[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 176 (Wednesday, October 6, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6928-S6929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Debt Ceiling

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on September 25, President Biden tweeted:

       My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars.

  That is right. According to the President, a series of new, permanent 
entitlements and a massive expansion of government, the biggest 
expansion of government, at least, since the New Deal, is going to cost 
zero dollars--that from the President of the United States.
  And the President has now been doubling down on that claim. On 
Monday, he once again tweeted:

       The fact of the matter is my Build Back Better agenda costs 
     zero dollars.

  Well, no, Mr. President, the fact of the matter is your Build Back 
Better agenda costs $3.5 trillion, at least. That is the minimum 
number. The Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, where the 
President's Treasury Secretary served on the board before joining the 
administration, estimates the cost at $5 trillion or more.
  Leaving that aside, even if the President has been merely trying to 
claim that his plan is fully paid for by tax hikes and other measures, 
to say that it would cost zero dollars is beyond ridiculous.
  I mean, think about it. Let's say your college education was 
completely paid for by your parents. Did it then cost zero dollars? Of 
course not. It costs a lot of money--money that your parents likely 
were able to pay only because of a lot of hard work and sacrifices.
  What if you saved up for a couple of years for your dream vacation, 
and now you have all the money that you need, down to the cost of your 
Ubers and your hotel breakfasts, does that mean that your vacation is 
going to cost zero dollars? Of course, it doesn't.
  The same thing applies when it comes to the Democrats' legislation. 
Even if Democrats add all the money they need to pay for every dollar 
of their massive spending spree, the pricetag still wouldn't be zero 
dollars. I mean, it just absolutely doesn't pass the sanity test for 
Americans.
  The pricetag for this proposal is, at least minimum, $3.5 trillion 
and likely much, much more. Presumably, what the President has been 
referring to when he makes the absurd claim that his spending bill will 
cost zero dollars is his assertion the bill won't add to the debt.
  The problem is that isn't true either. Because the pay-fors in the 
Democrats' bill won't actually pay for the bill in its entirety. The 
tax hikes in the Democrats' legislation will actually only pay for 
about two-thirds of the bill's ostensible $3.5 trillion pricetag.
  The other revenue-raising components in the bill won't make up the 
difference. What are those other revenue-raising components? Well, a 
substantial part is increased IRS enforcement. Democrats claim they can 
get $700 billion in more revenue by closing the tax gap, the difference 
between taxes owed and taxes paid.
  There is no question that individuals shouldn't get away with 
cheating on their taxes. And there are, undoubtedly, reasonable 
measures we can take to strengthen enforcement and narrow the gap. 
Unfortunately, Democrats haven't proposed any reasonable measures.
  Instead, the Democrats are proposing to, A, double the size of the 
IRS and, B, have the IRS snoop on Americans' bank accounts. That is 
right. Democrats want to double the size of the IRS and force banks, 
credit unions, and other financial institutions to provide details of 
individuals' spending to the Federal Government. Under the 
administration's proposal, once your withdrawals or deposits for the 
year exceed a certain amount--and that amount, by the way, if the 
President has his way, is $600--your bank or credit union would be 
forced to report the details of your activity to the Federal 
Government.
  So the Federal Government could end up with a record of every time 
you eat dinner out or pay your rent or buy a new jacket or a toaster 
oven. The invasion of privacy being talked about here is absolutely 
staggering.
  We already have a mechanism in place to allow the IRS to view large 
transactions that might indicate potential criminal activity. We do not 
need the Federal Government monitoring every purchase that law-abiding 
Americans make from the App Store or how many times Americans buy a cup 
of coffee, not to mention the incredible demands this reporting 
requirement would place on community banks and credit unions. Banks and 
credit unions around the country are worried about how they would 
manage to comply with the bill's reporting requirements.
  Let's not forget that the Agency that would be receiving all of this 
information has a reputation for mishandling private data. In fact, the 
IRS was subject to a massive leak, or hack, of private taxpayer 
information mere months ago--information that somehow ended up in the 
hands of advocates at ProPublica--and neither Treasury nor the IRS has 
provided meaningful followup about that data breach, much less any 
accountability. Giving an already troubled Agency access to reams of 
additional private taxpayer information is a very bad idea.
  Even if we granted that this massive invasion of privacy were worth 
it, the truth is that all of this additional enforcement still wouldn't 
provide the money that Democrats are claiming it would provide. 
Democrats claim that they can get $700 billion from the bill's 
increased tax enforcement measures. The reality is more likely to be 
about $200 billion lower, according to an analysis from the Wharton 
School of business. So Democrats would be doubling the size of an 
Agency with clear management issues and implementing a staggering 
invasion of taxpayer privacy to pay for a tiny fraction of their 
spending spree.
  As I said, no taxpayer at any income level should be able to avoid 
paying the taxes he or she owes. I have actually signed on to cosponsor 
legislation that would look at responsible ways to strengthen IRS 
enforcement efforts. But Democrats' proposal to double the size of the 
IRS and track taxpayer spending should never--never--have seen the 
light of day. Even former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who served 
under Presidents Obama and Trump, said he thought that $80 billion for 
the Agency was too much.
  Taken together, the IRS enforcement on steroids and Democrats' 
massive tax hikes will still not be enough to pay for their 
multitrillion-dollar legislation, partly because the tax hikes may not 
bring in as much as the Democrats claim but also because Democrats have 
used a lot of budget gimmickry to disguise the true costs of their 
bill.
  The standard method for analyzing the cost of a bill is a 10-year--
10-year--budget window. So you look at what your bill would cost over 
10 years, and that is how you get the cost of your bill. That is 
normally the way that it works around here.
  Well, that is not exactly what the Democrats are doing. That child 
allowance in the Democrats' bill? Democrats have only counted the cost 
of that allowance through the year 2025. That allows Democrats to claim 
that the cost of that provision is around $500 billion instead of the 
$1.1 trillion the measure would actually cost over a decade.

[[Page S6929]]

  All of those tax hikes are, of course, just for covering the costs of 
the bill over a 10-year or shorter window, but in reality, the new 
government benefits the Democrats are putting in place are not going to 
expire in 10 years. This bill is effectively instituting multiple 
permanent--permanent--entitlement programs. The long-term cost of those 
programs is not going to be covered by the tax hikes Democrats are 
currently proposing, as massive as those tax hikes are.
  I have talked a lot about the dollar costs of this bill, which are 
massive--the biggest expanse of government in, literally, my generation 
in history. I could spend just as long talking about the bill's other 
costs, like the fact that the bill is likely to cost workers jobs and 
opportunities by increasing the tax burden on American businesses and 
depressing economic growth, or the cost to American families, who are 
going to be facing higher energy bills and higher prices as a result of 
this legislation, but I am going to stop here for today.
  One thing is for sure: Democrats' massive spending spree is going to 
cost a lot more than zero dollars. And American taxpayers? Well, the 
American taxpayers are going to be paying a heavy price for this 
legislation for a very long time to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I agree with what my colleague from 
South Dakota and my neighbor has had to say about the issues of the 
spending bill.
  I would also add that people all around the country are paying the 
price right now with rising prices. They are getting hammered at the 
grocery store and hammered at the gas station, and every month since 
Joe Biden took the oath of office, prices have risen faster than wages. 
People are feeling the pain and the bite taken out of their wallets. 
Even without the specific raised taxes that the Democrats are 
proposing, the American people have already taken a pay cut.
  I note that the majority leader has arrived on the floor, so I am 
going to delay the remainder of my remarks so he can continue with his 
leader time at this point.
  I thank the Acting President pro tempore.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wyoming, and I ask 
unanimous consent that he be able to resume as soon as I finish my 
remarks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.