[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6777-6781]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 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.

[[Page 6778]]

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 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

[[Page 6779]]

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 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

[[Page 6780]]

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 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.

[[Page 6781]]


  Mr. MERKLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be 
rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________