[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1061-1063]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 1062]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 1063]]



     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.''.



                          ____________________