Lloyd Doggett

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. But the marine corporal, the single mom who is trying to get her daughter or son through college, they would actually see their taxes go up under this simplified fast-track Republican approach. So those who are trying to get their toehold, their foothold into the first or second rung of that economic ladder, they end up having to pay for more tax breaks for those at the top. And now today, through this bill, we see that what Mitt Romney was a part of in exporting jobs abroad, he was really just getting started because what they propose is a ``territorial'' tax system. What is that? A territorial tax system is when you create jobs in somebody else's territory. Here's how it works. Here's the plan that they're talking about: you are a manufacturer, and you are trying to decide, where will I create my new plant and locate it? I could locate it in San Antonio, Texas. I could locate it in Shanghai. Under their territorial plan, if you locate it in Shanghai, it's tax free. Guess where the incentive is under their plan to create new jobs? It's not in Texas. It's not in America. It's someplace else. That's what the territorial tax system is all about. But of course with all the loopholes that their lobbyists have been able to get through the decades, many, many corporations aren't paying the 35 percent statutory tax rate. Many of our largest corporations, like General Electric, they're not only paying a lower tax rate than the hardware store in Lockhart or in Austin that's selling their products, but they're paying a lower tax rate than the cleaning crew that cleaned up the board room at General Electric. Because they found all these loopholes, we have hundreds of large no-tax corporations that are paying next to nothing in terms of their taxes already. They would simply expand that with great inequity.

Mr. DOGGETT. Reviewing this Republican bill before us, I found that there were many of its findings and purposes with which I fully agree. ``The Tax Code is unfair.'' . . . ``The Tax Code violates fundamental principles of equal justice.'' . . . ``Exclusions, deductions, credits, and special rules make up tax expenditures that amount to over $1 trillion per year. . . .'' And then I reflected on who has been in charge of this Tax Code for 14 of the last 18 years, and it is the very people who offer us this bill today. And of the other 4 years, in 2 of those, President Bush was ``the decider.'' So they've had ample opportunity to correct these deficiencies in our Tax Code. But the problem is that rarely over the course of the last couple of decades have they met a lobbyist peddling a loophole to whom they could say ``no.'' They talk to us about a fast track. Well, that would, indeed, be a new track for them because they've had almost two decades to put in place a Tax Code that would resolve the problems about which they complain today, and they've been inactive through that period. Oh, yes, there was a time when Republicans controlled essentially all three branches of the American Government, and they flirted with a flat tax. It had great appeal to the Flat Earth Society that dominates the Republican caucus on most issues, but they couldn't make it work. Then they said they wanted a Fair Tax, and a fair tax sounded like something all of us could support. The only problem was that it would hike the cost of just about everything we buy--from food to a car to a home--by over 20 percent. And when you really get into the details, it wasn't all that fair, except to those at the top who have already benefited so much from the existing Tax Code. So Republicans have been in charge now for another year and a half in this Congress. They've had an opportunity to come forward not with a pathway to something they would do after the election but with a specific plan of how they would reform our Tax Code. And instead of that specific plan for this Tax Code that has grown by hundreds, if not thousands, of pages under Republican rule of complexity and with exceptions for those lobbyists who were powerful enough to have their voice heard and acted upon in this Capitol. Instead, they come forward with this flimsy little bill, principles with which most Americans could agree; it's just the action that counts. And they say, We want to go on a fast track, but we'd rather wait until after the election to start the track. Well, haven't we heard that story before when they were talking ``fair,'' when they were talking ``flat''? Today they're just talking about what they might do in the future. So we have to look for clues within this flimsy little bill of what, in fact, they would do if they were in the majority with President Romney, heaven forbid. And we got clue number one yesterday when they approved a bill to extend all of the tax breaks that President Bush approved for the very most privileged people in our society. And the effect of what they proposed and the approach they took was that those who were sitting comfortably on top of the economic ladder, they would gain. If they were a millionaire, they'd gain by more in their tax break than a police officer or a nurse or a small business owner in San Marcos or Schertz or New Braunfels or Lockhart--more than they make in a whole year, these privileged few would get for themselves in lower taxes.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Now is not the time to let the Republicans raise taxes on thousands of Texas families in order to provide more tax breaks for a privileged few. Republicans would hike the taxes by almost $500 for a married marine corporal with 4 years of service and two children living in Schertz. That's wrong. Nor is this the time for Republicans to tax opportunity. A single mom, working as a nurse, helping a daughter attend the Alamo Colleges or Texas State or ACC, would be denied the $2,500 higher education tax credit that I authored, all of this, in the very same bill that would give a Republican who earns $1 million a tax cut that is larger than that marine or that nurse will earn in an entire year. If there were an Olympic medal out there for protecting those sitting atop the economic ladder at the expense of those trying to get a foothold on one of the first rungs, these Republicans would have no competition for going for the gold. Nor has this trickle-down Republican approach grown our jobs and our economy. Extending tax breaks for those at the very top, it was done in 2010, over my objection; it hasn't grown jobs in the past year anymore than it helped to avoid the Bush/Cheney recession. And as for this much ballyhooed Ernst & Young report, it was bought and paid for by the same millionaires that would get a tax break bigger than what the nurse or the marine earns all of next year, along with a few large corporations who paid for the report. It is not credible. It is not just to see many Americans pay higher taxes in order to help the few gain even more tax breaks.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. ``I have lived through a terminal illness while struggling to get well and struggling to get and keep my insurance. I have been denied insurance because of a preexisting condition. I have lived this. It is very real for me. Today I breathe a little better. Life is good because now I have hope.'' That was the reaction of my constituent, Erin Foster, to the approval of the Affordable Health Care Act by the Supreme Court. And today's legislation ought to be called the Take Away Erin Foster Hope Act, because that's what it is, replacing the Affordable Health Care Act with only tax breaks for Tylenol. In a few days, thousands of Texans will be receiving checks of almost $200 each, of almost $200 million in rebates from private insurance companies that overcharged and abused them. This bill should be called the Return to Sender Act, because it says those abusive health insurance companies get their money back if this act became law. There are seniors today who are trying to make use of the flawed Republican prescription drug act that is now law. They left a giant gap--sometimes referred to as a ``doughnut hole''--in the coverage of that act. Our seniors, as a result of the Affordable Health Care Act, have seen their prescription costs go down, some of that doughnut hole plugged, eventually to fill it all, and provide them the protection that they have earned. This bill, if enacted, would double the cost of prescription drugs for those in the doughnut hole. About 2,250,000 Texas seniors would also no longer receive free preventive services. This act should be called the Charge Seniors More for Their Prescription Act, because that's what it does. You see, the problem is that in their near fanatic determination to see that President Obama fails on everything, Erin Foster and that senior and that individual that is counting on one of those rebate checks, they are just collateral damage to these Republicans.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. So some property owners will be unable to donate their land. Instead of continuing the previous bipartisan commitment to the missions, this bill reflects the same ideological extreme so evident in our larger public policy debates, like that over the future of our national transportation system. Yes, our Republican House colleagues are all for good transportation. It's just paying for that transportation that they're opposed to. And so today we hear about private property rights. Well, what about the private property right of an individual landowner to sell their property for a legitimate public purpose such as expanding this vital national park? That is denied in today's bill. This bill will not grow the park in the way necessary to fully enhance the missions that are so very significant to San Antonio and to the culture and history of our Nation. The better approach is to wait and follow Senator Hutchison's lead and to approve a freestanding, bipartisan bill and give these missions the protection they deserve.

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Speaker, I rise to focus attention upon one provision in this legislation, perhaps a few rose petals hidden in a very unnecessary thicket of painful thorns that are the center of this legislation. Recently nominated as a World Heritage Site, the Spanish missions in San Antonio are a unique treasure for parishioners, for tourists, and for Texans everywhere. In 2010, our able former colleague, Ciro Rodriguez, introduced bipartisan legislation, both to expand the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park by about 151 acres and to require a study by the Secretary of the Interior about even further expansion of this important park. In 2010, this very House approved the Rodriguez legislation. Though a companion bill was offered by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and she got it out of the Senate committee, the full Senate failed to act on the Rodriguez bill. During this Congress, I have been one of five Members who joined Representative Canseco in re-introducing the Rodriguez bill. Instead of approving our bipartisan measure, the Resources Committee has merged only a fraction of that bill into a totally unrelated piece of legislation that is little more than a giant giveaway and exploitation of public property and which will endanger irreplaceable natural resources from the seashore in North Carolina to the Tongass wilderness in Alaska. While Senator Hutchison continues to work on a bipartisan basis, this particular measure really includes little of the protection that our missions deserve. Now any purchase of additional land for this park, an original purpose of the bill, that's prohibited, and even a mere study of the possibility of additional park expansion, that's denied in this bill. Now, the only way that the park can be expanded is if a private or public owner donates land to the park. In other words, it makes future expansion and protection of these San Antonio missions dependent entirely upon charity. No matter how public-minded some private property owners may be, some are likely to be unable to afford to donate the land.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Because whenever it is about depleting the Treasury's ability to fund those affordable needs for our country, they don't worry too much about the deficit. $46 billion earlier in the year; this bill is part of a package of almost $42 billion of additional revenue depletion. Later in the summer, we are told they will come up with $4 trillion of Bush tax cut extensions. What this will ultimately lead to, if we pursue the irresponsible path,--of which this is just another step--is that vital public programs that work--Medicare and Social Security--cannot be sustained. They cannot be financed. There is no free lunch to retirement and health security in this country. It requires that we invest in a responsible way, and that's what the Affordable Health Care Act does. Reject this legislation today, which will undermine that reform, and set us back in our efforts to provide health care security to millions of American families.

Mr. DOGGETT. Well, Mr. Speaker, our long wait is over. A year and a half after their move to repeal the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans are back with the ``replace'' part of their ``Repeal and Replace'' slogan. And rather than offering an answer to comprehensive health care for 30 million more Americans, who need it, all they have to offer today is a tax break for Tylenol. Well, I'll tell you, health care in this country is more than a two-Tylenol headache, and it needs a more comprehensive response. Of course, the real purpose of their action today is just this week's attempt to wreck the Affordable Care Act and to protect health insurance monopolies. Some of these are the very same health insurers that demand more than 20 cents of every dollar for their overhead--20 cents; 10 times the administrative cost of the Medicare system. But our Republican colleagues never let reality get in the way of ideology when they question most any government initiative that is called ``public,'' as in public education, or ``social,'' as in Social Security. As usual, they continue to demand legislation that offers more comfort for the comfortable, while actually increasing the number of uninsured by 350,000. Understand that. If this legislation becomes law, instead of decreasing the number of uninsured American families, we'll have 350,000 more Americans that don't have health insurance. That's their plan. Our country continues to face a real health care crisis. Too many small businesses and individuals are paying too much for too little health care. Millions of families are just one accident on the way home from work this evening, or one illness, one child with a disability, from facing personal bankruptcy. That has not changed. The Affordable Care Act I believe is too weak. It should be much stronger. But it is so much better than the system we find ourselves in today with so many lacking so much. And it's far superior to the Republican do-little or do-next-to-nothing approach; give the American people half a life preserver, which is their approach. As always, when there is a need for public action, whether it is building a better bridge or more bridges, or providing an opportunity for more young Americans to get a college education, or health care--be it preventive care, school-based care, long-term care--the Republican answer is always the same: No. No. And their excuse is always the same, too: ``The deficit made me do it.'' ``I'd like to do something about long-term care, but we just can't afford to do it.'' What a contrast when it comes to bills like that of today.

Mr. DOGGETT

Mr. DOGGETT. Does the gentleman from New York anticipate that he will have any further speakers this afternoon?

Mr. DOGGETT. I want to even the time, and perhaps there is someone else in the House that actually opposes this motion. I want to allow them time to speak. So I would continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, throughout this debate there's only one thing that both sides agree upon, and that is that this transportation bill ought to move forward, and move forward expeditiously. This transportation bill has not moved forward expeditiously because of obstruction here in the House. It should have become law long ago-- months ago, perhaps years ago--so that we could deal with the infrastructure problems in this country and deal with the jobs that could be created by doing the hard work of building things that we need in order to strengthen our economy and improve job growth in the private sector. That's where the agreement begins and that's where the agreement ends, because the basic position of the gentleman in coming to oppose this motion is to present no argument, on the merits, as to why this provision that the Senate has already adopted, with Republican and Democratic Senate support combined, should not become law. Let me tell you a little of the perspective I bring to this. About 10 days ago, I went one business to another across San Antonio. I was at a tire shop. They put on wheels, tires, rims on cars and pickups. It's hot, dirty work. They struggle to make a living. They work long hours. They work odd hours. They're not air-conditioned. They've got to deal with local regulations, government at all levels, pay their taxes, meet their payroll, take care of their sick workers. I was down the street from there at a tamale factory. A woman had a great idea and expanded it so that she's selling tamales all over America, and they're great. It was a good way to begin the day to eat some of her tamales. Those folks are working hard to make a living and they're like some of the folks with Startup America, the small tech companies that I have represented in Austin, and now increasingly in San Antonio, that have an idea. One group I talked to, their office was at a local coffee shop until they were asked to leave. They sat there with their computers. They came up with an idea, and now they have multiple employees in a new startup. Why is it that those kind of businesses, whether it's putting on tire rims on a pickup truck or a startup tech company, ought to have to pay a higher rate of taxes than some company that can afford to link up with a foreign bank and a big CPA firm and hide their revenues in a bank in Switzerland or in Panama or in the Cayman Islands? It cries out that this Congress would correct that injustice. And the fact that that injustice is not being corrected by this Congress tells us so much about the broader problems that we have here in Washington. If you just watched the last hour of this debate, you should be aware of people that linger around this Capitol whispering in the corridors, hiding in the shadows, coming out only at campaign time, when now, under the campaign rules, they can pour unlimited amounts of secret corporate money into their favorite candidate, and they decide that we haven't had enough process on this issue. Let me tell you, it took 10 years to get a small provision added through the Ways and Means Committee to simply say you can't go out and do a transaction simply for the purpose of dodging taxes; it has to have some actual ``economic substance.'' Ten years in which some avoided paying their fair share because of an unjustified loophole. My little company down there in San Antonio that changes tires all day, they've probably never been to Switzerland, much less considered hiring a bank in Switzerland to help them hide their revenues that they worked so hard to earn and which some of these companies involved in these abusive transactions just consider to be rather routine. You say, well, this is just academic; surely people can't get away with this stuff. Let me tell you what they're getting away with. I pointed out already that with regard to one bank in Switzerland, UBS, they finally had to disclose $18 billion--that's billion with a B--$18 billion of assets of United States citizens sitting there in hidden accounts in that bank. There were some 50,000 such accounts that UBS had to disclose. Eventually, they had to pay over $700 million in fines. But they're not the only bank that is involved. Currently, the Treasury has under investigation 11 Swiss banks. There's one bank that is under Federal indictment. This is not an academic problem. It's academic only to those who talk about process instead of solutions. We have a serious problem that undermines the confidence in our government and in our system of tax collection. Why should somebody who's out there struggling at that tire rim company or that tech startup or just a working family that's out there trying to make ends meet with two people, some working overtime, some working the night shift in order to provide the food and fiber that their family needs to survive, why should they have to comply with our tax laws when you have these kind of companies that could afford the special treatment, that can afford the lobbyists to block measures like this engaged in abuse? So today I would say to you that there is an opportunity for this House to make itself clear on this issue. Yes, we want to move a transportation bill. And while Republicans have told us we can have transportation without really paying for it, we have a measure adopted by the U.S. Senate on a bipartisan basis, that will provide us a billion dollars more of the transportation we need. But we not only get that additional transportation, we have an opportunity today to make our position clear to all of the people of America: Do you stand on the side of preventing abuse, do you stand on the side of equity and fairness to all American taxpayers, or do you want special treatment? Do you want the few, the privileged, to continue to enjoy the privilege of the connivance that goes on between some of these folks and their lobbyists and their accountants and their high- powered lawyers to get advantages that most Americans don't have or want? As far as I'm concerned, almost no matter what the topic is on this floor of this House, that's the basic issue involved: whether there will be equity and fairness that gives Americans confidence in this system of government, in this democracy, or whether it again and again will be subverted--and in this case, with one Member coming to offer an objection to the motion, not because the matter doesn't have merit, but because it hadn't been studied enough. We have studied this problem to death. It cries out for an answer today, and this motion is a narrow way of answering it. It won't solve all of the problems. There will still be ways that these special interests will find to dodge and avoid their fair share of taxes. But it will close one abuse. It will give our law enforcement authorities one more tool to deal with criminal tax evasion. I believe we ought to adopt this very narrow measure and write it into the laws of the United States. Send this bill that has been lingering for so long to the President to be signed, and include in it the fact that this Congress did at least one little thing to address the inequities, the special privileges and advantages that the few enjoy here in Washington. Say ``no'' to unjustified privileges, and ``yes'' to prompt action on this transportation bill, and include that $1 billion of additional transportation revenues. I urge my colleagues to adopt this motion to instruct and to do it promptly today, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. DOGGETT. Yes, we do. I would like to inquire if the gentleman from New York has anyone to defend opposition to this measure.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I would observe how extraordinary it is that there are those just like these secret accounts held in abusive places abroad, there are those in the wings of the Capitol that oppose this measure and don't want to end tax abuse, but they are unwilling to come to this floor and speak about it. One person who is willing to come to the floor to speak about it is the victorious Bill Pascrell of New Jersey. I am honored to have him join me. He has worked with me in the House Ways and Means Committee to speak against this type of abuse. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. DOGGETT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to instruct the conferees on the transportation conference bill.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This transportation conference bill is appropriately focused on the transportation systems, on improving them and sustaining them across our country. But there is one important provision of this measure, as approved by the United States Senate, that deals with transportation networks of a different type. Those are the secret networks that lead to the exporting of jobs and of revenues that ought to be used in the financing of the operations of the essential services and national defense of our country. This motion is very narrow, very directed. Since that particular provision concerning ``stop tax haven abuse'' was not included in the House bill, it simply instructs the conferees to recede to the version approved by the Senate. This is an important provision. It is a provision that will authorize special measures against foreign governments and financial institutions. Here is the key language of the amendment as adopted by the Senate: ``that significantly impede U.S. tax enforcement.'' This provision will be just one more tool that is available for the Treasury to address what some have estimated is as much as $100 billion a year that is drained from the United States Treasury as a result of offshore tax abuses. These abuses not only undermine public confidence in our tax system from all the many law-abiding taxpayers, both business and individual taxpayers, but the effect of these abuses is that the deficit is raised and that more of the tax burden is shifted to individual taxpayers and to small businesses that don't have the fancy accountants and attorneys and financial institutions to aid them in hiding their revenues. As we continue debating how best to deal with our debt and our deficits, I believe that a fundamental principle that should apply is that, before we ask individual taxpayers or business taxpayers to pay additional taxes, we ought to ensure, for those who have abused the system and have avoided paying their fair share of taxes, that we have the enforcement tools to see that they fulfill their responsibilities. I always find it extremely difficult to explain to a mechanic in San Marcos or to a small restaurant owner in San Antonio why it is that they have to pay a greater proportion--a higher rate--on their taxes than some of these multinationals that manage to shift their revenues offshore because some bankers or accountants are able to use these tax haven banks to hide the accounts in some remote jurisdiction. Over the years, I've fought against this kind of abuse. It took a decade, but finally, a couple of years ago, I was successful in getting the Economic Substance Doctrine included in other legislation and approved in order to strike down phony transactions that were for no purpose other than that of tax avoidance. I have other legislation that I've offered that deals with schemes that other corporations use to siphon off much-needed tax revenue and jobs out of the United States. It is a big problem that does not have any one legislative solution, but the measure before us that would be encouraged by this motion to instruct does provide one tool that would be very useful. We know that some foreign banks have peddled a wide array of offshore tax shelters, offering to set up paper firms and accounts in places like Switzerland, Panama, and the British Virgin Islands. Indeed, in 2009, the United States sued Swiss Financial Services and the banking firm UBS to force the disclosure of the thousands of undeclared assets of Americans that were being held in secret accounts abroad. Just to get an inkling of how big this problem is, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I will note that at this one bank, at this one Swiss bank, it admitted to $18 billion in undeclared assets of American clients that could well be taxable. This has cost the United States Treasury billions of dollars over the years, and this was just one bank in one country. Although a settlement was eventually achieved, I don't think we got all of the tax revenues back that we ought to have gotten back. This is really just an indication of how rampant this problem is and how necessary a provision of this type pending in the conference really is. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman is ready to close, I will use the balance of my time. I believe I have the right to close on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOGGETT. Then, Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. Apparently, there is no other Member who is willing to come out and defend these abusive tax shelters. That says a whole lot about the merits of this motion and how essential it is to adopt it. With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. A distraction? A billion dollar distraction. We get a billion dollars more transportation out of this measure available for all of the States, if we approve this section, which the Senate has adopted. A distraction? Tell that to the cleaning crew that pays a higher rate of taxes when they clean the corporate board room than the corporation does because of these secret tax havens. I think this goes to the core of our responsibilities. And, yes, these powerful lobby groups that line up their limousines outside the Capitol here, they manage to block consideration in these committees, but this Motion brings this important matter directly to the floor for action. With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), who serves on the Financial Services Committee and understands how urgent it is to address this problem.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is a truly amazing debate. The motion is a narrow one asking that the House simply join with Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate to include within this transportation bill a provision that will yield about an additional billion dollars for the repair of bridges, for the construction of transportation systems around the country. It will do so not by raising taxes or the tax rate on anyone, not even by closing one of the many outrageous loopholes that exist in our tax law that allow some to gain advantage because of the power of their lobbyists and their accountants to write special provisions into the law and then exploit those provisions. No, it doesn't do any of that. It simply gives a tool to our law enforcement to enforce existing laws and to say that you cannot violate the law. Here is a way for the Treasury Department to enforce the laws effectively. As the gentlewoman from Wisconsin pointed out, there is an infrastructure in place upon which this amendment properly builds and which Senator Carl Levin, who is the author of this amendment to the Transportation bill, and who has been a national leader in fighting tax abuse, built on by drawing this provision from legislation that he and I have filed independent of this bill, the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act. Special law enforcement provisions are granted by the PATRIOT Act with respect to money-laundering concerns. If the Secretary of the Treasury finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a foreign government or a financial institution is involved in money laundering, the Secretary may impose special measures. That's exactly what this provision would do now for those that are involved in substantial tax abuse. This particular PATRIOT Act provision has been used sparingly by the Treasury. It has not been abused. It was used, for example, against the country of Burma. It has been used to stop financial firms for laundering funds through the United States financial system. Other times, the Treasury has pinpointed its measures against a single problem financial institution to stop laundered funds from entering the United States. The Stop Tax Haven Abuse provision that is included in this transportation bill and, which is now under consideration by the conference would empower the Secretary of the Treasury to use the same types of tools it currently has to deal with those that significantly impede U.S. tax enforcement. In addition to the existing measures available, it would also give the Treasury the authority to block U.S. banks from honoring credit or debit cards from foreign entities that are primarily money-laundering concerns or that significantly hamper U.S. tax enforcement. Because of these sanctions, the Treasury will have an added tool needed to end offshore tax abuses that allow tax cheats to profit at the expense of honest taxpayers. The amendment would confer discretionary authority upon the Treasury. The Treasury does not have to use this authority; but it has a new tool, when needed, to address these abuses. These special measures offer the Treasury necessary flexibility in dealing with tax dodgers.