. In 
other words, this meathead that released 8,000, under the new law, that 
would be 8,000 counts against him. And that is the way it ought to be. 
It shouldn't be: Let's just lump them all together in one, and that is 
one count, and he pays 5,000 bucks, and he gets 5 years but he is 
probably out in 2. That is just not right, folks.

  And what you allow is what will continue. And I don't hate anybody. I 
don't hate anybody. I don't know this meathead who did this, and in my 
heart, I don't hate him, but what he did was wrong. He just tried to 
embarrass and did embarrass 8,000 Americans who weren't doing anything 
wrong. They were paying their taxes, for God's sake. It is just wrong. 
It makes me want to throw up. It triggers my gag reflex.
  So I hope we can pass the House bill. Like I say, I hadn't changed a 
word in the House bill. It is identical to what just passed the House. 
And I think--if I am wrong on this, Madam President, I will come back 
and correct the record--I think it passed the House unanimously.
  Did it pass the House unanimously? Do we know, Josh? There were a 
couple of votes against.
  This is Josh, who I work with. Smart as a whip.
  It wasn't unanimous. I stand corrected. Josh, my brain, corrected me. 
But it was almost unanimous. And I would sure like to see this body do 
the same thing, and I just don't see this as a partisan issue.
  Now, the reason I am talking so long is I think that my good friend 
Senator Ron Wyden wants to object to this. Now, I hope he doesn't. I 
don't know if I can say this, but I am going to say it anyway. I will 
buy him a pony if he doesn't object to this bill--a pony of his choice. 
That is not a bribe. I like Ron Wyden so much, I would buy him a pony 
of his choice anyway. But if he won't object to this bill, I will buy 
him a pony, OK, because this is a good, good piece of legislation.
  I don't want to do this behind his back. So I don't see Ron here, but 
what I am going to do, Madam President--I am not trying to tell you how 
to do your job. You can do whatever you want. But I am going to make 
this motion, and I would ask if you would consider holding it until 
Senator Wyden has a chance to get here because I don't want to do this 
behind his back.
  I see the Parliamentarian is unhappy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognizing that 
fact, yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will buy her a pony too.
  Let me go to plan B. What I will do is, I want to hit ``pause'' 
because I don't want to do this behind Ron's back. Let me hit 
``pause,'' and I will ask that we go into a quorum call. When Ron gets 
here, I will ask to be recognized so I can assert my motion, and Ron 
can agree with my splendid bill, and then we will go pick out a pony.
  So I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator will be 
recognized.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, my friend Senator Wyden is here, so I 
would like to proceed. I am sorry he missed my speech. It would have 
given him goosebumps if he had been here to listen to it. But maybe you 
all can tell him about it, and I hope he will find it convincing.
  In the meantime, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 
8292, which is the bill I talked about passed by the House almost 
unanimously, which was received from the House.
  They couldn't hear me? Let me start over. All right.
  Madam President, I am sorry. I didn't have my mic on.
  The Presiding Officer recognized my request that we suspend the 
quorum call?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, Senator Wyden is here. I thank him for 
coming out. I hope he heard my speech. I hope he was persuaded. I know 
him to be a reasonable man, so I took my best shot. So I am going to go 
ahead and make my motion now that he is here.
  Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 
8292. That is the bill I talked about that was passed almost 
unanimously by the House. That bill has been received from the House. I 
further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed 
and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I certainly have no sympathy for leakers, 
and I want to make a couple of points to make it clear why I am going 
to oppose this proposal.
  First of all, the biggest leakers of taxpayer data are the big tax 
software companies. We never hear a peep from our colleagues on the 
other side about that. In fact, my Republican colleagues try, with 
every piece of legislation where there is a possible connection, to get 
rid of the IRS's new direct-file system that allows taxpayers to avoid 
the

[[Page S6415]]

big tax prep companies who overcharge them and give away their data.
  My view is, it makes no sense to create an even larger double 
standard--a life sentence for nonviolent offenders. That seems 
disproportionate to the whole concept of potentially zero penalty for 
big corporations that leak all the time.
  Second, let's talk about the system this proposal would protect. It 
is a system that allows the people at the very, very top to pay what 
they want, when they want to, and, often, sometimes nothing at all for 
years on end. Some of the wealthiest folks--the people at the very 
top--pay zero for years on end, including the ex-President.
  So my view is the American people ought to have more information 
about the tax schemes the ultrawealthy are playing, not less.
  I want to make it clear, again, I take a backseat to no one when it 
comes to protecting taxpayer data. But the tax games of the 
ultrawealthy are not a state secret that ought to be protected like the 
nuclear codes. The Congress ought to be doing more for tax 
transparency. I am happy to have that discussion.
  Meanwhile, the Senate should not go out of its way to help the system 
that helps the ultrawealthy hide in the shadows and dodge paying their 
fair share.
  For those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I thank my friend Ron for his point of 
view. I hope we can sit down and talk about this and perhaps work 
something out because this bill is not about changing the tax rate; it 
is just about everybody's tax return is their own business.
  I also thank, Madam President, your courtesy and time and attention 
in this matter.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. OSSOFF. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________