{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6921-3", "2014-12-16", 113, 2, null, null, "STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS", "SENATE", "SENATE", "SSTATEMENTS", "S6921", "S6924", "[{\"name\": \"Carl Levin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Tom Harkin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"3018\"}, {\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"3018\"}, {\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"3019\"}, {\"congress\": \"113\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"3020\"}]", "160 Cong. Rec. S6921", "Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S6921-S6924]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS\n\n      By Mr. LEVIN:\n  S. 3018. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform\nthe rules relating to partnership audits and adjustments; to the\nCommittee on Finance.\n\n  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Partnership\nAuditing Fairness Act, a bill designed to improve and streamline the\naudit procedures for large partnerships. This bill would ensure that\nlarge for-profit partnerships, like other large profitable businesses,\nare subject to routine audits by the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, and\neliminate audit red tape that currently impedes IRS oversight. This\nlegislation mirrors a provision in the Tax Reform Act of 2014,\nintroduced earlier this year by Congressman David Camp.\n  This legislation would fix a problem that has gained only more\nurgency with time and the explosion in growth of large partnerships,\nincluding hedge funds, private equity funds, and publicly traded\npartnerships. In a September 2014 report, the Government Accountability\nOffice, GAO, determined that the number of large partnerships, defined\nby GAO as those with at least 100 partners and $100 million in assets,\nhas tripled since 2002, to over 10,000, while the number of so-called C\ncorporations being created, which include our largest public companies,\n\n[[Page S6922]]\n\nfell by 22 percent. According to the GAO report, some of those\npartnerships have revenues totaling billions of dollars per year and\nnow collectively hold more than $7.5 trillion in assets, but the IRS is\nauditing only a tiny fraction of them. According to GAO, in 2012, the\nIRS audited less than 1 percent of large partnerships compared to 27\npercent of C corporations. Put another way, a C corporation is 33 times\nmore likely to face audit than partnership.\n  A recent hearing by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,\nwhich I chair, demonstrated the critical need to audit large\npartnerships for tax compliance and abusive tax schemes. Our July 2014\nhearing presented a detailed case study of how two financial\ninstitutions developed a structured financial product known as a basket\noption and sold the product to 13 hedge funds that used the options to\navoid billions of dollars in Federal taxes. The trading by those hedge\nfunds was mostly made up of short term transactions, many of which\nlasted only seconds. However, the hedge funds recast their short-term\ntrading profits as long-term option profits, and claimed the profits\nwere subject to the long-term capital gains tax rate rather than the\nordinary income tax rate that would otherwise apply to hedge fund\ninvestors engaged in daily trading. One hedge fund used its basket\noptions to avoid an estimated $6 billion in taxes. Those types of\nabusive tax practices illustrate why large partnerships like hedge\nfunds need to be audited by the IRS just as much as large corporations.\n  During its review, GAO found that large partnerships are often so\ncomplex that the IRS can't audit them effectively. GAO reported that\nsome partnerships have 100,000 or more partners arranged in multiple\ntiers, and some of those partners may not be people or corporate\nentities but pass-through entities--essentially, partnerships within\npartnerships. Some are publicly traded partnerships, which means their\npartners can change on a daily basis. One IRS official told GAO that\nthere were more than 1,000 partnerships with more than a million\npartners in 2012.\n  GAO also found obstacles in the law. The Tax Equity and Fiscal\nResponsibility Act, TEFRA, now 3-decades-old, was enacted at a time\nwhen many partnerships had 30-50 partners; it does not adequately deal\nwith current realities. That is why I am introducing legislation to\nrepeal some of its provisions and streamline the audit and adjustment\nprocedures used for large partnerships so that the IRS can exercise\neffective oversight to detect and deter tax noncompliance or tax abuse\nschemes.\n  Three technical aspects of TEFRA create particularly difficult\nobstacles to IRS audits and tax collection efforts for large\npartnerships. The first requires the IRS to identify a ``tax matters\npartner'' to represent the partnership on tax issues, but many\npartnerships do not designate such a partner, and simply identifying\none in a complex partnership can take months. Second, notifying\nindividual partners prior to commencing an audit costs time and money,\nyet produces few if any benefits. Third, TEFRA requires that any tax\nadjustments called for by an audit be passed through to the\npartnership's taxable partners, but the IRS's process for identifying,\nassessing, and collecting from those partners is a manual rather than\nby electronic process, which makes it laborious, time consuming,\ncostly, and subject to error. For example, if a partnership with\n100,000 partners under-reported the tax liability of its partners by $1\nmillion, the IRS would have to manually link each of the partners'\nreturns to the partnership return. Then, assuming each partner had an\nequal interest in the partnership, the IRS would have to find, assess,\nand collect $10 from each partner. That collection effort is not\npractical nor is it cost effective. In addition, under TEFRA, any tax\nadjustments have to be applied to past tax years, using complicated and\nexpensive filing requirements, instead of to the year in which the\naudit was performed and the adjustment made.\n  Fixing the technical flaws in TEFRA is critical to ensuring that the\naudit playing field is level for all taxpayers. An essential element of\nany system of taxation is that it be fair--that is, that all those who\npay taxes have a reasonable expectation that they are being treated in\nthe same fashion as other taxpayers. Without fairness, not only does a\ntax system violate ethical principles, but the system itself fails to\ncollect taxes owed, arouses resentment and complaints, and can even\nspark widespread noncompliance. The current situation in which large\ncorporations are audited 33 times more than large partnerships is\nneither fair nor sustainable.\n  The Partnership Auditing Fairness Act would eliminate the existing\naudit disparity by streamlining the audit process for large\npartnerships. It would simplify audit notification and administrative\nprocedures. It would no longer require the IRS to waste audit time\ntrying to find a tax matters partner. It would allow the IRS to audit,\nassess, and collect tax from the partnership, rather than passing the\nadjustments through to and collecting from each taxable partner. It\nwould apply any tax adjustments to the tax year in which the\nadjustments were finalized, rather than past tax years under audit.\n  The enormous discrepancy in audit rates between partnerships and\nother business forms raises a fundamental question of fairness. If one\ntype of entity can be nearly free of IRS audits, businesses that do pay\ntheir taxes and are subject to the audit process rightly feel\ndisadvantaged. That lack of fairness is something we simply can't\ntolerate.\n  For these reasons, in the next Congress, I urge my colleagues to\nconsider supporting this legislation to fix the large partnership audit\nproblem.\n  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a bill summary be printed\nin the Record.\n  There being being no objection, the material was ordered to be\nprinted in the Record, as follows:\n\n            Summary of the Partnership Auditing Fairness Act\n\n       The Partnership Auditing Fairness Act would ensure that\n     large for-profit partnerships, like other large profitable\n     businesses, are subject to routine audits by the IRS and\n     eliminate audit red tape that currently impedes IRS\n     oversight. Specifically, it would reform audit procedures\n     imposed by the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act,\n     TEFRA, which are now outdated and contribute to the low audit\n     rate for large partnerships. The bill mirrors the same\n     provision addressing this issue in the larger tax reform bill\n     developed by Congressman David Camp. Key provisions of the\n     bill would:\n       Apply streamlined audit rules to all partnerships, but\n     allow partnerships with 100 or fewer partners, other than\n     partners that are pass-through entities, to opt out of the\n     bill's audit procedures and elect instead to be audited under\n     the rules for individual taxpayers.\n       Simplify partnership audit participation by having\n     partnerships act through a designated partnership\n     representative.\n       Simplify audit notification and administrative procedures\n     by repealing the TEFRA and Electing Large Partnership\n     requirement that the IRS notify all partners prior to\n     initiating an audit.\n       Streamline audit adjustments by authorizing the IRS to make\n     adjustments at the partnership level and apply the\n     adjustments to the tax year in which the adjustments are\n     finalized, rather than to the tax years under audit.\n       Streamline tax return filing by enabling partnerships to\n     include audit adjustments on their current tax returns for\n     the year in which the adjustments are finalized, instead of\n     having to amend prior-year returns.\n       Eliminate the TEFRA problem of having to find and\n     separately collect any tax due from each affected partner by\n     instead collecting the tax at the partnership level.\n       Enable partnerships to use administrative procedures to\n     request reconsideration of a proposed under payment of tax by\n     submitting tax returns for individual partners and paying any\n     tax due, while retaining the ability to contest all audit\n     results in court.\n                                 ______\n\n      By Mr. LEVIN:\n  S. 3019. A bill to amend the War Powers Resolution to provide for the\nuse of military force against non-state actors; to the Committee on\nForeign Relations.\n  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, when the War Powers Resolution was passed\nover a Presidential veto in 1973, its supporters expected that the War\nPowers Resolution would ensure that a national dialogue takes place\nbefore the employment of the U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities. The\nPresident--then President Nixon--was concerned that the War Powers\nResolution's termination of certain authorities after 60 days unless\nextended by Congress would create unpredictably in U.S. foreign policy.\n  The War Powers Resolution, as a practical matter, has not been\neffective. Every subsequent President since\n\n[[Page S6923]]\n\nPresident Nixon has viewed the War Powers Resolution as an\nunconstitutional impingement on the President's powers as Commander in\nChief. So the 60-day trigger in the act has never been used to\nterminate hostilities, and the national dialogue envisioned by the\nauthors of the resolution has failed to come about.\n  I have a proposal to amend the War Powers Act in those instances\nwhere nonstate actors are the target. We are the target of them. They\nmust become and should become the target for us to try to deter and\nrespond to them when they attack us and try to terrorize us.\n  I have introduced a bill today with a suggested amendment to the War\nPowers Act. When the War Powers Resolution was passed over a\nPresidential veto in 1973, its supporters expected that the War Powers\nResolution would ensure that a national dialogue takes place before the\nemployment of the U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities.\n\n  The President, on the other hand, argued that the enactment of the\nlegislation ``would seriously undermine this Nation's ability to act\ndecisively and convincingly in times of international crisis.'' In his\nveto message, President Nixon argued that: ``As a result, the\nconfidence of our allies in our ability to assist them could be\ndiminished and the respect of our adversaries for our deterrent posture\ncould decline. A permanent and substantial element of unpredictability\nwould be injected into the world's assessment of American behavior,\nfurther increasing the likelihood of miscalculation and war.''\n  The President was particularly concerned that the War Powers\nResolution's termination of certain authorities after 60 days unless\nextended by Congress would create unpredictability in U.S. foreign\npolicy. The War Powers Resolution requires the President to consult\n``in every possible instance'' prior to introducing U.S. Armed Forces\ninto hostilities and to report to Congress within 48 hours when, absent\na declaration of war, U.S. Armed Forces are introduced into\n``hostilities or . . . situations where imminent involvement in\nhostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.'' After this\nreport is submitted, the resolution requires that U.S. troops be\nwithdrawn at the end of 60 days, unless Congress authorizes continued\ninvolvement by passing a declaration of war or some other specific\nauthorization for continued U.S. involvement in such hostilities.\n  Every subsequent President has viewed the War Powers Resolution as an\nunconstitutional impingement on the President's powers as Commander in\nChief. As a result, the 60-day trigger in the Act has never been used\nto terminate hostilities, and the national dialogue envisioned by the\nauthors of the Resolution has failed to come about.\n  At this very moment, our troops have been engaged in hostilities in\nIraq and Syria for more than 60 days, without the enactment of an\nauthorizing resolution by Congress. Some believe that the continuing\nhostilities are a violation of the War Powers Resolution. Others argue\nthat the War Powers Resolution has not been triggered, because our\nmilitary actions can be justified under earlier authorizations. Either\nway, it is clear that the 60-day limitation in the resolution has had\nno more force and effect in the case of the battle against ISIS than it\ndid in earlier actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and elsewhere.\n  I believe that the War Powers Resolution needs to be modernized to\nmake it more relevant to the situations our military is likely to face\nin the 21st century--in particular, the ongoing struggle against new\nand evolving terrorist groups.\n  Today, I filed a bill that would amend the War Powers Resolution to\nauthorize the President to act against non-state actors like ISIS,\nwhere he judges it necessary to address a continuing and imminent\nthreat to the United States, subject to a resolution of disapproval by\nCongress under the War Powers Resolution. This approach would allow the\nPresident to take decisive action to address imminent terrorist\nthreats, while reserving a clear role for Congress through a resolution\nof disapproval. I believe that this approach would provide for a\nnational dialogue on the use of military force with respect to non-\nstate actors like ISIS, while avoiding the dead end provided unworkable\nrequirement of the current War Powers Resolution, under which\ncongressional inaction could require U.S. troops to suddenly disengage\nfrom the enemy while in harm's way.\n  My amendment would provide that the authority to use U.S. Armed\nForces against non-state actors would terminate after 60 days unless\neither: 1, the President's actions are based on a law providing for the\nuse of military force against a non-state actor; or 2, the President\nnotifies Congress that continued use of military force is necessary\nbecause the non-state actor poses a ``continuing and imminent threat''\nto the United States or U.S. persons, and Congress does not enact a\njoint resolution of disapproval under expedited procedures.\n  Expedited procedures under the War Powers Resolution would ensure\nthat Congress considers the issue. Under these procedures, if a\nresolution of disapproval is filed in a timely manner by any Senator,\nthe Senate Foreign Relations Committee would have 15 calendar days to\nreport the resolution or be discharged. The Senate would then have 3\ndays to consider the Resolution, with time equally divided between\nproponents and opponents of the measure. As with any joint resolution,\nthe measure could be vetoed, and such a veto would be subject to an\noverride vote in Congress.\n  I believe this approach would provide greater clarity for the\nExecutive and Legislative branches and I hope a future Senate will\nconsider it.\n                                 ______\n\n      By Mr. HARKIN:\n  S. 3020. A bill to establish the composition known as America the\nBeautiful as the national anthem; to the Committee on the Judiciary.\n  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing one last bill as a\nUnited States Senator. It is on an issue I have long wanted to tackle,\nchanging our national anthem to one I believe is more representative of\nthe amazing country and people that make up our United States of\nAmerica. I believe that from its very first line, ``Oh beautiful for\nspacious skies'' America the Beautiful captures the spirit of our\ndemocracy and our shared commitment to liberty and freedom far better\nthan our current anthem.\n  Now some might say but the Star Spangled Banner has always been our\nnational anthem, but that's not true. In fact its only been the anthem\nsince 1931 and its only been in popular use during the last 100 years.\nIt first became popular with the military, particularly the Navy.\n  But the bottom line is that the Star Spangled banner commemorates a\nsingle battle, just one of the many historic battles and wars that we\nhave fought to create and protect our great country. I think to me the\nthing that best captures my concern with the Star Spangled Banner, in\naddition to the fact that it is hard as heck for a layperson to sing,\nis that it doesn't actually mention the word ``America.''\n  In contrast, America the Beautiful celebrates not just the amazing\ngeography and wonder of our country--from amber waves of grain to\npurple mountains--from sea to shining sea, but also captures something\nof our national spirit when we sing ``A thoroughfare of freedom beat,\nacross the wilderness.''\n  Moreover, unlike the Star Spangled banner, America the Beautiful,\nlike our coins, like our daily invocation here in the Senate\nacknowledges a higher power and calls upon god to guide us, to shed\ngrace upon us, while also celebrating the heroism of those who have\nsacrificed their lives to create and preserve our democracy.\n  I am well aware that this legislation to redesignate the national\nanthem to ``America the Beautiful'' is not going to pass today, one of\nmy final days in the Senate, but I would ask those who follow me to\nkeep in mind the importance of symbols like the national anthem in\nreminding us what is great about this country--equality of opportunity,\ngeographic diversity and majesty, shared commitment to individual\nliberty--and give serious thought to this proposal.\n  America the Beautiful is an anthem that far better embodies both the\nland and the principles that are the unifying beliefs of our democracy\nand for which we all stand together: freedom, liberty, and progress.\nFor these reasons I believe that ``America the Beautiful'' should\nreplace ``The Star Spangled Banner'' as the national anthem and I hope\nthat my colleagues will come to share this view.\n\n[[Page S6924]]\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2014-12-16-pt1-PgS6921-3"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 62.30580899864435, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}