[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 66 (Monday, May 5, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2636-S2639]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY SAVINGS AND INDUSTRIAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT OF 2014--MOTION TO
PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislation session.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 149
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass the
Stopping Tax Offenders and Prosecuting Identity Theft Act of 2013.
Before we have another year--yet another year--of criminals stealing
the tax returns of millions of hardworking Americans, we need to pass
this bipartisan bill.
Let me tell you from the start this is a bill that I introduced with
Senator Sessions of Alabama. This is a bill that made it through the
Judiciary Committee 18 to 0. After a number of amendments were
considered and rejected, this bill made it through the Judiciary
Committee--in which there are many different people of ideological
views--18 to 0.
So what is this about? We have a problem in this country, and it is a
problem I think people would be very surprised about if they knew how
much money it involved. Criminals are increasingly filing false tax
returns using stolen identity information in order to claim victims'
refunds.
What does this mean? How much money are we talking about?
In 2012 alone, identity thieves filed 1.8 million fraudulent tax
returns, almost double the number confirmed in 2011. The numbers in the
documents in these cases may be forged, but the dollars behind them are
real.
In 2012, there were another 1.1 million fraudulent tax returns that
slipped through the cracks, and our U.S. Treasury paid out--are you
ready for this--$3.6 billion in fraudulent returns, $3.6 billion at a
time when we have a debt. At a time when we are cutting programs and
doing everything we can to make the government more accountable, we
paid out $3.6 billion in fraudulent returns. That is taxpayers' dollars
going down the drain.
But when the criminals file these fake tax returns, it is not only
the Treasury that loses out. Everyday people are the real victims,
forced to wait months--sometimes even years--before receiving the
refunds that are owed to them, and it can take years to fix the
problems when you have your identity stolen.
In 2012, Alan Stender, a retired businessman from the 5,000-person
town of Circle Pines, MN, was working to file his taxes on time, just
as so many Americans did this past month. After completing all the
forms and sending in his tax returns, Alan heard from the IRS that
there was a major problem. Someone had stolen his identity and used his
personal information to fraudulently file his return and steal his tax
refund.
Last month, 25 people were arrested in Florida for using thousands of
stolen identities to claim $36 million in fraudulent tax refunds. This
included the arrest of a middle-school food service worker who stole
the identities of more than 400 students. Those victims are just kids.
Yet criminals are stealing their identities to get fake tax returns.
Attorney General of the United States of America Eric Holder had his
tax ID stolen. Two young adults used his name, date of birth, and
Social Security number to file a fraudulent tax return. They got caught
and they got prosecuted. But when our own Attorney General of the
United States is a victim of tax fraud--people stealing his identity--I
think it is time to admit we have a problem. From a retired man in
Minnesota, to middle-school students
[[Page S2637]]
in Florida, to the Attorney General of the United States, it is clear
identity theft can happen to anyone.
We also know this crime can victimize our most vulnerable citizens--
seniors living on fixed incomes or people with disabilities depending
on tax returns to make ends meet. These people cannot financially
manage having their tax returns stolen. There is a lot at stake here,
and bipartisan action is needed. That is why I put forward this
bipartisan piece of legislation along with Republican Senator Jeff
Sessions to take on this problem and crack down on the criminals who
are committing this crime.
The critical legislation--which, by the way, has a similar version
that passed in the House last year--will take important steps to
streamline law enforcement resources and strengthen penalties for tax
identity theft. The STOP Identity Theft Act will direct the Justice
Department to dedicate resources to address tax identity theft. It
directs the Department to focus on parts of the country with especially
high rates of tax return identity theft and boosts protections for
vulnerable citizens such as seniors and veterans. We also urge the
Justice Department to cooperate fully and coordinate in investigations
with State and local law enforcement agencies.
Identity thieves have become more creative and have expanded from
stealing the identities of individuals to stealing that of businesses
and organizations. My bill recognizes this change and broadens the
definition of tax identity theft to include businesses, nonprofits, and
other similar organizations. This is something that came to us from law
enforcement. This is a bill that passed through the Judiciary Committee
of the Senate--not an easy journey--18 to 0.
Finally, we need to crack down on the criminals committing this
crime. The bill would strengthen penalties from tax identity theft by
raising the jail sentence. I believe this bill would go a long way in
helping law enforcement use their resources to more efficiently and
effectively go after these crimes. It is time to pass it through the
Senate. As I said, it passed through the House of Representatives.
In recent weeks, we have made significant progress by passing this
bill out of, as I said, the Senate Judiciary Committee. I thank my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We had votes on amendments in
the Judiciary Committee, which some may hear about soon, that were
rejected but were heard out. We had very good discussions and
arguments, and I believe that is why I got the support of the people
who were putting those amendments forward. Senator Hatch himself said
one of those amendments belonged in the Finance Committee. In any case,
we came together in the Judiciary Committee, voted for this bill 18 to
0, and it is now time to get it through the Senate.
With an 18-to-0 vote, I should have been able to bring this bill to
the full Senate, but I know my colleague from Texas has some concerns,
even though he is on the record supporting this bill in committee. The
time is now to pass this bipartisan piece of legislation to crack down
on identity thieves and protect the hard-earned tax dollars of innocent
Americans.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 316, S. 149, the STOP Identity Theft Act,
the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Texas.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2066 and S. 2067
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I commend my
friend from Minnesota for her very good bill. This bill is good policy.
It is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, as she noted. It
passed unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee. I was proud to vote
for this piece of legislation.
However, at the time the Judiciary Committee took up the bill it also
considered amendments--in particular, two amendments I introduced that
are both relevant and germane to this bill. This bill is addressing the
IRS. We have seen in the past year abuses from the IRS that sadly this
body--the Senate--has been unwilling to address.
It has been the practice under the current majority leader to prevent
the minority from introducing amendments, preventing the minority from
having a voice, and so the only avenue for the minority to have a voice
is to use tools such as denying consent to try to raise issues that are
relevant to the American people.
When it comes to the IRS targeting of individual citizens, it was
roughly 10 months ago the Inspector General at the Department of the
Treasury concluded the IRS had wrongfully targeted conservative groups,
tea party groups, pro-Israel groups, and pro-life groups. The day that
news broke, the President of the United States said he was outraged. He
said he was angry, and he said the American people have a right to be
angry. That same day Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder
said he too was outraged and, indeed, the President pledged to work
hand in hand with Congress.
Ten months have passed, and in the 10 months that have passed we have
discovered not a single person has been indicted. In the 10 months that
have passed, many of the victims of this illegal targeting have not
even been interviewed by the Department of Justice. In the 10 months
that have passed, we have discovered that one of the lead lawyers
leading the investigation at the Department of Justice is a major Obama
donor who gave over $6,000 personally to support President Obama and
the Democrats. In the 10 months that have transpired, Attorney General
Eric Holder has turned down my request that he demonstrate the same
impartiality, the same fidelity to the law that has been a bipartisan
tradition for Attorneys General under both Republican and Democratic
administrations.
Indeed, as I pointed out to the Attorney General, when credible
allegations of wrongdoing against Richard Nixon arose, his Attorney
General Elliott Richardson, a Republican, appointed Archibald Cox to
investigate those allegations, free of political pressure. Likewise,
when credible allegations of wrongdoing against Bill Clinton arose, his
Attorney General, a Democrat, Janet Reno, appointed Robert Fiske as an
Independent Counsel to get to the bottom of it.
Sadly, when I asked Eric Holder if he was willing to follow that same
tradition of impartiality, of independence, of fidelity to law, of
insulating the Department of Justice from political pressure, the
Attorney General gave a flat-out answer of no. He was perfectly
content; he saw no reason why anyone should doubt the integrity of an
investigation led by a major Obama donor.
As I asked the Attorney General, Would you trust John Mitchell to
investigate Richard Nixon? Of course you wouldn't. So it is in the
context of this abuse of power--this abuse of power of the
administration--that rather than working hand in hand as the President
has pledged, they have stonewalled it--that I introduced two
amendments.
The first amendment was simply to make it a criminal offense for an
IRS employee to target people based on their political beliefs. I will
note the text of the language I introduced made it a criminal offense
to willfully act with the intent to injure, oppress, threaten,
intimidate, or single out for the purpose of harassment any person
based solely on the political, economic, or social positions held or
expressed by that person or organization.
When the IRS targeting was revealed, it was condemned in bipartisan
language. If that language was real, this provision should pass this
body unanimously. To make the law reflect that it is criminal for the
IRS to willfully target someone based solely on their political beliefs
ought to be a proposition that passes this body 100 to 0. Yet I am
sorry to say that when I introduced this amendment in the Judiciary
Committee it was voted down on a straight party-line vote. Every
Democrat who had given speeches against the IRS targeting, when given
the opportunity to actually codify a prohibition against it in
committee, voted against it.
Likewise, the second amendment I introduced was an amendment to stop
the IRS from its attempt at codification of this persecution of
political views. The IRS promulgated new rules that would have put in
place its targeting of political views. The response
[[Page S2638]]
from the citizenry was record-setting. Indeed, I would note what the
ACLU said about the IRS's proposed rules. The ACLU--not exactly a
bastion of rightwing thought--said:
The proposed rule threatens to discourage or sterilize an
enormous amount of political discourse in America.
The ACLU went on to say:
Most social welfare organizations--on both the left and
right--serve exactly that function as they see it--the
promotion of social welfare and community good. Based on
their respective visions, they advocate for the powerless and
the voiceless. They promote fiscal responsibility and good
government. They serve as a check on government overreach, or
as a cheerleader for sound public policy.
I can say in this respect that I agree emphatically and
wholeheartedly with the ACLU. So I while I am perfectly happy to assent
to the bill of my friend from Minnesota, if only the same reciprocal
courtesy will be so and the remainder of the body will assent to these
commonsense bills that make it a criminal offense to willfully target
people based on their political views, and that keep the IRS out of the
business of persecuting people for their political views.
I ask this body to stand with the ACLU. I ask this body to stand with
the words of President Obama, if not the actions. I ask this body to
stand with the American people to protect them from being wrongfully
singled out by the abuse of power in the IRS.
Accordingly, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 311, S. 2066,
and Calendar No. 312, S. 2067 en bloc; I further ask unanimous consent
that the bills be read a third time and passed, and that the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the
Senator from Texas?
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I reserve the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, the bill I put out on the floor is a
bipartisan bill. It is a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate
Judiciary Committee 18 to 0. It is a bill that last Congress passed
under suspension in the House with the support of Republican
Representative Lamar Smith and got through the House of
Representatives. The House of Representatives, which tends to sometimes
be a rather partisan place, was able to pass that bill. We cannot let
this bill, when we are bleeding $3.6 billion in fraudulent tax return
payments, die on the floor because my friend from Texas is trying again
to put on these amendments.
I have no problem in having this amendment come up through the
Finance Committee. By the way, Senator Hatch, the ranking Republican on
the Finance Committee, said on the record during the Judiciary
Committee hearing that S. 2067 should be considered first by the
Finance Committee; that it was in the Finance Committee's jurisdiction.
Yes, he voted for it in the end, but that is what he said. That is why
this was problematic, and that amendment failed. We had a full
discussion about this amendment.
In addition, there is a rulemaking on this issue, with 76,000
comments before the IRS. That is the issue.
As for the other amendment that my friend from Texas has put out
there as 2066, also considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, also
debated in the Judiciary Committee--we didn't close off the amendment.
We had an amendment, we had a discussion, and that amendment failed by
10 to 8.
There are several laws, as we know, that are already on the books
that could be useful in this case, and there may be further discussion
of this in the future. But this bill has nothing to do with that. Just
because it has the word ``tax'' in it doesn't mean it has anything to
do with the IRS employees and the amendments that my friend from Texas
put forward.
What is this bill about? This bill is about how, in 2012, identity
thieves filed 1.8 million fraudulent tax returns, almost double the
number confirmed in 2011. That is 1.8 million Americans having their
tax ID stolen in 2012. There were another 1.1 million that slipped
through the cracks, and our own U.S. Treasury is paying out $3.6
billion from fraudulent returns.
Our own Attorney General of the United States of America had his tax
ID number stolen. If Eric Holder can have his tax ID number stolen--and
they were able to catch the guy and prosecute him--what happens to the
poor guy in Minnesota. That guy wasn't caught. What happens to the
people that have their tax ID stolen and then they take years to be
able to get back their identity.
This is why this bill went through the House of Representatives
without messing around with these amendments. This is why this bill
went through the Judiciary Committee, where we had the discussion and
the votes on amendments.
All I am trying to do is take this 18-to-0 Judiciary vote--which I
was very pleased that the Senator from Texas supported in the Judiciary
Committee and said good words about this bill--all I am trying to do is
to get this bill passed, instead of having a debate about an amendment
that clearly should have gone through the Finance Committee, as stated
by the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee.
It is time to get this bill passed. That is why I object to the
amendments raised by the Senator from Texas and ask that this bill be
passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to the request of the
Senator from Texas.
Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Minnesota?
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wish to
note very briefly to my friend from Minnesota that her bill is good
policy. It is policy on which I hope this body can come together.
I will note a path forward. If my friend from Minnesota can prevail
on the majority leader simply to allow a vote on the Senate floor on
the two amendments I have introduced, then I will withdraw my
objection. The reason I have to make this request is, under this
majority leader, the minority of this Chamber is shut out of the
ability even to have votes. I would note this request is less than what
I asked in my unanimous consent. It is not a request to pass. It is
simply a request that there be a vote, and if there is a vote, that
gives an opportunity for every Member of this Chamber--Republican and
Democrat--to go on record and to see if every Democrat in this Chamber
is willing to do what every Democrat in the Judiciary Committee did,
which is vote affirmatively against making it an offense for IRS
employees to willfully target Americans based on their political views.
Any Democrat who votes that way can no longer stand and say they are
upset about the IRS's abuse of power because once you voted against
prohibiting, you have made clear that you are unwilling to do anything
to protect the American people.
The requests from the Republican side to the majority leader to have
votes scheduled fall on deaf ears. Perhaps my friend from Minnesota
will have more sway with her party's leaders than we will. But in the
interim, we are obliged to use whatever tools we can to press for the
American people, to stop the abuse of power that is stifling their
First Amendment rights. For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Ohio.
Energy
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise this evening to urge my colleagues
to support the energy legislation we hope to bring to the floor this
week. We are still working through some of the possible amendments on
that, as well.
This is good legislation that has been on the floor before. Actually,
about 6 months ago we took this up on the Senate floor. Since that time
we have actually added about 10 bipartisan amendments to the bill,
making it even stronger.
But it is a bill that is good for jobs. It is good for American
energy security and therefore good for our national security. It is
good because it is going to save taxpayers a lot of money, and it is
also good because it is a bill that actually helps to grow the economy
while improving the environment.
I have been working on this bill for about 3 years now with Senator
Shaheen from New Hampshire. We also have other cosponsors on both sides
of
[[Page S2639]]
the aisle--6 Republicans and 6 Democrats--who have been part of this
process. We hope to be able to get this legislation on the floor this
week because it is a good bill and it deserves to be passed.
When we have come to the floor before and we have talked about it, we
have talked about the fact that it helps manufacturers in Ohio and
around the country to take advantage of energy savings techniques and
the best technology, allowing them to save more money so they can
invest more in plants and equipment and in people, adding more jobs.
That is why, by the way, over 270 businesses and business
organizations--from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National
Association of Manufacturers--and a lot of other trade groups on both
sides of the political spectrum--have endorsed this legislation.
We have also come to the floor and talked about how provisions in
this legislation will save the equivalent of taking 80 million homes
off the grid by the year 2030--a cumulative energy savings, by the way,
of up to $100 billion. It is called the Energy Security and Industrial
Competitiveness Act. Again, it makes a lot of sense.
We talk about how taxpayer dollars will be saved because we require
the Federal Government to practice what it preaches; in other words, to
make the Federal Government, the largest energy user in the United
States, much more efficient in its own energy practices.
The time for talking about this legislation, however, has gone. It is
now time to pass it. When we do, we can then work with the other body--
the House of Representatives--because they have already passed
significant parts of our legislation earlier this year. We can bring
together the legislation we would pass here on the floor with the House
legislation and send it to the President for signature.
At a time when people are understandably concerned about the partisan
gridlock here in the Senate, and in Washington in general, this is an
example of something we can actually get done. Again, it has been
bipartisan from the start. It came out of the committee with a big
vote--18 to 3. It is one to which we have added more bipartisan support
over the last 6 months by adding more amendments.
Let's do something that will actually surprise the American people.
Let's do something that will help move our country forward, create more
jobs, help the environment be cleaner, also helping our energy security
and therefore our national security, and saving taxpayers a lot of
money.
Some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle are skeptical of any
energy legislation they have seen in the past, that this Senate and the
Congress have passed some proposals that are top-down proposals that
impose mandates on the American people. They have also seen costly
legislation that funnels subsidies to preferred industries, companies,
technologies, distorting the market and ending up in what have
sometimes been some very expensive failures. That is not this
legislation.
This legislation on energy efficiency contains no mandates. The bill
is about giving people access to information they can use, not about
making the American people or businesses do something.
Not only does it have no mandates, but it does not add to our
deficits. Every authorization contained in this bill is fully offset by
savings elsewhere in the budget. In fact, the reforms made in this
legislation will save taxpayers a lot of money.
Some of it can be scored. There is a $10 million savings, for
instance, on the mandatory side by some of the legislative changes we
are making. A lot of it won't get a score because it is additional
savings we will see by having the Federal Government be much more
energy efficient, which saves money for us all as taxpayers.
Unlike some of these previous energy initiatives which were costly
and I think inappropriate, this legislation relies on the market and on
the States--not the Federal Government--to drive efficiency
improvements.
There is a reason this legislation received this strong vote out of
the energy committee, 19 to 3. It has been improved since then with the
addition of these 10 bipartisan amendments. It is going to create new
jobs, it is going to save money for the taxpayers, and it is going to
help with regard to the environment.
By the way, our economy is going to be helped because we rely on
affordable and reliable energy in this country. It is our
responsibility to do everything in our power to secure more affordable
and more reliable energy by adopting what a lot of people talk about is
an all-of-the-above energy strategy.
To me, that means producing more energy--yes, including oil and
natural gas. In my own State of Ohio, we have a great opportunity
there. It also includes being sure that we are using the coal resources
we have, nuclear power, and renewables. We should be making it easier
to take advantage of these resources and to bring more of these
resources to market at lower costs.
But at the same time, we should be taking steps to reduce waste. This
is complementary. This is not something that should be either you are
for producing more energy or you are for more energy efficiency. We
should be for both. We should be producing more and using less. That
helps grow the economy, create jobs, and makes us more competitive in
the global economy in which we find ourselves.
Energy efficiency, by the way, of all those energy sources, is the
lowest-hanging fruit. Think about it. It is the least expensive form of
energy--the energy we don't end up having to use.
I think this is a commonsense approach which should be able to be
debated on the floor in an honest way, with other energy-related
amendments; and then, after that process, to pass it here in the
Senate, get it over to the House, work on a compromise with the House
with their legislation and our legislation, get it to the President for
signature, and actually move on with an opportunity to truly begin the
process of putting in place a national strategy that has this all-of-
the-above approach--producing more and using less.
I look forward to working with my colleagues this week on engaging in
this debate, passing this legislation, and helping the constituents
whom we represent on issues that are important to them--jobs, saving
taxpayer money, making the environment cleaner, ensuring that America
has a secure energy future, which is important to our national
security.
I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me to speak, and 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. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be
rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________