[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 177 (Thursday, October 7, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6954-S6975]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO DISCHARGE
Mr. SCHUMER. Pursuant to S. Res. 27, the Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee being tied on the question of reporting, I move
to discharge the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee from further consideration of the nomination of Catherine
Elizabeth Lhamon, of California, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, Department of Education.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of S. Res. 27, there will
now be up to 4 hours of debate on the motion equally divided between
the two leaders or their designees, with no motions, points of order,
or amendments in order.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
INFRASTRUCTURE BILL
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose, of
course, the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending bill. I have been
coming to the floor to talk about this--the wasted taxes, the spending,
all of the sorts of things the Democrats are trying to do.
You know, right now, the Democrats are pushing a Big Government,
socialist agenda. There can be no question about it. They want
additional, permanent welfare programs. They want to--to me, this
bankrupts current programs, like Medicare. It takes--it is very hard to
think about this amount of spending without realizing the risk that it
proves for Social Security. And, of course, the Democrats are proposing
this big green new disaster.
For all this spending, what do they want to do?
Well, they want to raise taxes by trillions and trillions of dollars.
But it is still not enough to pay for all of the spending that they
want to do.
That is why Democrats are now working and pushing this backdoor tax
increase. Democrats want to supersize the least accountable and most
powerful Agency of the Federal Government. And that, of course, is the
Internal Revenue Service.
Now, what we know about this Agency, the IRS, is that they have, time
and time again, proven they can't be even trusted to properly secure
data, when we look at the leaks that come out of the IRS.
But they are looking for more data and more information, private
information, private business by American taxpayers.
Democrats are asking, in this $3.5 trillion bill, $80 billion of
additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service. They want to give
the IRS enough money and power to hire a full new army of bureaucrats.
[[Page S6955]]
President Biden's Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has been very
clear. She knows what she wants to do with some of the money. She wants
to force banks to tell the IRS every time anyone writes or deposits a
check above a certain amount in their banking account, checking
account. And right now, the number that she is talking about is $600--
$600 for a check written or deposited. So every time someone pays the
rent, deposits a paycheck, Democrats want the IRS to know about it.
Not enough to know that government knows how much people make; they
want to know how much they spend. It is Big Brother initiative to
squeeze every last penny out of working families.
I mean, why else would they want to go after every hard-working man
and woman in America to find out this information?
As Americans find out about that, they are furious. They are smart
enough to know that when Joe Biden first says we are only going to tax
the billionaires--they are only going to tax the billionaires--why are
they looking into the banking accounts and the checking accounts and
the deposits and the withdrawals of people all across the country?
Because the tax man is coming for them as well when it comes to
trying to pay for this massive tax-and-spending blowout.
So as more and more people find out about it, the more furious they
become. I got a report again this morning, 488 more emails and letters
into Wyoming Senate--Senator from Wyoming about that from my home
State. I have received more calls, more emails, more letters from
people from Wyoming on this one topic than on any one topic that I can
recall in the time that I have been in the U.S. Senate.
And everyone calling and writing about it has the same position. It
is not like, well, half of the people are for it and half of the people
are against it. Everybody is against this. Everyone we have heard
from--the 488 that I heard from within the last 24 hours--everyone is
against this proposal. Thousands and thousands of emails.
I talked to Senator Lummis, the other Senator from Wyoming. Her inbox
is completely full as well, all related to this topic. It is what I
heard about in the grocery store this past weekend at home in Wyoming.
This new scheme will be terrible, and not just for the taxpayers. It
is going be a heavy weight around the neck of the community banks and
credit unions in Wyoming.
I talked to one of the bankers from Wyoming. She was in the grocery
store getting food for the weekend. What did she--it was the only--it
was the thing she wanted to talk about, is the fact they would have to
hire three new employees to comply with all of the regulations coming
out that would relate to trying to get this information from their bank
to the IRS.
In addition, this would be quite an attack on our privacy. This Big
Brother scheme would make bankers and credit union associates into de
facto IRS agents.
And as this bank officer said to me, she said: Look, I don't want--I
am not going to be working for the IRS. I work for my customers, my
clients, the people of Wyoming. The last thing I want to do is be
somebody reporting into the IRS.
This is what I am hearing from bankers all around the State of
Wyoming. They don't want to be invading people's privacy. They don't
want to become agents of the IRS.
People in Wyoming have a straightforward response to this
administration, and it is this: Leave us alone. We don't need you
looking over our shoulder, prying into our life and our activities.
If Democrats go forward with this Big Brother plan, the people all
across this country will not stand for it. Many people in Wyoming will
look for alternatives to traditional banks and credit unions because
they don't want the IRS and the government and Big Brother to know
their personal activities. They want to protect their privacy. They may
find other places to put their money.
Look, that is going to devastate local banks, local credit unions, if
people take their money out because they don't want the government
boring into their data and their financial transactions.
It is going to happen in every State. Hard to believe the government
would want to do that, but yet Secretary Yellen came to Capitol Hill,
and that is what she is doing. She is still defending this indefensible
idea; and I believe she is doing it because that is what Joe Biden, the
President of the United States, is telling her to do as his Treasury
Secretary.
So she went on television Tuesday--today is Thursday--2 days ago,
essentially said it was no big deal. That is what the Treasury
Secretary of the United States believes, that violating the individual
privacy of individuals of this country is no big deal.
Last week, Senator Lummis from Wyoming questioned Secretary Yellen
before the Banking Committee. Secretary Yellen, actually astonishingly,
doubled down. She said, ``I think you misunderstand the proposal.'' She
said, ``The IRS already has a wealth of information about
individuals.''
Well, Madam Secretary, we understand that really well. We know you
have a wealth of information about individual taxpayers. You know how
much they make. You know how they make it. That is enough. If you have
all this, you don't need more, but yet you are asking for more, and you
want $80 billion for an army of IRS agents to be able to find it out.
That is the problem. The IRS has so much information about us already.
Now, Senator Lummis did get Secretary Yellen to admit working
families are not the ones skimping out on their taxes. Why else do we
have this army of IRS agents looking into our taxes? Secretary Yellen
didn't seem to care. She doubled down, still defending this massive
invasion of privacy, and that is what it is. It is a huge invasion of
privacy, and I contend that they want all this information so they can
try to squeeze more money from people who the Secretary even admits are
not trying to cheat on their taxes. They are trying to find ways to
take more money out of their pocketbooks, when they are already feeling
the big bite of Joe Biden's inflation at the gas pump and at the
grocery store.
This Big Brother plan is reckless. It treats the American people like
criminals. It turns the IRS into the judge, the jury, and the lord high
executioner. This scheme shows how desperate Democrats are to get their
hands on taxpayer money. Why? So they can spend more. They are so
desperate for more spending that they are willing to spy on the
American people to try to get more money to spend.
Watch and listen to the Democrats talk. There is a food fight going
on, and the food fight is: How much more can we tax and how much more
can we spend? It is a food fight between the really big spenders and
the extremely big spenders. Look, Democrats think that Washington knows
best. Now, the people of Wyoming know differently. We don't need
Washington looking over our shoulders. It is time for Democrats to drop
the entire plan, mind their own business, and stop demanding more money
to spy on the American people.
I yield the floor.
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. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Flood Insurance
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, today is Thursday, October 7, 2021, and
Risk Rating 2.0 has officially been in effect for 6 full days.
What is Risk Rating 2.0?
It is a new rating system for the National Flood Insurance Program
that will increase premiums higher than sustainable for homeowners and,
therefore, higher than is sustainable for the program.
In Louisiana, 80 percent of policyholders will see increases in the
first year, and at times, for some, premiums will become unaffordable
and can collapse the value of their home. The Presiding Officer is also
from a coastal State. This will absolutely affect everyone who lives in
a coastal State.
Now, particularly, in my State, in light of recent storms, it is
important that we understand the sustainability of the National Flood
Insurance Program is key.
[[Page S6956]]
Congress never passed a bill requiring that FEMA implement Risk
Rating 2.0. President Biden can stop it. He has chosen not to. We have
asked that FEMA delay implementing this program or reconsider it
altogether.
Now, by the way, FEMA has been slow to share information with
policyholders and, frankly, misleading Congress by hiding the true
consequences of 2.0 and not being up front with the cost in the out-
years. They said they would tell policyholders by August 1 of the
increase in premiums, but they missed the deadline. It didn't come down
to homeowners and insurers until the middle of September. Some are
still trying to figure out what this rating system will mean for their
life.
In 2019, my office reached out to the administration, and we were
able to successfully delay the implementation saying that there needed
to be further consideration. This time, however, the Biden
administration has chosen not to delay it.
Now, let's just take a quote from a working family in Lake Charles,
LA, who does not--I repeat--does not live in a flood zone. They
currently pay $572 for flood insurance on a single-family home that is
worth approximately $250,000. The quote he received--this is real life.
This isn't theoretical. The quote that he received under Risk Rating
2.0 raises his premium to over $5,000--$572 to $5,000.
Now, rate increases are capped at 18 percent annually, so it doesn't
happen next year. But this is 18 percent compounded. It is kind of like
a balloon on one of those little helium things. It starts off and it
doesn't seem that it is inflating, and then, all of a sudden, it
inflates rapidly, like a balloon note on a mortgage.
So with progressive increases, when it gets to $5,000--actually,
$5,624--he will have to choose: Do I continue my policy?
Now, he is not in a flood zone. If you think about actuarially, you
want people who are not at high risk to spread the cost for everybody
else.
Under this, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 20 percent
of policyholders will drop their insurance. That has a risk of putting
the National Flood Insurance Program into an actuarial death spiral
where those at lower risk drop the insurance, the remaining risk is
forced upon a relatively small number of people raising their risk even
more, and you gradually have a continual falloff of the number of
people in the program.
Now, some policyholders are required to pay for the insurance by law,
but this puts them in an even worse situation. They will either have to
put thousands of dollars up for their insurance or risk losing their
home.
I would ask President Biden, who unquestionably is an empathetic man
and empathetic to the working families of our country, to consider
delaying Risk Rating 2.0.
Now, there are a couple of criticisms of the flood insurance program,
in general, which are unfounded.
First: These are millionaires' vacation homes; why do we even have a
program?
This is factually not true. When CBO looked at samples of home values
in the program, it ranged from $220- to $400,000. And I imagine the
President from New Jersey--President of the Senate from New Jersey--can
think of a middle-income family, a police officer and a teacher; who
now live in a home worth $400,000. These are not millionaires or
billionaires.
In my home State of Louisiana, these are middle-income and working
families, folks trying to make ends meet. They are not folks in a
vacation home. And here is an example of homes, after recent Hurricane
Ida, that would need flood insurance: middle-income homes.
By the way, you can see these homes are built a little bit on a berm.
They have actually taken the effort to protect their homes from
flooding. So the home itself is not flooded, just everything else
around it. On the other hand, I can promise you that there are older
neighborhoods in which the water is above the doorstep.
Now, looking specifically at Risk Rating 2.0, data shows who will see
the rate hikes. It is bad news for Louisiana, where rates will increase
for almost everybody.
The second criticism of the program is that it subsidizes people who
suffer repetitive flood damage. Now, this argument is mitigated, if you
will, by offering mitigation. Data shows that mitigation is good for
the taxpayer. According to the National Institute of Building Sciences,
for every $1 spent in Federal mitigation grants, it saves the program
an average of $6.
In the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, there is $3.5 billion
in flood mitigation assistance grants--grants going towards buying up
properties that have experienced repetitive loss. Shoring up the
program by removing high-risk properties protects other properties. It
is true in your State, and it is true in my State. It is a wise
investment to protect the National Flood Insurance Program.
So we can have a conversation, by the way, about a criticism that if
mitigation opportunities are offered to homeowners and they decline
them, what to do about that. On the other hand, when folks are offered
mitigation, they almost always accept the opportunity for that.
Finally, some argue that private insurers will replace the National
Flood Insurance Program. But let's be honest, that will not occur. I
support the expansion of private insurance covering flood properties.
Consumers should have options. If nothing else, this highlights the
need for a long-term fix to the program.
In the past, I proposed reforms to ensure that NFIP is affordable and
accessible to homeowners, accountable to taxpayers, and sustainable. I
worked on flood insurance programs with Senators Menendez and
Gillibrand, both of them coming from States affected by flooding, just
as mine did as well. This makes it bipartisan, two different regions.
It is not only about the Gulf Coast; it is about the Atlantic Coast,
the Pacific Coast; and it is about our island properties.
By the way, I have been speaking about Louisiana, but Risk Rating 2.0
applies nationwide. It impacts all those living on our coasts. Once
more, we should all--all of us representing States with coastlines--ask
the Biden administration to halt Risk Rating 2.0.
This Congress, I will continue to work to reform NFIP. In addition to
affordability, accessibility, accountability, and sustainability, there
needs to be an emphasis on supporting prevention and mitigation efforts
to prevent future floods.
At the end of the day, flood insurance must be affordable for the
homeowner, accessible, accountable to the taxpayer, and sustainable for
the future.
Tribute to Pastor A.R. Harris, Sr.
Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to honor a man in my
State of Louisiana, who has dedicated nearly 80 percent of his life to
preaching the gospel and serving others through his faith.
Pastor A.R. Harris, Sr., was born December 16, 1932, in Jonesboro,
LA. He has preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ since he was 7 years old
and led God's people for over six decades.
Pastor Harris is a veteran who served our country in the United
States Army during the Korean war. He and his wife Eva of 63 years have
six wonderful children, four of whom followed their father's footsteps
to preach the Good Word to spread the Gospel. He and Eva are being
honored for their 46 years of service at their church, Zion Hill
Missionary Baptist Church #2.
He is a man of God, family, and country; and it is my privilege to
stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and recognize the faithful
service of Pastor A.R. Harris, Sr.
God bless him, his family, and God bless the United States of
America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2953
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, you know, it is no secret that I
oppose President Biden's tax proposal. I think it is bad policy that
would undercut growth and derail American prosperity.
But one of the worst parts of the President's plan is the provision
requiring financial institutions to report their customer's
transactions of $600 or greater to the IRS.
That means anytime an American pays a bill, makes a deposit,
transfers funds, or makes a purchase of $600 or more, their bank,
credit union, or financial institution would be forced to report that
data to the IRS.
Opposition to this proposal is deep and bipartisan. I don't care if
you are a
[[Page S6957]]
Republican, Democrat, or Independent. No one wants the IRS looking over
their shoulder every time they make a financial transaction. The IRS
doesn't efficiently use the data it collects now.
Why in the world would we give them more information?
If the IRS has reason to believe you are not paying all that you owe
in taxes, they have the ability to audit you. They don't need any more
private financial data on any of us. The bulk of the data collection
they are proposing will do nothing to close the so-called tax gap. All
it does is violate the liberty of every freedom-loving American who
values their financial property.
The proposal would dramatically increase IRS audits of working
Americans. The overwhelming majority of people the IRS would look into
as a result of this policy would not have done a single thing wrong,
but when the IRS starts snooping, it will cost you big money. That
means hiring a high-priced attorney/accountant who will bleed you dry.
President Biden claims his proposal would only impact the rich, but
middle-class families are the ones who will ultimately pay the price.
Additionally, the IRS has a history of data security failures. Just
earlier this year, the confidential tax information of over a dozen
well-known Americans leaked from the Agency and was published in the
press. That was unacceptable and unlawful, but nothing was done to hold
the IRS accountable.
But this is, unfortunately, nothing new. Under President Biden's
watch, when he was Vice President, conservative groups and individuals
were targeted for aggressive audits. And as recently as this year, a
Texas-based charity was denied tax-exempt status because the IRS
considered the charity too close to Republicans and too close to
Christianity.
Folks, that is pitiful.
Providing the IRS with massive amounts of financial-transaction data
will only make it easier for them to target groups or individuals they
disagree with. If anything, we need to be reining in the IRS and
holding officials accountable who go after taxpayers for political
reasons.
The outcry from voters has been strong and swift. Some of my Democrat
colleagues are feeling the heat from their constituents and are
starting to walk back the President's proposal. The American people
have them on the run.
Democrats in Congress are talking about only requiring transactions
of only $10,000 or more to be reported to the IRS. While fewer
Americans would be directly impacted by this threshold, we would still
feel the broader, negative effects.
That being said, on Tuesday of this week, Treasury Secretary Janet
Yellen, the President's top economic adviser, defended the Biden plan
and doubled down on the $600 IRS proposal.
Regardless of whether Democrats settle on $600 or $10,000 threshold,
every American would suffer. That is because our community banks and
credit unions will be overwhelmed--I mean overwhelmed--with a tidal
wave of compliance data. Small banks and credit unions won't be able to
afford to hire the staff that they are going to need, forcing them to
close their doors in a lot of rural and minority areas.
And for Americans, including many minorities, living in rural
communities across the country, these small banks and credit unions are
a focal point for the community. They provide the money folks need to
buy their first home or car; they fuel the economic development,
provide good-paying jobs, and pump resources back into these rural
communities.
If these community banks and credit unions close, it would cut off
access to capital for millions of Americans in communities. They would
suffer. Livelihoods would be destroyed.
That is why I, along with my colleague from Florida, Senator Rick
Scott, have introduced a bill prohibiting the IRS from creating,
implementing, or administering a financial reporting regime that would
require financial institutions or individuals to report data or
financial transactions or account balances to the IRS.
To be clear, my legislation does not touch the Bank Secrecy Act or
any of the regulations either implemented or issued under that act.
My bill has been endorsed by the American Bankers Association, the
Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Association of
Federally-Insured Credit Unions, the Credit Union National Association,
the Heritage Action for America, the League of Southeastern Credit
Unions, and the Alabama Bankers Association. These organizations and
their members know that if President Biden's proposal goes through,
banking, as we know it, will end.
At this time, I would like to yield the floor to my distinguished
colleague from Florida, Mr. Scott.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator
Tuberville for leading this very important effort.
I want to be very clear. What President Biden is proposing here is as
close to policy from communist China as we have seen in the United
States. In oppressive regimes like Cuba and communist China, we have
come to expect a surveillance state where the government has access to
every part of a person's life. Now Joe Biden wants to bring that here
to America.
Let me explain what the Biden administration and Democrats in
Washington are proposing. Democrats want to open your bank account to
Federal agents. Under Joe Biden's America, the Federal Government's
authority would be vastly expanded so the IRS can get a look at any
account over $600. The madness doesn't stop there. This new rule from
Joe Biden would also require banks to report every transaction of $600
or more. Does anyone honestly think the Federal Government will keep
your private information safe?
Want to buy a bed? Here comes the Federal Government. But say you
want to buy a new shotgun. Hunting season is coming up. Again, here
come the feds. How about giving money to your favorite charities;
supporting a cause or a political candidate you care about; for
childcare or paying for mental health counseling? Perhaps you are just
selling off a little furniture and want to put your profits in a
savings account. For every one of these transactions I have just
described, the government is going to come take a look.
Every American should be disgusted and furious by this insane
overreach of the Federal Government. Think about the private, personal
information the government would have access to. It is incredibly
intrusive, and Joe Biden wants to make it nearly limitless. Again, does
anyone honestly think the Federal Government would keep your private
information safe? I understand that families are angry. I have heard
from more than 18,000 constituents over just the last 2 weeks about how
disgusted they are with this plan.
Biden wants to expand the surveillance state of the Federal
Government to target every American family. Ninety-five percent of
American households have a bank account, and this policy will have
impacts on every single one of those accountholders. But it is not just
banks; Joe Biden is expanding the Federal surveillance state to monitor
your finances across the board. They will be watching your local credit
union and your PayPal and Venmo accounts. They will even be watching to
see how you spend and earn cryptocurrency. This is an outrageous
violation of Americans' privacy.
I think the Democrats are also hearing from their constituents.
Recent reports say the President and Democrats in the House are looking
at raising the threshold from $600 to $10,000. That would still hit
many Americans families.
We are not just talking about checking accounts; this applies to
savings, retirement, and investment accounts. You name it, the feds
want to take a look.
Again, I am not describing something in Cuba or communist China; I am
talking about what Joe Biden and the Democrats want to do right here in
the U.S.A. I can't wait for my Democratic colleague to explain why
President Biden is even proposing this. How can you possibly justify to
the American people that the IRS should be snooping around in their
bank, retirement, or investment accounts?
There is only one explanation, and it is simply terrifying. The
Democrats want to control how you spend your money. Democrats want to
control your expenditures, your charitable and
[[Page S6958]]
political giving, and your investments. The more power Democrats can
grab from American families, the more control they think they will get
over each and every American.
This all boils down to Joe Biden and the radical left bringing the
American people under the thumb of his socialist tax-and-spend agenda.
After all, how else is he going to be able to squeeze every last penny
out of American families' bank accounts to pay for his socialist plans?
Here is how the Democratic Party works: They refuse to audit our
Federal Agencies that year after year send billions in improper
payments to the wrong people, which they rarely ever recover. They
refuse to hold their government accountable for reckless waste and
massive debt. But they want to put the magnifying glass on hard-working
families who are just trying to live their dreams.
Under Biden's socialist regime, it is rules for thee but not for me.
How is that different from communist China, where the government lives
in opulence while their citizens live totally dependent on the
government in poverty?
I will not stand for this outrageous plan. No American should
tolerate this unprecedented overreach. I am proud to support Senator
Tuberville's legislation and hope every one of my colleagues looks at
this for what it is: communist China-style totalitarian surveillance.
I yield back to Senator Tuberville.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. I would like to yield the floor to my distinguished
colleague from Indiana, Senator Braun.
Mr. BRAUN. Thank you, Senator Tuberville.
Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BRAUN. Every year, I travel and visit every county in the State
of Indiana--92 of them. You know, I can't ever recall anyone saying
that they want the IRS to poke into their business more on a day-to-day
basis. In fact, they bemoan the fact that many years ago, the IRS was
actually sifting through stuff to determine who was conservative or not
before they might grant status to your entity.
We have gotten to a point--and I think Senators Tuberville and Scott
have eloquently laid out the details. I want to take a little different
approach.
I have been here a little less than 3 years, and this kind of
entrepreneurialism through government, growing the Federal Government,
having an Agency like the IRS that can't do its job well with the money
that we do give to it, is just another example of trying to pile on one
bad thing after another.
It would be different if we weren't doing it borrowing 23 percent of
the money we spend every year. Imagine that in your own household, in a
State or local government, a business. You would be laughed out of the
banker's office if you did that and then wanted a loan to cover it and
then do it the next 10 years. It doesn't work anywhere else.
This is an example that I think, along with maybe the vaccine
mandate, where you are now forcing small businesses to do something
when they finally got a rhythm--and businesses have protected their
employees and their customers as well as anybody out there in that
journey. You have got that nonsense that is going to be unfurled here
soon. But it is an example of where, at some point, enough needs to be
enough.
The IRS has had a poor record of doing things to boot. Earlier,
ProPublica released illegally obtained tax records of many Americans.
We had the incident of issues with conservative businesses being
discriminated against in getting proper status set up. I introduced the
Protect Taxpayer Privacy Act in June for that because the IRS is
already doing things that they shouldn't be doing. This would be a
perfect companion to what Senator Tuberville is putting out here.
To wrap it up, we have to be careful when we send people here. If you
were knocking it out of the park, delivering results, not borrowing
money to do the things we try to do anyway, and then you tee up
something like this--this is going to do nothing more than unleash more
of an Agency that doesn't do well in its job anyway, and it is truly an
example of government gone wild.
I thank Senator Tuberville for bringing this to a focal point.
I yield back to him.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Braun and
Senator Scott again for supporting this bill.
I am proud to partner with him in this effort to safeguard the
financial privacy of American citizens.
Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2953,
which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a
third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, the Senator's proposal in
effect would be a game-winning touchdown for wealthy tax cheats.
IRS Commissioner Rettig, a Republican appointee, came before the
Finance Committee earlier this year and said the total amount of taxes
evaded each year could be as high as $1 trillion. Cheating by those at
the very top is one of the major causes of that huge tax gap. A big
reason why is that the automatic reporting and strict rules that apply
to the typical, hard-working taxpayer--nurses and firefighters, for
example--they don't always apply to those at the top. That means the
tax cheats are able to hide their cheating in the shadows.
The Senator's proposal would help them keep it that way. This
proposal would make it extraordinarily difficult to collect the
information necessary to crack down on the high-flying tax cheats.
The argument against information reporting is always the same, and it
has been consistently wrong. Despite what opponents say, what President
Biden and Democrats have proposed is focused on rooting out tax
cheating at the top. It wouldn't apply to accounts with deposits and
withdrawals under $10,000. And for most people, that is $10,000 on top
of your paycheck. It is not about anybody's transactions. They wouldn't
be reported, colleagues. It wouldn't create any new surveillance of
digital currency. This information-reporting proposal is about
reporting only two numbers: the total amount going into an account and
the total amount going out of it. Social Security income does not count
either.
So this idea--and I have listened to my friends--that somehow this is
going to end Western civilization just doesn't hold up.
In fact, Commissioner Rettig, a Republican appointee, pointed out
recently that this plan could actually reduce the odds of an audit for
middle-class taxpayers, those folks that I was talking about, the
nurses and the firefighters.
I am going to close with just a couple of other points. Most of my
colleagues know that I am about as strong a privacy hawk as there is in
the Senate. And I don't take a backseat to anybody when it comes to
fighting for Americans' privacy, whether it is taxpayer data,
communications, web traffic--you name it. And, colleagues, all of that
work, all of that private work, is on the public record. It is a matter
of public record. It isn't an atomic secret.
In those debates about privacy, it is also striking that it is most
often Members of the other side attempting to stop reforms, for
example, to government surveillance of phone records and emails and web
browsing--web browsing. But when Democrats are working to crack down on
ultrawealthy tax cheats, that is when, suddenly, we have got
Republicans saying: Oh, my goodness; who is going to be sensitive to
privacy?
I want to repeat, as I have on this floor again and again, I will
talk to anybody on either side of the aisle with any philosophy about
protecting taxpayer data. As the chairman of the
[[Page S6959]]
Senate Finance Committee, which handles privacy policy, I want it
understood that our committee--and I, particularly, given my record on
privacy issues--we take privacy very seriously.
That is not what is on offer by the other side today. The bottom line
is wealthy tax cheats are ripping off the American people to the tune
of billions and billions of dollars per year. Tax cheats thrive when
the reporting rules that apply to them are loose and murky. Democrats
want to fix this broken approach and crack down on cheating at the top.
The Senator's proposal would make that impossible, and it would hand--
colleagues, it would hand, the Senator's proposal--a big fourth-quarter
victory to the tax cheats.
For that reason, I object.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, this is a simple two-page bill that
will protect every American from an invasion of privacy by Big Brother
Government IRS. I am sorry to see that my Democratic colleagues oppose
protecting the financial privacy of American taxpayers. That is a real
shame.
I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Member of the U.S. Senate
who can honestly say that a majority of their constituents support
President Biden's proposal for the IRS to monitor a $600 or more
transaction. I don't think you could find one.
We ought to be able to stand up together, in a bipartisan fashion, to
reject this radical proposal. I am confident that the American people
will continue to put pressure on their elected representatives to
reject this plan. I will work with my colleagues to address legitimate
concerns, though I suspect there are none, and any position is going to
be purely political.
Americans across the country can count on Senator Scott and myself to
keep up the fight of this important issue.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5323
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we have reached a really important
point in our relationship with one of our great allies in the world.
The United States has before it the challenge--and this Congress can
meet that challenge--for $1 billion of supplemental security assistance
to replenish Israel's Iron Dome system.
That funding is provided in H.R. 5323, the Iron Dome Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 2022, passed by the House of Representatives by
an overwhelming--and I emphasize ``overwhelming''--bipartisan support.
I want to thank my Connecticut colleague Rosa DeLauro of New Haven
for her leadership and all of the Members of the House of
Representatives for their vision and courage in separating this measure
and passing it. And we should do so now, as quickly as possible.
All of us know that the 2016 memorandum of understanding negotiated
between Israel and the United States provides $500 million per year in
security assistance for Israel's missile defense. The MOU allows Israel
to request additional funds to replenish and restore missile defense
capabilities in exceptional circumstances.
We all remember vividly the May 2021 conflict between Israel and
Hamas, and in our minds still vividly and graphically are the pictures
of that Iron Dome system intercepting missiles aimed at civilians in
Israel. The Iron Dome defense system intercepted about 90 percent of
those potentially lethal missiles targeting populated areas of Israel.
In total, about 4,400 rockets were launched by Hamas. Should the Iron
Dome have failed, countless Israeli civilians would have been killed.
This system performed with such extraordinary and exceptional prowess,
showing its necessity for both humanitarian and defensive purposes.
I recently returned from a trip to Israel, where I talked to the top
leadership of the new government, including Prime Minister Naftali
Bennett. I was inspired and excited by the determination of the Israeli
leadership and, I believe, the Israeli people to inaugurate a new era
where we are even closer to Israel than we have been in the past.
There have been some bumps in the road; there have been some
potential disagreements in this body; but we should focus on making
sure that Israel's defense is completely bipartisan; that our
relationship with Israel crosses party lines. We have that opportunity
today to renew the sense of bipartisanship in our unshakeable
relationship with Israel.
And that relationship goes beyond just security concerns. We are
bound by culture, heritage, faith, and a common commitment to
democracy. And Israel has that commitment in perhaps the most
constantly dangerous neighborhood in the world.
Iron Dome is a defensive system. It is solely defensive, and it
defends against the loss of civilians on both sides, in Gaza as well as
Israel, because the loss of life in Israel, if it occurs, if Iron Dome
is lacking, will lead to escalating violence that will cost lives in
Gaza as well.
The Iron Dome prevents escalating hostilities that will cost lives
among both Palestinians and Israelis. So its defensive value is
indisputable, and that is why it does have bipartisan support here. It
has the President's support. He stated:
We're also going to discuss Israel's unwavering--unwavering
commitment that we have in the United States to Israel's
security. And I fully, fully, fully support replenishing
Israel's Iron Dome system.
A quote from his meeting prior to meeting with Prime Minister Bennett
at the White House.
Just 2 days before he made those remarks, Secretary Austin also
expressed his support:
You can also see that commitment as we advocate for the
replenishment of the Iron Dome missile defense system. The
administration is committed to ensuring that Iron Dome can
defend Israeli civilian population centers targeted by
terrorist attacks, and we're working closely with Congress to
provide all the necessary information to respond positively
to your request for the--for $1 billion in emergency funding,
and it's going to save more innocent lives.
I am concerned that Members of the U.S. Senate are blocking passage
of this bill. Senator Paul has demanded that we add unrelated language
to rescind funds from the Department of State and the Department of
Defense before he will agree to a unanimous consent decree. We should
prevent this sacred relationship from becoming a political football. We
should make sure that we preserve it as a bipartisan source of
consensus.
And that is not to say necessarily that we agree with every single
act, every single measure that our Israeli allies take. We can be
friends and family and still disagree.
But our aid should not be conditioned on agreeing with every single
policy or action taken by our Israeli friends. This measure is a
defensive platform that saves lives. It is a humanitarian step that
should be regarded for what it is--essential to our alliance, our
relationship, and our bond with Israel.
Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent
that, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following
consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 140, H.R. 5323; that there be up to 2
hours of debate; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill
be considered read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the
bill, without intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I agree with
the Senator from Connecticut that we should pass the proposal. In fact,
I have offered a proposal to fund the Iron Dome with $1 billion that
should be paid for, though. We are facing a $30 trillion debt. We
borrow $2 million a minute. Inflation is rising. They are wanting to
pile more debt upon our country. So, if we are going to help our ally
Israel, I think we need to be strong to do it, we need to be not piling
on debt without consequences, and this should be paid for.
There is a very easy pay-for that I have proposed. There is $6
billion left in a reconstruction fund for the Afghan national
government. Well, the Afghan
[[Page S6960]]
national government no longer exists. In the haste to leave, the Biden
administration has let the Taliban overrun the country.
So I asked the other day, in committee, of Secretary Blinken: This $6
billion, are you planning on giving it to the Taliban?
And he said: Well, it depends on whether they fulfill their
commitments.
To me, that sounds like a pretty big ``if,'' but if the Biden
administration says that they fulfill their commitment and
expectations, the understanding is the Biden administration is going to
give $6 billion to the Taliban.
So, not only do they let them take $80 billion of equipment, not only
did we leave in complete disarray, Democrats now want to say: Oh, we
have got to keep this money because we have to give it to the Taliban.
That is obscene.
We should immediately rescind all of that money. If you want to give
money to Afghanistan, let's vote on it again. But you gave the money to
the previous government, and now you want to give the money to the
Taliban, which has overrun the country. It is a disgrace. The Taliban
shouldn't get a penny. And we should pay for things, even for things
that we are trying to give to allies.
So I have a proposal before the desk. My proposal says to fully fund
the $1 billion for the Iron Dome project. Fully fund it. We have
already given billions for it. We are willing to give $1 billion more,
but we are going to pay for it by not giving money to the Taliban. So
it is a pretty easy sort of list. We asked every Senator on the
Republican side if they objected to this, and not one Republican
objected to this. So the reason the Iron Dome is being held up is
because the Democrats are objecting to its being paid for.
I am here today to support the Iron Dome. I am giving a proposal that
would give them their $1 billion right now. It could happen today. All
I ask is that it be paid for with money that has already been
appropriated and that is, in all likelihood, going to be given to the
Taliban if we don't take it away now. I think it is a very reasonable
proposal.
I am disappointed that the Democrats are objecting to Iron Dome
today. It is a disappointment that they are against paying for it with
a fund that is already out there, and that they so much love the idea
of giving the money to the Taliban that they are going to insist on
blocking Iron Dome funding because they are insistent on ``No, no, we
can't get rid of the $6 billion because, if the Taliban behaves, we are
going to give it to them.''
Look, I don't care if the Taliban behaves. I wouldn't give them a
penny. There are other ways of trying to have a diplomatic relationship
other than giving money to people. People think that somehow, if the
Taliban behaves, we have got to give them money? I think that is a
crazy notion.
So, without question, I will object.
I ask the Senator to modify his request so that, instead of his
proposal and as in legislative session, the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 140, H.R. 5323; further, that
the only amendment in order be my substitute amendment, which is at the
desk. I further ask that there be 2 hours of debate, equally divided
between the two leaders, and that upon the use or yielding back of that
time, the Paul substitute amendment at the desk be considered and
agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time,
and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object,
let's set the record straight.
There is no possibility of this money or any other money going to the
Taliban. Section 9021 of the fiscal year 2021 Defense Appropriations
Act--we all voted for it--makes funding the Taliban illegal, and if any
Pentagon official breaks that law, they could go to jail under the
Antideficiency Act.
Whatever the Secretary of State may have answered to Senator Paul's
question at a hearing, we should know and he should know that spending
money in any way that enables it to go to the Taliban would be breaking
the law, and he would have to come to Congress to use any of that money
to aid the Taliban. So this is a false issue.
The funds that the Paul amendment seeks to rescind have actually not
yet been appropriated. He targets the $3.3 billion in the fiscal year
2022 request. You can't rescind funds that haven't yet been
appropriated. So the amendment falls of its own weight, but I want to
deal with the merits.
No. 1, the Paul amendment seeks to rescind funds from the Department
of Defense's Afghan Security Forces Fund. Those funds are still needed
to complete the withdrawal. They are in an account that is urgently
needed to terminate contracts that are already in place and secure
military equipment that has been withdrawn from Afghanistan.
All of the complaints about the withdrawal and all of the complaints
about the need to secure that military equipment are met by this
funding. Defunding the Pentagon in this way will, in fact, disrupt the
shutdown of these activities and open the United States to legal action
from contractors. I have been advised, for those reasons, that the
Department of Defense strongly opposes the Paul amendment because it
makes ending the war in Afghanistan more difficult.
Let me just close by saying that there is a need for humanitarian
support in areas where the Palestinians live. There is a need for aid
for water treatment and vaccines and health and all of the needs--
humanitarian needs--of the Palestinian people.
One of the encouraging parts of my visit with the Israeli leadership
was their recognition that Israel has a humanitarian obligation in this
area. They recognize, as well, that we may not always agree on every
facet of our relationship, but this measure should be unconditional
because it is defensive, and it is humanitarian to support the Iron
Dome.
I wish my Republican colleagues were here to refute Senator Paul,
because I know many of them support it.
Therefore, I will not modify my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Is there objection to the original request?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I am
disappointed that the Democrats will again today block the Iron Dome
funding as paid for. I think it is important that we do support our
allies. I am in support of the Iron Dome funding, but I think, at the
very least, it should be paid for. We have offered them various
permutations of this--either the entire $6 billion from the Afghan
reconstruction fund or $1 billion. We have offered them other
alternatives to look at other funding in government that already exists
to see if we could pay for this.
So the real reluctance is on the Democrats' part to pay for aid, and
the thing is that we can't just blindly keep giving money away without
repercussions. We are $30 trillion in debt.
So I am disappointed today that the Democrats will block the Iron
Dome funding as paid for, and I do object to the underlying
proposition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I would just close, Mr. President, by saying we need
to pass this measure. We need to do it now, and there is no need for
pay-for. We should move ahead with this unanimous consent. I regret the
objection.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 5323
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, when I traveled to Israel in 2019, I saw
with my own eyes the Iron Dome system up close and in person. I met
with the brave soldiers who operate and protect it--young men and
women, in many cases, no older than 18 or 19 years old.
Iron Dome is a missile defense system that has successfully
intercepted thousands of missiles fired by terrorist groups, like
Hamas, at Israeli population centers. It has protected Jews,
Christians, and Muslims. It has protected them all from harm and saved
countless lives, Israelis and Palestinians alike.
This incredible feat of defense technology is a shining example of
the unbreakable U.S.-Israel security partnership. The U.S. Army is in
the process,
[[Page S6961]]
as well, of acquiring Iron Dome batteries, and it tested the system as
recently as August, meaning this lifesaving technology could also
protect American men and women in uniform from a variety of missile
threats.
Let me be clear. I want to emphasize the word ``defense.'' Iron Dome
is a purely defensive system. It is a shield--a miraculous shield--
against death and destruction, one that America should be proud to help
support and has supported across both Democratic and Republican
administrations and in Democratic and Republican Congresses for over a
decade. Iron Dome saves lives; Iron Dome prevents an escalation of
violence; and Iron Dome provides a critical window for diplomacy.
This past May, terrorist organizations launched over 4,400 rockets at
Israel. That is right--4,400 rockets. Iron Dome was key to preventing
90 percent of these rockets from reaching their targets, saving the
lives of innocent Israeli citizens. We should be proud to support this
technological feat that has protected countless lives and will continue
to do so.
My trip to Israel and my visit to see Iron Dome, well, is on my mind
today because Israel needs our help, and they need it now.
This summer, following the barrage of rocket fire--those 4,400
missiles that Israel had to endure and which the Iron Dome protected
Israel against--Israel made an emergency request to the United States
for security assistance in order to replenish and repair the Iron Dome
defense system to defend against future potential conflicts.
To Israel's north, on the border with Lebanon, which I went to see
just 2 years ago, Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization,
is estimated to possess over 100,000 missiles. Those 100,000 missiles
are pointed at Israel, including thousands of precision missiles. If
war were ever to break out again between Israel and Lebanon, as it did
in 2006, Iron Dome would play a crucial role in protecting civilians--
all civilians in Israel.
Just a few months ago, I joined Democratic and Republican colleagues
in urging the continued support for Iron Dome. Support for Iron Dome is
about the integrity of the U.S.-Israel relationship. There has always
been strong bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel defense partnership.
That bipartisan support continues today.
The failure to fund this critical defensive tool would be
catastrophic for Israel and would result in lives lost. It would lead
to more conflict, and it would weaken the bond between the United
States and our greatest ally in the Middle East. We must take action to
ensure that this program remains fully operational.
The House of Representatives has already passed legislation on an
overwhelmingly bipartisan basis to fund Iron Dome. It was a vote of 420
for, and only 9 against. So now it is the Senate's turn to act.
Earlier this week, my colleague Senator Menendez, Chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said this: ``There is no
conceivable reason why anyone in this Chamber or on either side of the
aisle should stand in the way of U.S. support for this lifesaving
defense to be fully ready for the next attack.''
He is exactly right. Opposition to Iron Dome is contrary to U.S.
national security interests and violates the commitment that the U.S.
Government made to Israel.
We have an opportunity to rebuild the Iron Dome shield, to support
the security of our most important ally in the Middle East, and to save
lives. But we must take action right here and right now.
So as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that at a
time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation
with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to consideration of
Calendar No. 140, H.R. 5323; that there be up to 2 hours for debate;
that upon the use or yielding back of time, the bill be considered read
a third time, and that the Senate vote on passage of the bill without
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as we speak,
the Taliban is regaining control, has control over most of Afghanistan,
is brutalizing women, kicking women out of school. Women will no longer
be participating in the government.
It is really just unconscionable that Democrats insist that money be
there to give to the Taliban.
Any person who believes and truly believes that the Taliban is a
menace to women's rights and to women in a civilized world should join
me in saying: We should make sure that no money ever goes to the
Taliban.
When Secretary Blinken was asked about this, he said that if there is
cooperation and if they meet expectations, the $6 billion--and some say
up to $10 billion--available for the previous government will be given
to the Taliban, who violently overthrew this government.
We are asking something very simple. We could fund Iron Dome today.
Make sure that everybody who listens to this understands. This is being
blocked by Democrats who don't want to pay for it.
We have a proposal that would have proposed $1 billion today for Iron
Dome, but it would have been paid for by taking money out of an account
that has been allocated and that Secretary Blinken has indicated he
will give to the Taliban if they behave.
So I think it is a real problem, and it is a problem of this body
that the cavalier nature of just letting our country pile on $30
trillion of debt. You ask how we got here. We got here $1 billion at a
time.
So rarely do we have an episode or a time where we can object. You
know, I would object to a trillion if it were on the floor. I would
object to $50 billion on the floor.
But the billion dollars ought to be paid for. And there are so many
pay-fors. But this is why government grows by leaps and bounds and
becomes more and more wasteful over time.
So I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Nevada.
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Paul's objection is unacceptable. He knows it is
unacceptable. This is no time for political games. It could jeopardize
the support for our allies and people in need of lifesaving assistance.
I challenge all my Republican colleagues to let us take up the House-
passed bill, passed 420 to 9, and fund Iron Dome for our national
security--our national security--as well as Israel's.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Internal Revenue Service
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I want to use the opportunity of the Senate
floor today to call to the attention what I think is an alarming
proposal that would allow the Internal Revenue Service to track nearly
all inflows and outflows of Americans' bank accounts.
I heard this story--I heard this proposal while I was home in Kansas,
and my reaction was: I assume this is just something on the internet,
something that people are perhaps fabricating. Surely no one seriously
is proposing that every transaction of $600 in one's bank account and
$600 out of one's bank account is something that the Internal Revenue
Service should be monitoring and recording, or that records would need
to be provided to the IRS with that information.
It is one of those thing I thought, well, that is just some crazy
something that somebody is talking about. But, lo and behold,
unfortunately, I have learned that, over the years--sometimes my
constituents have brought me things in the past that tell me the story.
It is, like, I can't believe that would be true, but let me check it
out; and far too often, it turns out that it really is someone's
proposal in the Nation's Capital.
Most Kansans would react to this concept by saying: I can't believe
it is true. And then: Make sure you do something to keep it from
happening.
In this case, it is apparently true. And not only is it true, it is
true because it is supported, it is proposed by the Biden
administration.
It is the Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, who believes and
testified that this is a good idea. It is Charles Rettig, the IRS
Commissioner, who believes that this is important to accomplish. It is
not just somebody's ideas. It is somebody who has something that--
because they have something to say that matters that can cause it to
happen is for this.
[[Page S6962]]
For the IRS knowing how much money a Kansan earns, that just isn't
enough. How much an American earns, it isn't enough to know our income.
Now the IRS wants to know how you spend that income.
This is an invasion of privacy that focuses on account flows, not
just on income, and it intrudes on virtually every American.
The claim that this will help tax wealthy cheats--I am all for taxing
wealthy cheats, but instead, this isn't that. It gives the government
the unprecedented access to nearly every working American's bank
account.
Rather than listening to the enormous pushback from Americans and
eliminating from consideration this invasive mandate, Democrats are
simply suggesting to tweak the proposal depending on the revenues
needed to fund this massive tax-and-spend spree that is around the
corner.
In recent weeks, I have heard from more than 1,000 Kansans who are
alarmed at this massive expansion of IRS reach and authority, this
invasion of privacy. The last thing my Kansas constituents would want
when it comes to their own bank account is more bureaucrats watching
and dictating how they live their lives. This provision is a threat to
their privacy. They see it that way, and it is.
Kansas relies heavily on small-town banks and credit unions to
provide rural communities and their citizens with lending services to
finance a small business expansion, to allow a family to pay for
college, or to buy a home.
The relationship between our bankers, our credit unions, and their
customers and clients is a special one. It is personal. That private
relationship between a banker and their customer is one that is based
upon trust. The banker no more wants to be in the middle of invading
their customers' privacy. Mandating that banks report to the government
their customers' account activities will significantly breach the trust
that a customer, a client has with their banker.
These financial institutions are often run by just a handful of
employees, and are often a family operation handed down from one
generation to the next. We have lots of small local banks and credit
unions already knee-deep--perhaps waist-deep--in red tape; something
they have to deal with every day, and something we have tried nearly
every day to reduce or eliminate.
Our bankers and credit unions spend millions of dollars to comply
with the anti-money laundering policies, and those often yield minimal
results.
This proposal would turn our banking system into an extension of the
Internal Revenue Service while forcing local banks to shoulder the
cost. And these costs, of course, ultimately would be paid for--guess
who--the customer, the citizen.
So not only are we--would this proposal allow our privacy to be
intruded upon, but we would be paying as it happens.
Unfortunately, the IRS has increasingly politicized and--has been
politicized and has a history of targeting disfavored groups and
individuals, and has proven incapable of protecting taxpayers' data
from leaks.
Entrusting this bureaucracy, the IRS, or, really, any other
bureaucracy in Washington, DC, with the supervision of your personal
finances is no way to close a tax gap.
At a time when the American people are more weary than ever of the
Federal Government and their Agencies, this proposal will do nothing
but further increase that distrust.
Democrats in Congress and particularly in the Biden administration
should prioritize strengthening the faith in the financial service, not
pursuing these kinds of policies that will push underbanked Americans
away.
Ultimately, this plan will not achieve its stated goal of increasing
tax revenues. Rather, it will lead to more harassment of average
Americans and those who work at their financial institutions.
It is clear to me that there is an attempt here to leave no stone
unturned to find every possible way to tax everyday Americans in order
to fund a massive spending spree.
So while we hoped that this proposal was just idle talk, something
that somebody said over a cup of coffee at the local doughnut shop or
the cafe, something that when we went to find out if there was any
truth to it we discover: Oh, no, I could tell my constituents this
isn't happening, this is just something that somebody is gossiping
about.
But no. It is a serious proposal by the Biden administration, and it
has serious consequences to the well-being, financial, but perhaps more
importantly, the privacy, something that Americans deserve, something
that Americans request, and something that is already too often lacking
in our lives--privacy--and in this case, privacy from the Federal
Government.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Iowa.
Trump Investigation
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to address the Senate
Judiciary majority's Trump investigation examining the period from
December 14, 2020 through January 3, 2021.
The majority released their report this morning; the minority
released our report this morning.
This truncated investigation doesn't support the long-running
Democratic narrative that Trump used the Justice Department to try to
overturn the 2020 election. And it is truncated because we don't have
all the records and this committee only interviewed three witnesses.
The available evidence shows that President Trump didn't use the
Department of Justice to subvert the 2020 election. For example, one
witness testified that President Trump had no impact--I repeat, no
impact; and the words ``no impact'' come from that witness--on what the
Department did to investigate election allegations.
In fact, the evidence shows that President Trump listened to his
advisers and to their recommendations, and that he followed those
recommendations.
The witnesses also testified that President Trump didn't fire anyone
at the Justice Department relating to the election.
Records from this investigation indicate that President Trump's focus
was on ``legitimate complaints and reports of crimes.''
Witnesses testified that President Trump's main focus was on making
the Department aware of the potential criminal allegations and to
ensure that the Department did its job. It wasn't President Trump
directing or ordering specific investigative steps. Witnesses also
testified that it wasn't unreasonable for President Trump to ask the
Department what it was doing to investigate election fraud and crime
allegations.
Now, with respect to the other core issues in the Democratic
narrative, the available evidence shows three facts.
Fact No. 1: President Trump rejected sending the letter drafted and
advocated by Assistant Attorney General Clark to various States to
contest the election.
Fact No. 2: President Trump rejected firing Attorney General Rosen.
Indeed, after Bill Barr submitted his resignation as Attorney General,
President Trump apparently considered Richard Donoghue as a
replacement, showing his displeasure with Rosen.
Third and final fact: President Trump accepted Acting Attorney
General Rosen's position that the Department not file a lawsuit against
the States with reported voter issues.
The Democrats' report makes much of the efforts by individual lawyers
to push the Department to take these steps, but the fact is, none of
these steps were taken because President Trump made the ultimate
decision not to take those steps. At each of these critical decision
points, the President asked his advisers for their candid views and
their candid recommendations, and the President followed them.
Now, ask yourself this: Where would we be now if President Biden
followed the advice and recommendations of his advisers regarding
Afghanistan? And we know what that advice was because we heard it last
week before the committees in the House and Senate by the generals who
were testifying.
Again, I am not sure why the committee is releasing transcripts and
an investigative report when the investigation doesn't seem to be
complete yet. I, as chairman of a committee, run investigations
differently. I collect records and run all the necessary interviews. I
gather the full set of facts.
[[Page S6963]]
Then and only then, I release the material publicly.
So far, the narrative the majority has been spinning here just isn't
borne out by the facts. So this advice from me: Don't take this
Senator's word for it; do as we have done on the Republican side. Read
the transcripts. I think you will come to the very same conclusions
that I have just stated.
Tribute to Professor Lisa Schulte Moore
Mr. President, on a second point and a much shorter point, I would
like to recognize an outstanding professor at Iowa State University.
Professor Lisa Schulte Moore of Iowa State University is doing
important work on behalf of farmers and rural communities, and
eventually it affects all Americans.
Dr. Schulte Moore is a landscape ecologist and professor of natural
resource ecology and management. Additionally, she serves as associate
director of the Bioeconomy Institute at Iowa State University.
Dr. Schulte Moore was recently recognized as the 2021 MacArthur
Foundation Award recipient and the first-ever Iowa State MacArthur
Fellow. This award is known as the Genius Grant and is given to
individuals who have shown a dedication to their field through
creativity and originality.
Dr. Schulte Moore is a founder of the Prairie STRIPS conservation
program. Established in 2003 at the Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge
in Prairie City, IA, this program studied the effects of planting
prairie strips on farmland.
Before I continue, I just used the name Neal Smith--former
Congressman Neal Smith of Iowa, 36 years a Member of the House of
Representatives. He has been retired quite a while now. He just
celebrated, I think, his 100th birthday and is still active in the Des
Moines community.
Participants found that prairie strips can protect the quality of our
soil and water by reducing farm field soil loss by 95 percent. They
also reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff by up to 80 percent. Because
of the professor's work, prairie strips are used in 14 States on over
115,000 acres of cropland.
In addition to the $625,000 received through the MacArthur
Foundation, Dr. Schulte Moore was recently awarded a $10 million
Federal grant to turn biomass and manure into fuel. With this research,
the professor is looking for additional ways that farm waste can be
turned into renewable fuel and consequently not contribute to the
degradation of the environment.
Whether it is researching the next generation of biofuels or helping
farmers understand what conservation practices work best at their
farms, I am grateful that the MacArthur Foundation recognized Dr.
Schulte Moore. Her dedication and innovation encourage young people at
Iowa State University and beyond to become involved in agriculture.
The fact is, the United States has the safest and most abundant food
supply in the world thanks to the American farmer and through research
at institutions like Iowa State University.
Congratulations, Dr. Schulte Moore. Iowa State University and the
State of Iowa are lucky to have a professor like you.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Vaccines
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. President Biden ran on a promise to be a
unifying moderate. He promised to bring America together. On the
campaign trail, he promised to ``shut down the virus, not the
country.'' As we have seen with his vaccine management, the opposite
has happened.
Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington have adopted an agenda of
systemic socialism focused on expanding government and Federal control.
In Joe Biden's America, the government knows better than the people,
and President Biden has shown that he is eager to use government
mandates to keep families in check.
President Biden's latest vaccine mandate for private companies
tramples on the personal freedoms of Americans. This unconstitutional
order will push more Americans out of the workforce, devastate our
economy with product and service shortages that cripple supply chains,
and throw America into a stagflation crisis not seen since the 1970s.
By forcing some working Americans to choose between keeping their
jobs or doing what they believe is best for their health, Biden's
mandate hurts the people he claims to help--workers, low-income
Americans, and seniors on a fixed income, who will all be either hit
with higher unemployment, higher prices, or a shortage of available
goods.
When I think about the impact of burdensome government regulations, I
think about my dad. My adopted father was a truckdriver. Anyone who has
driven trucks or been close to someone in that line of work knows how
demanding that job can be. It is hard work, and it is one of the most
critical jobs in our country. Truckdrivers are like the offensive
linemen of America's supply chain--often overlooked but absolutely
essential to getting things moving. Our country is already experiencing
a significant shortage of truckdrivers. We can't afford to lose any
more.
Of course, trucking isn't the only industry that will be affected by
Biden's unconstitutional mandate; nearly every sector is under the gun.
In an economy where simply keeping shelves stocked is an everyday
challenge, losing workers in almost any critical industry will have a
catastrophic impact across our supply chains and drive prices even
higher.
Just this week, a month and a half before Thanksgiving, Amazon began
already giving Black Friday discounts on goods because they expect so
many delays and shortages on goods. That means families who have to
wait for holiday bonuses before they can go shopping are going to be
facing ``out of stock'' signs online and in stores.
Joe Biden needs to answer this question: How is he going to fix this?
How can Joe Biden guarantee that our supply chains won't completely
crumble under his failed policies and mandates?
In fact, I urge President Biden to have Transportation Secretary Pete
Buttigieg and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo testify to the Commerce
Committee on the shortages we are already seeing and the shortages that
we anticipate.
Ensuring the stability of American supply chains requires the urgent
attention of the Biden administration. As a member of the Commerce
Committee and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Tourism, Trade, and
Export Promotion, I know this testimony from Secretaries Buttigieg and
Raimondo would be useful in understanding how this will be addressed.
We are already starting to see major supply issues. Seafood
restaurants in Miami are seeing price increases of 50 to 60 percent on
fish. Furniture stores in Florida are seeing wait times of 6 to 8
months before they can deliver certain products. Florida grocery stores
are warning of product shortages as customers are starting to see empty
shelves.
Small business owners and families aren't able to afford those kinds
of drastic increases, but if President Biden has his way, those
transportation difficulties are going to become even worse and prices
will rise even higher. Right now, rising prices on everyday goods are
forcing American families to make hard choices.
I have said it on this floor countless times, and I will say it
again: Reckless government spending causes inflation. The reckless
spending agenda of Joe Biden and Democrats here in Washington is having
disastrous effects on families across our country.
We can never forget that, as inflation worsens and prices surge
higher, it is the poorest Americans and those on fixed incomes who are
hurt the most. There are single moms wondering if they can put an extra
few gallons of gas in the car and still afford to put dinner on the
table this week or moms like mine who took on odd jobs to make ends
meet and watched the smallest price changes at the grocery store to
make sure we could still get by.
If President Biden actually spoke with small and midsized employers
and hard-working families instead of big banks and CEOs, he would learn
that massive Federal mandates won't help us get our economy back on
track. His Big Government mandates will only hurt us.
I want to be clear. I got the vaccine. I had COVID. And I encourage
every American to talk with their doctor and consider doing the same.
But getting the vaccine is a choice every American
[[Page S6964]]
gets to make for themselves. We can't give people an ultimatum to
comply, quit, or get fired. It is a gross overreach by the Federal
Government at a time when we need more jobs, not less; lower prices on
everyday goods, not higher.
Unlike Joe Biden and Democrats in Washington, I don't believe that
government knows better than the American people. My parents didn't
have much of a formal education, but they worked hard and made the
choices they felt were right for the health and well-being of our
family. They relied on government to keep them informed, and they made
their own choices. That is how government should work.
That is what I did when I was Governor of Florida. In 2016, Florida
was faced with the Zika virus, which impacted newborns. Rather than
placing mandates on pregnant women or restricting their travel to areas
with local transmission of Zika, which we knew where they were, we
simply informed Floridians. We worked to be as transparent as possible
and offered free Zika testing to all pregnant women in Florida. That is
how the Federal Government should deal with COVID. The government's
role in public health is to inform and support, not mandate.
Our country has seen labor shortages caused by Democrats' failed
policies of rewarding unemployment, paying people more to stay at home
than to get back to work. Energy prices are surging, and inflation is
raging. American families can't afford more of President's Biden's
radical policy decisions that are inflicting lasting damage and driving
our economy backwards.
Restoring and strengthening our supply chains is a critical step in
getting the American economy rolling forward.
It is time for President Biden to acknowledge that massive,
unconstitutional mandates on private companies won't do anything but
hurt American business and throw gasoline on the already raging
inflation crisis he has created.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Tribute to Warrant Officer Hershel ``Woody'' Williams
Mr. MANCHIN. Mr. President, I am here today to honor the lives of our
World War II Medal of Honor recipients who bravely served our Nation,
including the last surviving recipient who just celebrated his 98th
birthday, Hershel ``Woody'' Williams.
My colleague is here with me. We have known Woody for years and years
and years. This is a person who has never quit serving his country from
the day he was born to the day he fought and won the Congressional
Medal of Honor in Iwo Jima.
If you ever saw any pictures and basically the war videos we see, you
see a little guy running around Iwo Jima shooting the flame thrower in
the pill boxes. That was Woody. It is just unbelievable.
He is a fellow West Virginian. He was a marine, a Medal of Honor
recipient for his heroic efforts at the Battle of Iwo Jima that I have
been told involved the flame thrower, which I have seen. And it is not
just one. I think he went through five flame throwers because when he
ran out, he went and reloaded and went at them again. It is just
unbelievable.
Woody has dedicated his life to our great and our beautiful United
States through his service in the military and his dedication to
supporting veterans and advocating for their needs for decades after.
There is not a time when I know that Senator Capito and myself don't
hear from Woody and there is something going on, whether it is at the
cemetery, or whether we are having a ride for the Gold Star families.
We do a motorcycle ride, which I would like to invite the Presiding
Officer to.
I say to the Presiding Officer: You would enjoy it. It is wonderful.
Senator Capito has been with us before on that. It is just a
wonderful thing, and Woody has never failed to be part of it. Now, he
rides in a sling shot, but, by golly, he makes the whole route.
He has dedicated his life fully to our veterans and to the Gold Star
families.
He is bound and determined to get a committal shelter built at the
Donel C. Kinnard Memorial State Veterans Cemetery. Again, Senator
Capito and I, both serving on the Appropriations Committee, have
committed that we are united in getting this done. We will get that
done, and it needs to be.
That basically would ensure that the families of our fallen soldiers
and veterans, they have a safe place to lay their loved ones to rest,
protected from the weather, rain, Sun, and snow throughout the year.
In this year's Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
appropriations bill, we include a language to create a pilot program
that allows Federal veterans cemeteries to build shelters for those
purposes. But we must ensure the pilot program includes State veterans
cemeteries, like the Donel C. Kinnard Memorial State Veterans Cemetery.
The families of our fallen servicemembers deserve to honor their
loved ones in peace, and I am proud to help Woody fight for this simple
request.
Americans like Woody Williams answered the call to serve our great
Nation during World War II, and he fought to ensure democracy
prevailed. Their sacrifices allowed the rest of us to enjoy the
freedoms we hold sacred and help make the United States the strongest
Nation in the world.
I am going to share with you one story that Woody has told all of us
back home. He says the thing that he remembers most and the thing that
he stills grieves the most about, he had two marines that were
protecting him with gunfire while he ran around, and their lives were
sacrificed for him. I think both got shot and perished. And he says:
They gave their life for me to do my job and protect and save my life.
There is not a day that goes by, he says, he doesn't think about
that, how the Good Lord spared him and the sacrifices that were made
for him and our country.
So I believe that honoring all of those who served in World War II by
allowing the last surviving--and I want to make sure we understand.
Woody Williams is the last surviving Medal of Honor recipient from
World War II.
We are asking that he be allowed to lay in State at the U.S. Capitol
Rotunda. And what better way to honor this generation, their sacrifices
than the President to authorize the State funeral for that brave
individual.
And Woody--there is not a better person to represent all of those who
sacrificed and given their all, all of those who were basically
decorated for their valor, to do this. And bestowing this great honor
on the last survivor and the World War II Medal of Honor recipient
would be the perfect way to come together as a nation to salute the
``greatest generation.''
So I am honored to be here with my colleague and my friend Senator
Capito in a bipartisan--you know, I have always said this: The glue
that holds this country together is the people who put themselves in
harm's way for all of us.
They didn't say: Well, I will put a uniform on and I will take a
bullet for the Republican, but not the Democrat, or I will take a
bullet for the Democrat and not the Republican.
Senator Capito's father took a bullet for all of us too, and she will
speak about that, I am sure, and the bravery that he had. He was my
dear friend, and we all miss him. But the sacrifices that my parents
and Senator Capito's parents and the generation--that was the
``greatest generation,'' I think, that we will ever see because they
took responsibility and took responsibility for their action. They held
themselves accountable for their actions, and that showed the character
that generation has.
And that is what I would hope these young interns and all the young
pages that we have here understand, that your character is defined the
day that you take responsibility for the actions--good, bad, or
indifferent--and be able to look yourself in the mirror and say: I made
a mistake. I can do better. That is my fault. I will fix that. That is
character.
So I am honored to be here and to honor every World War II veteran,
every World War II Medal of Honor recipient.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in our
efforts to honor these brave veterans. And I call on our President,
President Biden, to grant our request.
With that, I yield the floor to my colleague.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
[[Page S6965]]
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, it is an honor to talk about a good
friend of ours, Woody Williams, here with my fellow Senator from the
West Virginia, to talk about our fellow West Virginian, Hershel
``Woody'' Williams.
He is just an incredible, incredible, individual. He turned 98 just,
I think, last week. So he was born in 1923, which was the same year my
father was born. Woody and I have talked about this because when I see
him, I see my dad and that generation. My dad is no longer with us. You
know, they did incredible things at such a young age.
One day, I was honored to sit next to Woody on an airplane flying
home. He travels all over. It is amazing where he goes and what he
does. He told me his whole story of joining the Marines and signing up
for the Marines and why he wanted to do it. He was a country boy, just
born--they didn't really actually know when he was born. He didn't have
a full birth certificate. And he is a little guy. He wasn't quite big
enough to maybe get--be able to join, and he worried about that. He was
17, but nobody really knew how old he was.
I asked him: Well, what was your attraction of being in the Marines?
He said one day he was in town and he saw this guy walk by, and he
was fully dressed in a Marine uniform.
And he said: I want to be that guy. I want to wear that uniform.
And he persevered, as he has in every aspect of his life.
There are so many, as Senator Manchin said, so many brave from that
``greatest generation'' that served in World War II. And he is the
final World War II veteran Medal of Honor recipient of that award.
We are so proud of him in West Virginia because, you know, it didn't
stop there for him. He spent a lifetime advocating for veterans, for
veterans' health, for fallen soldiers' families, in a whole variety of
roles, and he never stopped.
As Senator Manchin said, he fought valiantly in the Battle of Iwo
Jima, storming those pill boxes, all four of them, under relentless
fire. He survived the entire 5-week campaign in Iwo Jima. As we know,
that was one of the most staunchly defended Japanese strong points at
that time, and his actions played a critical role in the eventual
capture of that island.
He has inspired future generations to want to serve our Nation. He is
a hero for what he has done at home. He has committed himself for 75
years to veterans and their families, and he created the Hershel Woody
Williams Foundation.
Through his foundation, Woody advocates for and recognizes the
sacrifices of our Gold Star families who have lost loved ones in the
military.
Because of his tremendous efforts, Woody and his foundation are
responsible for 60 Gold Star family memorial monuments. Senator Manchin
and I have been to the grand opening. They just had a new one in
Charleston, on the grounds of the Charleston capitol. It is beautiful
to see, and the other 70 additional monuments that are going to be
built in the future.
We need reminders, I think. We need reminders of the sacrifices that
people make. And we need reminders of what it takes to defend our
liberties, our freedoms, our families. So we are really, really pleased
to be here.
The West Virginia Legislature included Woody in the West Virginia
Hall of Fame and named him a Distinguished West Virginian in 1980, and
again in 2013, and they would probably do it again next year. He is
just so exceptional.
His unending energy and passion have also inspired many generations.
He has spoken to numerous schools, universities, community events, and
veterans' receptions, promoting patriotism and the ideals of service
above self.
I have been privileged to attend--and I know Senator Manchin has
too--several speeches given by Woody Williams, keeping in mind the last
one I heard, he was 97 years old. Oh, my gosh, so inspiring. It makes
you just want to feel pride for our country but also for our people,
that our country boy from West Virginia could keep inspiring the next
generations.
He has been here to the Halls of the U.S. Capitol. Or you might have
even seen him at the coin flip--how did he get there?--at the Super
Bowl in 2018. So he has gone on to really, I think, be a remarkable
human being. If you haven't met him or haven't seen him, make sure you
get a chance if you hear he is coming your way.
Abraham Lincoln famously said: ``Any nation that does not honor its
heroes will not long endure.''
Today, I am proud to honor my friend, with Senator Manchin and many
other West Virginians and others around the country, and to share his
stories of courage, compassion, and the service not only in the past
but the service that he has today. I am glad to join a bipartisan group
of our colleagues in honoring him and honoring him in the future.
Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. MANCHIN. I say to Senator Capito, if you could just wait a
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. MANCHIN. I know you remember this very well.
Woody is a person who taught us all how to say the Pledge of
Allegiance. Because we think we know how to say it. We all memorized it
as a little kid: ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America and to the Republic for which it stands.''
Woody would always say: One Nation under God--do not stop, do not
hesitate at ``one Nation.'' It is ``one Nation under God.'' It is not
``one Nation.'' ``Under God with liberty and justice for all.''
He corrected us, and he never would let us say it without going with
no pause because he said we are a nation under God.
And I will never forget. He drove that home so many times to all of
us. So the young pages here, I hope you will remember that.
With that, maybe we should do a ``happy birthday'' together to Woody
because he is probably watching. So together, you and I? Happy
birthday, Woody.
Ms. CAPITO. Happy birthday, Woody.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mrs. HYDE-SMITH. Mr. President, I also want to wish Woody a happy
birthday as well.
I just join my colleagues today to commemorate and honor some of the
Nation's most admirable warfighters in the Second World War, and I so
appreciate my colleagues bringing their personal stories to the floor
today. This is something that all Americans should cherish--the stories
of these heroes. We have very few of these brave heroes still among us
today, and it is so important that they receive every ounce of
recognition that we can give them for their selflessness and
extraordinary heroism.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of Senator Manchin's legislation to
provide a merited celebration and commemoration of the last living
World War II Medal of Honor recipient, Woody Williams, who recently
celebrated his 98th birthday.
Medal of Honor recipients like Mr. Williams demonstrated a courageous
and noble commitment to our Nation, and their exemplary actions deserve
all the praise that we can give them.
I am proud to represent a State that has several World War II Medal
of Honor recipients of its own, in Mississippi: Van Thomas Barfoot of
Edinburg, Robert T. Henry of Greenville, James Daniel Slaton of
Gulfport, Louis Hugh Wilson of Brandon, and Jack Harold Lucas of
Hattiesburg, whom I still remain friends with his family today.
From Germany to Japan, these men served our Nation without hesitation
in the height of the Second World War, defending our Nation, our
allies, and the very principles of freedom. It fills my heart with
great pride to call these late veterans my fellow Mississippians. The
tributes we offer today for Mr. Williams in truth stand for our deep
appreciation for all of those who fought in World War II.
I thank my colleagues for their great work on this important
recognition and the opportunity to be a part of this.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in support of
our bipartisan resolution to designate a state funeral in honor of the
last surviving Medal of Honor recipient for
[[Page S6966]]
World War II. Woody Williams is that person, and this would also
recognize millions of Americans for their service and sacrifice during
the war.
The Medal of Honor represents a small token of our appreciation for
the spirit, determination, and gallantry of those who performed far
beyond the call of duty, those of our ``greatest generation'' who gave
everything on the battlefield. This includes five brave Medal of Honor
recipients from the great State of Montana: William W. Galt, Laverne
Parrish, Leo J. Powers, Donald Ruhl, and Henry Schauer. Each of these
men pitted bravery and heroism against great odds and showed exemplary
devotion to our Nation. Now, they have all passed, but their memories
live on in each of us--in our freedoms, in the freedoms of our
children, and in those of our children's children.
Today, we have a special opportunity to honor their service and
ensure that their acts of heroism are never forgotten. A state funeral
for the last surviving World War II Medal of Honor recipient is a key
part of fulfilling this promise. These ceremonies offer our Nation the
opportunity to pause and reflect on the service of not only the
individual but also those who served alongside them.
It is my hope that President Biden designates this state funeral so
that we may honor the last surviving Medal of Honor recipient from
World War II with this distinction. It is time to pay a final salute to
the millions of men and women of our ``greatest generation'' who served
our country with great courage.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, shortly, I will ask for unanimous consent
on the nomination of Robert L. Santos to be the Director of the U.S.
Census Bureau.
The mission of the Census Bureau is to serve as the leading source of
quality data about the Nation's people and our economy. The census and
the Bureau's surveys are critical for communities, businesses, and
people across our Nation to ensure communities have the resources and
the information they need to thrive.
The Census Bureau Director must meet the challenge of this mission.
They must have experience in the collection, analysis, and use of
statistical data and demonstrated management experience at large
organizations.
Robert Santos is an eminently qualified nominee for this role. He has
over 40 years of experience as a manager and expert in the field of
survey design and statistical research, including experience as a
manager at the most renowned research centers for statistics, as
principal of a market research firm, and currently at the nonprofit
Urban Institute.
He has interacted closely with the Census Bureau for decades as a
researcher, a stakeholder, and an expert adviser, serving on the Census
Advisory Committees and National Academies' panels on Federal
statistics. Mr. Santos has demonstrated a deep knowledge of the Census
Bureau, its data, and its stakeholders. He has demonstrated a
commitment to upholding the Bureau's mission of producing essential,
high-quality data that our Nation relies on.
It is critical that we confirm Mr. Santos to the Census Bureau so
they can continue their important work with a well-qualified leader at
the helm.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 311 and 312, Robert Luis
Santos, of Texas, to be Director of the Census for the remainder of the
term expiring December 31, 2021; and Robert Luis Santos, of Texas, to
be Director of the Census for a term expiring December 31, 2026.
(Reappointment); that the nominations be confirmed; that the motions to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to
the nominations; that any related statements be printed in the Record;
and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
First, happy birthday. Is it your birthday?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, sir. Don't rush it.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. As my colleague knows, the Census Bureau
performs critically important functions to collect accurate and timely
data. Unfortunately, I am concerned that this nominee will politicize
the Census Bureau and will not perform his duties in a fair and
unbiased fashion, which this position demands.
I cannot and will not consent to allowing this nominee to move
forward in an expedited manner. We should take a vote so every Senator
can get on the record with their support or opposition to this nominee.
Therefore, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Immigration
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last few months, the American
people have watched in disbelief and then in anger as the Biden
administration has completely fumbled the response to the border
crisis.
In the spring, the biggest concerns were the thousands of children
coming across the border. We lacked the facilities, the personnel, and
the resources to provide proper care for those children, particularly
in those kinds of numbers. At one point, one of the processing centers
in Donna, TX, in the Rio Grande Valley was at 1,600 percent of
capacity.
Then, in the summer, the scale and scope of the crisis grew. In
addition to the thousands of unaccompanied children entering our
country each month, the number of family units has skyrocketed.
I should pause to add, Mr. President, that the reason why the
smugglers send in unaccompanied children is because they know they will
simply be placed with sponsors in the interior of the country and most
of them will fail to return to the immigration courts for their asylum
hearing. So they will have been successfully placed in the United
States, sometimes with relatives, sometimes with noncitizens, sometimes
with foster families who don't know them at all. That is why the
smugglers have been smuggling unaccompanied children.
But in August alone, more than 86,000 members of families--typically
women with young children--have crossed the border. Now that we have
reached the fall, the crisis has shifted once again.
I think what really grabbed people's attention was when they saw the
little town of Del Rio, TX, with 15,000 Haitian migrants under a bridge
in Del Rio, TX. First of all, they were shocked. They thought this was
a Central American phenomenon or Mexican migrants. But the reality is,
as Border Patrol will tell you and has told me, we literally have
people coming from around the world across the southern border,
including some countries of particular concern.
So the Haitians got people's attention and completely overwhelmed the
border region and our capacity to deal with them. That is why 400
Border Patrol agents had to be shipped in from other parts of the
border or from interior checkpoints, which means that those other
locations were understaffed or perhaps had no staff at all. That, in
turn, is an invitation to the drug smugglers to smuggle more drugs
across the border.
I have mentioned time and time again this shocking number: 93,000
Americans died of drug overdoses last year. The vast majority of those
drugs come across the southern border. So the cartels--these criminal
organizations that smuggle people, drugs, and other contraband--they
are pretty smart. They understand where the weaknesses are, where the
gaps are both in our policy and in our physical ability to secure the
border, and they play us just like a fiddle.
The individuals and families huddled under the Del Rio Bridge--they
were
[[Page S6967]]
trying to escape triple-digit temperatures.
It is hot in August and September in Texas, and they had little, if
any, access to food, clean water, or restrooms. It took a number of
days before the Department of Homeland Security was able to remove them
from what the New York Times described as squalid conditions--truly,
Third World conditions.
Now, President Biden has said to the migrants: Don't come to the
United States. But the fact is, what he says with his mouth, with his
lips, is contradicted by all of his policies and all of his action and
inaction.
Here, let me share a few headlines from the last several months:
``Overwhelmed Texas border community begins busing migrants to
Austin''; ``Migrants freed without court notice--sometimes no
paperwork''; ``Haitian migrants released in U.S. on `very, very large
scale'.''
Folks beyond our borders are reading this. Friends and family in the
United States are communicating with potential migrants who have come
across. Certainly, the human smugglers--the coyotes--who get rich and
are getting richer with every person they smuggle into the United
States, are reading these headlines and watching cable TV and talking
to people inside the heartland of our country. The message they see
with their own eyes or they hear from others contradicts this lip
service, really, that President Biden has been paying to border
security.
Like I said, this is especially true among the cartels and criminal
organizations that charge thousands of dollars a head to bring folks
from literally anywhere around the world. It just gets a little more
expensive. If you want to come from, let's say, the Middle East or if
you want to come from, let's say, Iran or Afghanistan, it is a little
more expensive than if you just want to come from Mexico or Central
America, but you can do it because the same networks and criminal
organizations run those networks in those countries around the world.
Last week, the Biden administration handed the cartels a big
recruiting tool.
Let me read you another headline: ``U.S. Will No Longer Deport
Illegal Immigrants Based on Undocumented Status Alone.''
That is what Secretary Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, said: The U.S. Government will not enforce U.S. law.
As if we needed to add any more to the chaos and the crisis on the
border, Secretary Mayorkas has provided explicit confirmation that the
Department of Homeland Security will not enforce our immigration laws.
His directive strongly discourages Immigration and Customs Enforcement
from even carrying out their most basic duties.
I know it seems like a long time ago, but it wasn't that long ago
when people said: ``Abolish the police.'' Before that, they said:
``Abolish ICE,'' Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But now they are,
maybe, not so much intent on abolishing ICE as just telling them don't
do your job. Don't enforce the very laws that we in Congress have made.
Considering the fact that the border czar, Vice President Harris,
once compared ICE to the Ku Klux Klan, we probably should have seen
this coming. Liberal activists can throw out their ``Abolish ICE''
posters because the administration is, effectively, nullifying the
Agency from the inside.
The reality of the situation, however inconvenient it may be, is
that, by entering the United States illegally, migrants are breaking
U.S. laws. We are fortunate, indeed, and grateful to the hard-working
men and women of ICE and Customs and Border Protection, who are
committed to enforcing our laws and keeping the American people safe,
but they can't do it when they are told don't do your job or if the
administration continues to denigrate these officers to try to shame
them and to publicly criticize them for doing what we have asked them
to do.
Secretary Mayorkas's decision not to enforce our immigration laws
isn't an example of prosecutorial discretion, which is the usual
excuse; it is a violation of his oath. The Department of Homeland
Security is charged with safeguarding the American people, but it can't
do it because of the direction of its own leadership--a member of
President Biden's Cabinet.
There is nothing wrong with prioritizing the removal of the most
dangerous criminals who are here illegally. Previous administrations
have prioritized certain categories, like those suspected of terrorism
or others who could be a threat to our national security or public
safety, but there is a difference between prioritizing and exempting
entire categories from enforcement altogether.
Under this new guidance from Secretary Mayorkas, ICE officers are
discouraged from arresting or removing illegal immigrants unless they
have been convicted of a serious crime. It is unclear, though, whether
domestic violence meets this criteria. Certainly, other crimes don't.
So it defies all common sense to ask our law enforcement officers--that
is what ICE officers are; they are law enforcement officers--to turn a
blind eye to illegal conduct and not do what they have sworn to do in a
professional oath.
I am reminded of a controversial directive issued by another one of
President Biden's nominees to enforce our Nation's laws. Rachael
Rollins was nominated to serve as the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts
and is currently the district attorney for Suffolk County--home to
Boston. She is a current nominee from the Biden administration.
Shortly after taking office as the Suffolk County district attorney
for the State and local office, she released a memo that outlined more
than a dozen crimes that should be ignored by law enforcement. This was
the district attorney, who was charged with enforcing the laws, saying
to law enforcement: Ignore the laws.
According to Ms. Rollins, individuals who committed offenses like
trespassing, shoplifting, larceny--that is stealing--wanton or
malicious destruction of property or even possession with intent to
distribute drugs should not be prosecuted.
Again, I have no issue with law enforcement using limited resources
to address the biggest threats and to prioritize their prosecution
decisions, but they cannot, I believe, consistent with their oaths,
exempt wholesale classes of criminals from enforcement.
Under the Biden administration, we are already seeing a record-low
number of deportations for people who violate our immigration laws.
Back in April, as border crossings hit their highest level in 20 years,
ICE removed the lowest number of illegal immigrants on record. There is
no coincidence there. The guidance from Secretary Mayorkas sends an
unequivocal message to the entire world that, if you want to come to
the United States illegally, you will be able to stay as long as you
don't get caught committing a murder or some other crime of a similar
nature.
The administration has tried to claim that this will not serve as a
pull factor. That is what the Border Patrol talks about with the push
factors--poverty, violence, and maybe things like that which are the
push factors for immigration--but they also talk about the pull
factors, which are things that the migrants see and the smugglers see
that will actually attract more illegal immigration to the United
States. The administration has tried to claim that this refusal to
enforce our immigration laws won't act as an additional pull factor
because, they say, the order only applies to immigrants who entered the
United States before November 2020.
But let's consider some of the other things that have been said. For
example, Vice President Harris said migrants should not come to the
United States because they will be turned back. That is clearly not
happening. That is clearly not the case.
We were told that the Department of Homeland Security would use title
42, a public health law, to return the vast majority of Haitian
migrants because, after all, while we are still dealing with the
pandemic of COVID-19, these migrants, by and large, aren't vaccinated,
and they are not tested for COVID-19 when they are released into the
interior of the United States. You would think that would be a problem
for the Biden administration, but Secretary Mayorkas just flat lied to
the American people when he said what would happen to the migrants from
Haiti. Some 13,000 migrants from that group have been released into the
interior of the United States before even appearing in front of an
immigration judge.
[[Page S6968]]
Clearly, that was a lie when he said they would be repatriated to their
country of origin. So we have no reason to believe that things will be
any different this time.
The President can't have it both ways. He can't say he is taking a
tough stance on illegal immigration to appease one wing of the
Democratic Party while implementing policies that just encourage more
illegal immigration to appease the other wing.
The only way to address this crisis is to enforce our laws, not as
the Biden administration wishes they were written. If we are going to
have any hope of managing the current crisis and the additional crisis
that will necessarily follow, deterrence is a key.
As the Border Patrol told me, there have to be consequences for
illegal immigration. If there are no consequences, people are going to
continue to come in greater and greater numbers.
Albert Einstein reportedly once said: Insanity is doing the same
thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Unless the administration backs up their ``do not come'' statements
with actions which actually send the same message, we are going to
continue down this very dangerous road.
What will need to happen next before the administration takes this
crisis seriously? More than 200,000 border crossings during each of the
last 2 months didn't get their attention nor did the group of 30,000
migrants in Del Rio, TX, in a matter of days. So you can't help but
ask: How many more migrants will have to suffer before President Biden
and Vice President Harris finally back up their empty statements with
action?
We stand ready to help and to work on a bipartisan basis. As a matter
of fact, Senator Sinema and I, along with our colleagues Henry Cuellar
and Tony Gonzalez in the House, have a bipartisan-bicameral border
solutions bill. It is not perfect, and it doesn't answer all the
questions, but it is a good place to start. So far, we have heard
nothing but crickets from the administration. Apparently, they don't
care about the status quo and, so far, seem unwilling to do anything
differently to correct it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to conclude my
remarks today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I just listened to my colleague from
Texas talk about what is going on at the border. I thought he made a
lot of really good points, and I appreciate his willingness not just to
talk about this issue and the crisis we have on our southern border but
also to talk about solutions.
One of the solutions he talked about and I have heard about a lot
recently--I am the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security
Committee. In the last week, I have had the opportunity to speak with
both the current Border Patrol Chief and also the recently retired
Border Patrol Chief about what is happening on the border and the real-
world problems that it is creating.
One thing they tell me is, just let us finish the small parts of the
wall that haven't been completed because it is impossible for us to
enforce the laws if you have these openings. Secondly, they said:
Please let us complete the technology.
On both sides of this aisle, we have agreed, in the past, that, even
if we disagree on having a fence along any parts of the border,
including the urban areas, we will agree on the technology that ought
to go with it.
They told me these stories that I had confirmed when I was down at
the border earlier this year in that the technology that goes with it--
the remote sensing cameras, the remote sensors in the ground, and so
on--were stopped as soon as the Biden administration came in even
though they were already paid for. So it wasn't just stopping
construction; it was, in effect, in my view, more important that they
have actually stopped the technology that is needed to be able to
protect the border.
Senator Cornyn talked about how he and Senator Sinema have worked on
legislation to deal with some of these issues. I appreciate that
because that is what is needed. We need to make some changes. We can't
just continue to do what we are doing because we have over 200,000
people a month now coming over--unprecedented numbers. Usually, in the
summer, those numbers go down a lot, but they have actually increased
this summer.
We also need to fix a broken asylum system. This should not be a
partisan issue.
It is obviously not working. People come to our border. They claim
asylum. They are allowed to come into the United States. They are told,
you know: Please go to an immigration office and check in, but 4 or 5
years until your immigration case is likely to be heard, sometimes
longer.
Meanwhile, these folks are in the United States.
And then at the end of the process, even though those who end up
going through the court system are self-selected because they are the
folks who more likely--I think are more likely to have an asylum claim
that is valid--but even when you go all the way through that process,
guess what. Only 15 percent of those from countries like Guatemala,
Honduras, El Salvador--the so-called Northern Triangle countries--or
other countries like Ecuador, only 15 percent are granted asylum by an
immigration judge.
But, meanwhile, everybody is in the United States. And as I said
earlier, the internal enforcement is not occurring, so people are
literally not being told they have got to go back. And often,
obviously, not identified because, after 4 or 5 years, many people are
embedded in our community.
So the asylum system has become a pull factor, and we need to realize
that.
I was in four countries in Latin America earlier this year--Mexico,
Guatemala, Colombia, Ecuador--and I heard from every one of the
Presidents in those countries, the same thing in different ways, but
the same thing, which is: You guys are pulling our people to your
southern border because the traffickers, the smugglers, the coyotes,
who are making all this money, are coming to our families and saying:
Hey, come to the border. Give me 10,000 bucks. I will take your kids
there. I can get them into school in the interior of the United States,
and they are right.
Their narrative might not be exactly right. I am sure they
exaggerate. But as a whole, what they are saying is correct. In other
words, our system is so broken that these people who are exploiting
poor people all over Latin America and elsewhere now--all over the
world they are starting to come through our border in bigger numbers--
are able to say: If you come with me, I will get you in.
That is because the asylum system is broken. So until we fix the
asylum system, we can do everything else we are talking about--I don't
think this is going to work.
And by the way, when I talk to my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle about this, when I talk to Secretary Mayorkas about it, they
acknowledge this is broken. I mean, you have to.
The 13,000 Haitians that just came into our country, that walked in,
were given a bus ticket or a plane ride and told: Here is an
immigration office. Please check in.
My understanding is the vast majority of those people had applied for
asylum, and we said: Come on in.
And in 4 or 5 years, their case may be heard. And if they come to
that trial, many of them will be deemed, just as the Central Americans
are deemed, to be economic refugees.
Look, if you or I were in Central America and knew we could better
ourselves and our family and take care of our kids by coming to the
United States, wouldn't we make the same decision?
But don't we also in the United States have an obligation to have an
orderly, legal way to do that?
And we have one. We are the most generous country in the world in
terms of taking in immigrants. And I am a strong supporter of the legal
immigration system. But we have got to have a proper way to do it. It
has got to be legal. Otherwise, again, people are going to be
exploited.
This trip north is not a safe trip. It is a dangerous trip, and
people die in the desert. These kids are not treated well. Many are
assaulted.
I did a study on this when I was head of the Permanent Subcommittee
of Investigations. We did two reports. One
[[Page S6969]]
was on kids who were taken into HHS custody at the border, and then
when they were sent out to their sponsors--because that is what
happens. You go to the Border Patrol, then HHS, then you are sent out
to sponsors.
You know who the sponsors were?
The very traffickers who had brought them up--in this case, from
Guatemala--who were exploiting them.
And those same traffickers took those kids and took them to an egg
farm, where they had to work 11, 12 hours a day, no school, paid little
or nothing, living on bare mattresses underneath trailers.
Finally, luckily, a local law enforcement official figured out what
was going on and was able to save these kids.
But that is not a system we should want in America. We should want a
legal, orderly system that works for everybody. By the way, including
the many, many people around the world who are waiting in line
patiently to come to the United States through legal means.
So I hadn't meant to talk about this today, but I appreciate the fact
that my colleague mentioned it. And I do think it is very important
that, on a bipartisan basis, we put aside our political rhetoric on
this and talk about solutions.
I think we should go back to a system where we are encouraging people
to apply for asylum in their home country, and, second, to do it from
third countries. If they are not comfortable doing it in their home
country because they really are feeling persecuted for some reason, do
it in a third country.
Those agreements were in place during the Trump administration. They
were starting to work. They have now been ended. And then if you come
to the border, have the adjudication be immediate. Let's spend the
money to have the processing centers there at the border so people
aren't waiting 4, 5, 6 years to go to their immigration hearing that
they may or may not attend, as you can understand.
Instead say: You want to come as an asylee? Here is the system. Your
adjudication is going to occur right now.
And for those who apply and are successful--which, again, is about 15
percent of people from the countries that are sending most of these
migrants--then you would come in as an asylee and you would have the
ability to be resettled legally and you would have the ability to work.
But if you are one of the 85 percent, you would be told: Sorry, you
didn't make the standards. You have got to go back home, and you can
apply legally, and here is the way you do it.
Wouldn't that make more sense for our country?
By the way, there is now a backlog of 1.3 million people waiting for
these asylum hearings--1.3 million people. And it is growing every day.
Budget Reconciliation
Mr. President, I had planned today to talk about something else,
which is the tax situation that we are facing with this new proposal
from the Democrats.
You probably heard about the Build Back Better legislation, also
sometimes called the reconciliation bill. It is in reconciliation
because it wouldn't require any Republican votes, and Democrats are
proposing to take this through Congress, much as they did in March with
the $1.9 trillion legislation.
This is also called the $3.5 trillion bill, this Build Back Better.
Actually, I would argue it is a lot more than 3.5 trillion when you
look at the actual spending in it.
But let's focus on the tax side for a moment because that is how it
is intended to be paid for.
The tax hikes, which would be the largest tax increases in America in
at least 50 years, systematically dismantle a lot of the pro-growth and
pro-job reforms that were put in place in 2017.
Why do I call them pro-growth and pro-jobs?
Because they worked. They helped Americans keep more of their hard-
earned earnings. They helped businesses to be more successful, to hire
more people and increase wages. And they are a big reason that, as of
February of 2020--the month that we went into in this pandemic, as of
February 2020--we had 19 straight months in this country of wage growth
of over 3 percent per annum--19 straight months.
But what all of us should want--Republican, Democrat, all of us--
higher wages. And by the way, most of that wage growth went to lower-
and middle-income Americans.
That is what we should want too, right?
That was happening. In fact, as of that point, we had the lowest
poverty rate in the history of America. We started keeping track of it
back in the fifties. It was the lowest poverty rate ever. This was just
a year or so ago. This was before the pandemic hit.
We also had a 50-year low in unemployment--the lowest unemployment
ever--for certain groups: Blacks, Hispanics, disabled, others.
So this is something that was an achievement, that met the standards
that we talk about on both sides of the aisle--more economic
opportunity, closing the wage gap, giving people a chance to come off
the sidelines and get a job. Things were happening, and in large
measure, because of these 2017 reforms.
And yet, in this proposal that is now being proposed, called the
Build Back Better proposal, there are tax increases that dismantle much
of the reform in 2017 that caused this economic growth.
U.S.-based corporations are going to have a really hard time
competing now in the global economy again because it takes our tax rate
back up to being the highest, depending on where they end up in terms
of their rate--one of the highest or the highest rate in the entire
world.
The average corporate tax rate under the Ways and Means proposal will
be 32 percent again--back up into the thirties--instead of an average
of 21 percent, plus about 5 points on the State average, which is about
26 percent.
So, again, it puts us in a position where we are not competitive with
the rest of the world. That is why we changed it back in 2017. In fact,
according to the International Tax Competitiveness Index, the
Democrats' plan would cause the United States to drop steeply down the
rankings from 21st in the world to 28th in the world among developing
countries in terms of competitiveness of our Tax Code.
Once again, as happened too often before the 2017 reforms--and, by
the way, has not happened since then--companies will choose to say: OK.
I am out of here.
Because of the Tax Code and the tax changes that they want to make,
companies will say, as they did before 2017, because of the tax laws: I
can't be competitive as an American company. I am going to go be a
company of some other country.
It is called inversions. Sounds bad, and it is. Nobody wanted
inversions. Democrats, Republicans, we all hated them. Guess what. We
stopped them. After the 2017 reforms, they stopped.
Miraculously, we had companies in Ohio that chose to do that. It was
terrible. They chose to actually become foreign companies because our
Tax Code was so uncompetitive. We can't let that happen again.
Small businesses, which make up about 99 percent of the business in
America, and they account for about two-thirds of the jobs in America--
and, by the way, most of the job growth is in small businesses--are
also hit hard by these tax increases.
The vast majority of small businesses are structured as what you call
pass-throughs. In other words, they don't pay taxes at the company
level; the individuals who own the company pay the taxes. That is the
vast majority of companies in America.
So when you raise individual income taxes, guess what happens. You
are socking it to not just the wealthy or whoever you are trying to
sock it to; you are socking it to small business because that is,
again, the vast majority of businesses in America, most of the
employees. And that is how they are taxed, down to the individual
level.
To make matters worse, the Biden administration seems intent on
ending section 199A, which is a deduction we put in place on purpose to
help small businesses kind of level the playing field between big
businesses and small businesses. They are actually talking about
getting rid of that deduction. So for small businesses listening today,
be aware.
In all, the more successful pass-through companies should expect
their Federal tax rate to rise from about 29.6 percent today to about
46.4 percent under the Democrats' new plan--46.4 percent taxation on
small business.
How does that make sense?
[[Page S6970]]
So I think what is going to happen is you will see a lot of small
businesses go out of business if this happens and certainly not be able
to create new jobs and the opportunity that we saw during the 2018,
2019 time period.
But it is not just larger and small businesses that are going to feel
the impact of these tax hikes. American workers and families will find
themselves losing more of their hard-earned cash from all sides, thanks
to the across-the-board tax increases, whether in estate taxes, capital
gains taxes, retirement account taxes, the marriage tax, cigarette
excise taxes--the list goes on and on.
It is no surprise, then, that contrary to what President Biden has
repeatedly said, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on
Taxation--they are the people up here on the Hill who tell us what the
impact is of tax law changes. The Joint Committee on Taxation,
analyzing this tax proposal that is out there already--this is the
Democrat tax proposal of the Ways and Means Committee--they say a lot
of taxpayers who make less than $400,000 a year are going to see higher
taxes.
Some percentage of taxpayers in every bracket will see tax rates go
up, even folks making between 40,000 and 50,000 a year, according to
the distribution tables by the Joint Committee on Taxation.
More than one in three taxpayers making between $100,000 and $200,000
per year will be paying higher taxes in 2023--more than one in three.
By 2031, more than three-quarters of those middle-class taxpayers will
be paying higher taxes.
This is according to the Joint Committee. I encourage you to go on
their website. Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT.org.
So even working-class families are going to end up paying some of the
price of this spending spree in the form of higher taxes. But all of us
have to pay an additional price in damage to our economy.
According to the Tax Foundation, the combined long-run effects of the
tax hikes include a decline in our long-run gross domestic product of
0.98 percent. So about a 1-percent decline in our GDP--wow--a decline
of the wage rate of about 0.68 percent, and a loss of 303,000 full-time
jobs.
So this is the Tax Foundation analyzing what the effects of this
would be in addition to what I have talked about in terms of the tax
hikes.
The Joint Committee on Taxation has looked at this and said: Well, if
you raise taxes on corporations, it is going to come primarily out of
the pockets of the workers, and that is a lot of these middle-class
families. But also it is going to reduce our economy. It is going to
decline our wages. And it is going to result in a loss of over 300,000
full-time jobs.
That is the Tax Foundation.
So, to be honest, I am not exactly sure where the President got the
notion he has been repeating lately that the price tag on this $3.5
trillion--maybe $5 trillion; I don't know; depending on how you look at
the spending--is zero dollars. That is what he said. It is zero
dollars.
Even by their own admission, the big tax hikes we are talking about
here are not going to cover all the spending, No. 1. But more
importantly, billions of dollars lost in economic growth, a significant
decline in wages, and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost doesn't sound
like zero to me; it sounds like a bad deal for the American people.
So, along with my Republican colleagues, we have to keep telling the
American people what is in this tax proposal and urging people to learn
more about how these new taxes are going to affect them, their
businesses, and their communities, and weigh in with their
representatives in Congress.
Why would the American people support tax hikes that are going to be
bad for workers and bad for our businesses? We have a responsibility to
our constituents to ensure that does not happen.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2846
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, President Biden announced his vague, still-
unwritten mandate for the vaccine just almost a month ago. He said
then, at the time of his announcement, that his ``patience was wearing
thin.'' Those are his words, not mine. Yet, oddly, President Biden's
administration is now in no particular rush to implement the rule. So
almost a month has now elapsed, but there is still no rule and
therefore no implementation of the rule. Perhaps President Biden and
those who work with him are realizing what countless Americans already
know: that the mandate was not well thought out.
First, neither the President of the United States specifically nor
the Federal Government generally has the authority to issue a sweeping
vaccine mandate of this nature. The Constitution doesn't empower the
Federal Government and certainly not the President individually, acting
in isolation, with the right, the authority, or the power to broadly
dictate personal medical decisions for all Americans with the stroke of
the Executive pen.
I spoke earlier this week and I also spoke last week about
individuals with religious, moral, and medical reasons to forgo
vaccinations. The President's mandate ignores their concerns and their
rights.
Much of corporate America is already starting to fire unvaccinated
workers despite the legitimate religious, moral, or health concerns
that those workers might have. Some are even being charged fees for
being married to an unvaccinated spouse. So it is not just their
decisions but that of their spouses that are causing them to confront
adverse action from their employer, all as a result of this mandate--a
mandate which doesn't yet exist. Even though time was of the essence a
month ago when it was issued, there is still no rule and still nothing
to enforce, but people are starting to enforce what they think will be
in the rule if and when it ever does get promulgated.
In recent days, I have heard from over 200 Utahns who are at risk of
losing their jobs due to this mandate. They are scared of becoming not
just unemployed but unemployable--unemployable, second-class outcasts
due to the President's order.
Have we lost compassion? Have we lost all reason? Troublingly, it
seems that these mandates aren't based in reason. The mandate
completely ignores the millions of Americans who have previously
contracted and recovered from COVID-19. These people have antibodies
against the virus.
In other countries where significant research on natural immunity has
been conducted, the results are compelling. A study conducted in Italy
shows that natural immunity is more effective than vaccines at reducing
risk of future infection. Another study of half a million people in
Denmark has shown that natural immunity provides significant, lasting
protection against infection. Finally, a study from three separate
hospitals in Israel found that natural immunity from a previous COVID
infection was ``27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity in
preventing symptomatic infections.'' But the President's mandate
announcement makes no mention of natural immunity--no mention
whatsoever. Our entire national health apparatus seems to disregard the
significant protection individuals have if they previously had and
recovered from COVID.
Now, I believe the vaccines are generally safe and effective. I have
been vaccinated. Every member of my family has been vaccinated, with my
encouragement. I see these vaccines as a miracle, one that is helping
to protect millions and millions of Americans--hundreds of millions of
Americans, for that matter. But I also recognize that millions of
Americans are already protected by their natural defenses because they
contracted COVID, before the vaccines were available in many instances,
and they have recovered and therefore have natural immunity. The
science shows that this immunity is strong, that it is effective, and
that it is widespread in America.
So I, today, am offering a bill that would require Federal Agencies
to recognize, accept, truthfully characterize, and include natural
immunity in any regulation. This bill does not say that vaccines are
bad or unhelpful; it merely asks the Federal Government to respect
widely available science.
I am glad to be joined in this effort by Senators Braun, Tuberville,
and Sullivan as cosponsors.
The bill would allow us to keep Americans employed and help us beat
[[Page S6971]]
the pandemic in a smart way, in a reasoned, rational way, and in a
compassionate way.
Now, I believe--in fact, I am quite confident that the mandate in its
entirety will be struck down as unconstitutional, as having been issued
outside the authority of the President of the United States. This
simple bill wouldn't undo the whole thing, as I believe the courts are
certain ultimately to do. This simple bill is narrow, and it would
simply give peace of mind to Americans and employers by recognizing and
upholding evidence-based realities concerning our natural defense to
COVID. It is a commonsense proposal, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous
consent that the Committee on HELP be discharged from further
consideration of S. 2846 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object,
unfortunately, even though the Senate has had multiple exposures now to
nonsense ideas like this bill, they keep coming back.
Now, Agencies like the CDC and NIH are already looking closely at
data on COVID infection and natural immunity. They have been since the
earliest days of this pandemic.
In an August ``Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,'' CDC assessed
data from Kentucky and found that out of a group of people who had been
infected with COVID before, those who were unvaccinated were twice as
likely to get COVID again than the people who were vaccinated. In other
words, being unvaccinated puts you at higher risk of being reinfected,
period.
Getting vaccinated is a necessary step to protect you but also to
protect those around you.
We are in the middle of the deadliest pandemic in American history.
It has now killed 700,000 people and counting. If we are going to end
this thing, if we are going to reopen our economy, if we are going to
save lives, we need to get everyone vaccinated when they are eligible.
We don't need politicians suggesting they know more than those
experts and ignoring the data. We don't need bills meant to weaken one
of our strongest tools to get this thing behind us, like the ones that
Republicans have repeatedly been pressing for.
Workplace safety standards are nothing new in this country.
Immunization requirements are nothing new in this country. And let's be
clear. The vaccine requirements President Biden has enacted so far
include tailored exemptions for legitimate religious and medical
considerations that have long been standard. The emergency temporary
standard he has envisioned would allow testing as an alternative.
People are dying every day. Families are scared, and they are tired,
and they are angry that even as they try so hard to do the right thing
so we can end this crisis, their hard work is being undermined.
So can the Republicans stop the theatrics and stop wasting our time?
Can they stop pretending they know more than the experts about this
disease? Is that too much to ask?
It isn't, and I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the insight and the thoughtful
attention paid to this matter by my friend and distinguished colleague,
the Senator from Washington.
I respectfully submit that we are not dealing with theatrics when it
comes to hard-working Americans, including the more than 200 Utahns
whom I have heard from just in the last 2 weeks, who are losing their
jobs or are at immediate risk for doing so based on a decision forced
upon them by an action that has been threatened but not taken and in no
way legally articulated by the President of the United States.
These are not theatrics for those who are losing their jobs. That is
just not an accurate portrayal, and it really is disrespectful to those
who are enduring that. To them, these are not theatrics. To them, this
is their ability to make a living.
As far as the characterization that these claims of natural immunity
are one off, I have yet to see any study that refutes the studies I
referenced a moment ago--not the one from Denmark, not the one from
Italy, and not the one from Israel that shows the significant immunity
benefits conferred by a previous COVID infection, one from which a
person has fully recovered. In the case of at least two of those
studies--the one from Italy and the one from Israel--the immunity is as
strong if not stronger. In fact, the one from Israel concluded that it
is 27 times more protective.
Yet we continue to hear efforts like this one today characterized as
``theatrics,'' characterized as ``nonsense ideas like this bill''--
bills that try, in the case of the bill that we are talking about
today, to protect the employment rights and the personal decisions of
Americans who have natural immunity or, as in previous bills, those who
have a legitimate medical concern, especially where that concern is one
that has been taken on the advice of a board-certified physician who
has advised them, based on a preexisting medical condition, not to get
it.
I also heard that the President has indicated that there would be
exceptions. We don't know what those exceptions are. Many of those
exceptions are not being honored by those segments of corporate America
already moving to implement and enforce this vaccine mandate.
What is happening is that HR departments and general counsel's
offices in large corporations--those with more than 99 employees--are
understandably trying to get ahead of this so that they are not behind
when the rule actually issues, so they won't run any risk of the
aggressive, heavy fines with which they have already been threatened.
So for that reason, many of them are trying to get ahead of it, and
many of them are now using President Biden's speech about the yet-to-
exist rule, and they are either threatening to fire or preparing to
fire or in some cases already have fired people regardless of any
exceptions that they think they ought to be entitled to. It is easier
for the corporation, in some instances, perhaps, or maybe more
convenient or maybe more in conformity with the liking of the
individuals making the decision to do that, but it is not fair to the
workers. It is especially not fair in light of the fact that all of
these actions are being undertaken in response to a yet-to-exist rule
promulgated by an executive branch Agency that has yet to act at the
behest of the President of the United States--one person without
statutory authority and without constitutional authority to do this.
That is tragic.
Because he doesn't have the authority to do this, it shouldn't happen
at all. At a minimum, we, as the lawmaking body within the Federal
Government, have an obligation to take it down. Even if we can't take
it all down or to stop it, we at least have an obligation to try to
make its effects less draconian, less hurtful, and less harmful to
individuals who, by no choice of their own and no fault of their own,
aren't in a position to get this, whether because of religious
convictions, natural immunity, or a health condition or something else.
It is tragic. We are better than this. We should be acting to protect
Americans, not make them more vulnerable.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Build Back Better Agenda
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I am here to talk about the
President's Build Back Better agenda and its importance to our country.
We have heard a lot over the last couple of months about the new jobs
that that plan will bring. It is estimated by economists that it will
generate 4 million jobs every year for the next 10 years. That is
because we are going to be investing in modernizing our infrastructure.
[[Page S6972]]
We have already heard about the important work to modernize our roads
and our bridges, expand our transit systems, build out the
infrastructure of the 21st century, including high-speed internet to
every American household and every small business.
We have talked about the importance of deploying a clean energy grid
and making sure that we move toward a clean energy economy. That will
put millions of Americans to work in good-paying jobs. If you are
generating that kind of economic activity, that kind of wage
opportunity, obviously, that is good for every American household and
brings in more income.
But, today, I am going to gather with some of my colleagues,
organized by the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, who will join
us shortly, to talk about how the Build Back Better agenda will not
just generate millions of jobs and good-paying jobs, but help the
dollars that Americans have in their pockets and bank accounts travel
faster, how it is going to save them money.
Now, one way it is going to save money is for families with kids.
They are going to get a tax cut. In fact, that tax cut was put in place
as part of the American Rescue Plan that we passed earlier this year.
As a result of a tax cut for families with kids, families around the
country right now are getting up to $300 per child to help cover the
everyday costs of raising kids and addressing the needs of a family.
That will also cut child poverty in half, but only for this year. It
is currently scheduled to terminate at the end of this year, that tax
cut for American families with kids. So one of the things we do in the
Build Back Better agenda is extend that for many years because it
doesn't make sense to have that terminate and have those families stuck
with all those additional costs.
But there is also another way that the Build Back Better agenda is
going to help every dollar that comes into the family bank account go
farther, and that is by reducing the costs that they face in so many of
their everyday household expenditures.
I want to focus on a couple of areas. One is in the area of
childcare, one is in the area of healthcare and prescription drugs, and
the other is the energy costs and gas costs that so many families face.
The Build Back Better agenda is going to lower the costs for American
families in those areas so that the income they have will go much
further.
I want to start with childcare because working parents with infant
children are scraping by today to pay for childcare, paying, on
average, $1,300 every month to get licensed care.
Under the Build Back Better agenda, if you look at the projections,
you will see that Marylanders--families in my State of Maryland--will
see their childcare bills cut nearly in half with weekly savings of
$141 every week. That is $7,322 a year for childcare costs--lowering of
childcare costs for those families.
If you think about the need to try to get more people in the
workforce, it is understandable that if you are a parent with kids, you
want to make sure that when you go into the workforce, your kids have
an affordable and secure place during the day. And right now that is
not an option for millions of American families. So one of the things
this proposal does, the Build Back Better plan, is dramatically reduce
those costs for childcare.
The proposal will also cut prescription drug costs for seniors. We
have been having a debate for years about the need to allow Medicare to
negotiate for lower drug prices on behalf of all of us, on behalf of
all the beneficiaries in Medicare.
The Veterans' Administration negotiates drug prices for veterans who
are in their care, and yet we don't allow Medicare to negotiate drug
prices. This is nuts. And it runs up the costs for Medicare because if
you don't get to negotiate price, the pharmaceutical companies get to
set the price wherever they want. So this proposal, the Build Back
Better plan, will cut those costs and reduce prescription drug costs
for Part D premiums by 15 percent.
We are also proposing to expand Medicare to cover vision, dental, and
hearing services. This is a big gap in the current Medicare Program.
Right now, seniors, on average, each year, are paying $914 out of
pocket for hearing services, $874 for dental services, and $230 for
vision services. Our proposal would cover that big gap in the Medicare
Program.
I am going to talk for one moment about energy prices because we all
know we have to move to a clean energy economy. We are going to make it
easier to do that as we put more Americans to work in that area.
One of the things that is proposed is a generous electric vehicle tax
credit of up to $12,500. This will make it easier for Americans to
afford those cars. It is much easier to run a car on cheaper
electricity than on gas.
But it is also going to help folks who continue to drive their gas-
powered cars for years to come, because if we get more people into
electric cars, that means less demand for gas, and so that means the
folks who continue to drive in their gas cars will get lower gas
prices. And we all know that gas prices have been on the rise.
Finally, talking about energy savings--you know, the best way to save
energy money is to make sure that we don't waste as much energy. All of
us know that we have homes, in many cases they are not that well
insulated. So part of this plan also includes help to homeowners to
more cheaply make their homes energy efficient. That means, with a
given amount of power, they will heat their homes at cheaper costs
because there will be less wasted energy.
In situation after situation, if you look at this bill, not only will
it generate more jobs at better wages, not only will it provide working
families with kids with tax cuts, but it will also help Americans save
money on everything from prescription drugs to childcare, to energy
prices, and many others.
That is what economists have said, and that is especially true
because we are going to pay for this by finally requiring big
corporations to pay their fair share and not allow them to hide so many
of their profits offshore in places like Bermuda and the Cayman
Islands. And we are going to ask the very wealthiest, billionaires, to
also pay more for the success of the entire country.
So I just want to emphasize the fact--because we hear so much
misinformation in this Chamber about what is in the Build Back Better
agenda--that in addition to the jobs and higher wages, it is also going
to help save families money on their bills so that their dollars will
travel farther.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Order of Business
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, let me start by asking unanimous
consent that the vote on the motion to discharge the Lhamon nomination
occur at 3:30 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Build Back Better Agenda
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the
opportunity we have before us to deliver results for the people we work
for.
Right now, too many Americans are struggling to make ends meet and
get ahead because of the cost and availability of childcare,
healthcare, home care, and prescription drugs.
In my home State of Wisconsin, people like Zena, a human resources
representative from Twin Lakes, needs us to pass the Build Back Better
Budget that invests in working families.
Zena has been battling several severe autoimmune diseases, and she
has been battling this for more than 15 years. She fell very ill after
contracting norovirus, and she was unable to work and ultimately lost
her job, as well as her employer-sponsored healthcare that came with
it.
Sick and uninsured, she turned to our State's BadgerCare program for
help. But because the Republicans in the Wisconsin State Legislature
have refused a Federal investment to fully expand Medicaid coverage,
Zena was locked out of the program and unable to access necessary
healthcare coverage. Like millions of Americans, Zena found herself in
the Medicaid coverage gap and was forced to make choices that no one
living in the United States should have to face, choices like paying
for life-sustaining medication or paying her mortgage.
Right now, the people we work for are paying two to three times more
for their prescription drugs than people in
[[Page S6973]]
other wealthy countries. This needs to change, and we have an
opportunity to get the job done if we simply make the superwealthy and
most profitable corporations, like the big drug companies, pay their
fair share of taxes.
For years, Congress has been talking about lowering the cost of
prescription drugs, so let's finally do it by giving Medicare the power
to negotiate lower prescription drug prices that will save taxpayers
money. Let's stand on the side of seniors, who should no longer be at
the mercy of Big Pharma.
In addition to lowering the cost of needed medications, our Build
Back Better budget provides the opportunity to expand Medicare benefits
to include vision, dental, and hearing. The last time I checked, your
ears, eyes, and teeth are all a part of your overall health, and there
is no good reason not to include them in Medicare coverage.
Right now, the United States is also in the midst of a long-term care
and caregiving crisis. Hundreds of thousands of older adults and people
with disabilities who need and qualify for home- and community-based
care services are unable to access them. I know something about this. I
was my grandmother's caregiver, and I know firsthand the challenges
that family caregivers face.
But we can do something about this, and we should, with Build Back
Better legislation that invests in long-term care; creates new, good-
paying home-care jobs; and raises wages for care workers who often work
around the clock to care for our loved ones yet live in poverty.
All of this and more is doable if Washington finally says we are not
going to continue spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on tax
loopholes and tax giveaways for huge, profitable corporations,
millionaires, and billionaires.
This is all to say that we face an urgent choice: Do we work for the
powerful special interests who have too much influence in Washington,
or do we work for people like Zena and others like her who simply look
for a little help from us to even the playing field and to get ahead?
This is our moment to prove to the American people--to people like
Zena--that their government works for them, not just those at the top.
I have faith that we can do this for Zena, for Wisconsin, and for the
millions of Americans counting on us to get the job done for them.
I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, as we go over the wonderful things
that Build Back Better offers--including tax benefits for families with
children, support for home care and childcare for family members, lower
prescription drug costs--I want to focus on a particular area, which is
the addiction crisis, which grinds on in Rhode Island. I think every
Member of this body knows a family who has been touched by this crisis.
I remember visiting the small town of Burrillville, RI, a close-knit
community. People know one another there. On January 1, 2015, no one
would have known that half a dozen people would die in Burrillville of
drug overdoses in the next 3 months. That went through that community
just in a heartbreaking wave, and it remains burdened by addiction and
overdose.
We have made a lot of gains since then. The CARA bill that Senator
Portman and I did, CARA 2.0, which was baked into the SUPPORT Act,
shifted the way we think about addiction so we don't see it as a moral
failing. We recognize its medical nature. We recognize, frankly, the
noble nature of the path to recovery that people have to walk. We
invested in prevention and education and treatment.
But still there is a massive gap that remains between the needs of
families who have a member who is facing addiction and the care and
support that we give them, and Build Back Better makes some really
important steps for those families--first, for new mothers in recovery.
A new mom has a lot going on: caring for a newborn, coping with a
potential substance abuse complication for that newborn, and caring for
herself in her often deadly battle with addiction. Build Back Better
would grow the workforce specializing in that care for moms.
The Medicaid Reentry Act, which I did with Senator Baldwin, is also
in the mix to provide Medicaid coverage to people as they get out of
jail and prison. We showed in Rhode Island that these programs
dramatically reduce overdoses and deaths in the weeks following release
from incarceration. Steady access to care through Medicaid will save
lives.
There is a boost to the Minority Fellowship Program because it is
demonstrable that a more diverse workforce produces better outcomes for
patients and families.
Finally, the peer recovery coach is a personal favorite of mine. We
are pioneering this in Rhode Island. These are people who have walked
the path of addiction and recovery, and they can relate to people who
are struggling in a way that you and I might not be able to. Their
role, after an overdose or in a crisis, to get people onto the path of
recovery is wonderfully important.
All of the other things we are doing will actually create more stable
lives. When events happen that knock people off of the path of
recovery, having a stable life actually allows for a better shot at
recovery and work around relapse.
So there is a lot to love in Build Back Better, and I want people to
know that we did not forget those folks who are struggling with
addiction or walking the noble path of recovery.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Merkley, Kaine, and I be able to complete our remarks prior to the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, we are all gathered here today, the
group of us, to make a real case for passing the Build Back Better
agenda and what it really means to people back in our home States, as
Senator Whitehouse was just explaining about Rhode Island. We get a lot
in the minutia here for good reason. We are fighting a lot of forces.
But in the end, what I know about this agenda, from the infrastructure
in the bipartisan infrastructure bill to the work we are doing as part
of this people-first agenda, it is about putting the people of this
country first over the pharmaceutical companies, over polluters.
As I see those fires rage in my State, I know we have to do something
about it. As I see people coming to me after years and years and years
about the costs of common drugs--Lyrica. You see it advertised on TV
all the time. What you might not know is that it has gone up 50 percent
in just the last 5 years.
What I do know is that the people of this country overwhelmingly--
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--support bringing costs down
for families, support a big middle-class tax cut, and support doing
something about pharmaceutical prices.
Chief among the reforms in this bill when it comes to healthcare will
be allowing Medicare to negotiate directly for less expensive drugs for
our seniors. I think 46 million seniors should be able to get a pretty
good deal, and I know they could if someone let them do it.
Right now, in law, because the pharmaceutical companies lobbied to
get it done, they got a ban--a ban--on Medicare negotiating better
prices for our seniors. This doesn't just help our seniors, to lift
this ban; it helps everyone in America because this is the single
biggest purchaser of drugs, our seniors, because they need help in
their later years. They have health issues.
The stories I have heard in my State--people like Claire from St.
Paul. When the cost of the prescription drugs she relied on to manage
her arthritis jumped from 60 bucks per month to 1,400 bucks per month,
she knew she could no longer afford it. She tried over-the-counter
options. Her arthritis advanced. She could barely hold a fork and a
knife. I met a woman who was literally holding the drops of her insulin
from day to day to day so she could save it for the next day. That is
how we are treating seniors in our country?
Let's unleash the power of 46 million seniors, get better prices for
the drugs, push this Build Back Better agenda, which puts people first,
and bring down the cost of prescription drugs.
Thank you, Madam President.
[[Page S6974]]
I yield the floor to my friend from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, Build Back Better invests in families,
the foundations for our families to thrive--in education, in childcare,
in healthcare, and in housing. So much is needed. It makes huge
investments critical to taking on the biggest challenge facing mankind:
climate chaos.
Earlier this summer, the U.N. climate panel released a report they
called ``code red for humanity'' because the science shows what a dire
path we are on right now.
Another report, this one coming from Save the Children and published
in the journal Science, titled ``Born into the Climate Crisis,'' shows
how much harder life is going to be for our children. Let me say it
again: for our children--not our children's children, not our
grandchildren's grandchildren; our children. On average, they will
experience 2\1/2\ times more droughts than we did, three times as many
floods, three times as many crop failures, twice the number of
wildfires, and so forth. This is the dangerous and unforgiving world we
are willfully leaving our children if we do not act now to control
methane and carbon dioxide that are heating up our planet and causing
these catastrophes. This is a collective effort of humankind, but
America has to act and help lead the world to action.
Now, some say we simply cannot afford the investments, but the truth
is, we can't not afford to act. Last year alone, America confronted 22
separate billion-dollar disasters. That came with a $95 billion
pricetag to the American people. Winds and flooding and severe storms
accounted for $35 billion. Hurricanes over the last 5 years cost $400
billion. Those numbers don't account for the droughts, the wildfires,
the impact on sea life, ocean ecosystems, the fishing industry. They
don't account for any of that.
We are facing massive economic disasters if we don't act on climate,
and the way we act: We pass Build Back Better. We set ourselves on that
path to net zero in the next 30 years, reducing our emissions over the
next decade to half of what they were in 2005, ensuring that 80 percent
of our American electricity is carbon-free by 2030, and ensuring that
half of America's auto fleet is electric by the same time. We have the
tools. We have to have the political will to act. So we must pass Build
Back Better.
Thank you, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise with my colleagues on Build Back
Better, and I just want to emphasize two points that really matter to
me.
First, Build Back Better is absolutely critical to combine with the
infrastructure bill. If we make an infrastructure investment that will
be the biggest since the Interstate Highway System, who is going to
build it? Who is going to build it?
Open the paper. You can't hire schoolbus drivers. You can't hire
truckers. We have a tight labor market right now. What Build Back
Better does is massive investments in the American workforce, beginning
with the workforce of tomorrow--our children--all the way up through
community college, workforce development, and immigration reforms that
will expand the Nation's workforce.
If we invest in infrastructure but don't think about making sure that
we have the workforce to do it, what a missed opportunity. The Build
Back Better plan has amazing investments in our workforce--the
workforce we need right now and the workforce we will need for decades.
The second thing about Build Back Better that I particularly
appreciate is what it does for children.
If we pass Build Back Better, we will have done for American children
what Social Security has done for American seniors.
Let me just point something out.
Pre-Social Security, you would work your whole life; you would
educate your kids; you would be the PTA president or the Little League
coach or the Sunday school teacher. You would retire, and 50 percent of
people would retire and then go below the poverty level. That was what
being a senior citizen was in the United States before Social Security.
FDR basically said: We want you to have a dignified retirement
because you have worked, and you have earned it.
So Social Security, once passed and implemented, dropped the senior
poverty rate from 50 percent to 10 percent. There has never been a
program that has been as successful in doing exactly what it was
designed to do as Social Security.
Build Back Better can do the same thing for kids. We are a nation
that has tolerated, for decades, a youth poverty level dramatically
higher than the adult poverty level. What does that say about a
society? Yet we have sort of acted like: Well, I guess that is the law
of nature. I guess we can't do anything about it. I guess kids are just
going to be a lot poorer than adults.
We don't have to tolerate it. We can do something about it with the
combined impact of the child tax credit, the childcare tax credit, the
funding for childcare, universal pre-K, paid parent and family leave,
and free community college. If you put those things together, we will
do for children what Social Security did for adults, and we will no
longer be a nation that tolerates an unacceptably high children's
poverty rate and says: Well, there is nothing we can do about it.
We can do something about it, and we will do something about it. That
is why I so strongly support, with my colleagues, Build Back Better.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Debt Ceiling
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, as we await the vote this afternoon,
I hope we will resolve a number of things today so that we make sure we
stand by the full faith and credit of the United States and not let
regular people's interest rates go up, the economy go to tatters, and
our credit rating be downgraded. I hope we can get this done.
At the same time, just as Americans have gone through this pandemic--
just as those moms and dads have been at home, with their toddlers on
their knees and laptops on their desks; just as they have been teaching
their first graders how to use a mute button; and just as so many
people have lost their jobs or risked their lives while working on the
frontline--they are ready to get through this. They see the light at
the end of the tunnel or, as we say in Duluth, MN, the lighthouse on
the horizon. They see this just as we continue to work, as best we can,
with a number of our colleagues we disagree with because we think we
should just simply move through this and make sure we are standing by
the full faith and credit of the United States and not let our debt
ceiling lapse.
As we do that, we are looking to the future just as America is. Just
as we are starting to see those jobs come back, they are going back to
work; they are starting to see their families again; they are going to
family reunions; they are starting to be able to go to weddings again.
As all of this is happening--as we get the vaccine out there and as we
bring people back together--we also have to plan for that future just
like families do every day.
That is what this is about, the Build Back Better agenda. That is
what this is about--putting people in front of so many people who,
honestly, have done pretty well during this time. There are a whole
bunch of billionaires who didn't even have to pay taxes while these
families have been struggling through the pandemic. There are a whole
bunch of people for whom it is easier to go and get prescription drugs
or do whatever they want while other people are having to choose
between filling their refrigerators with food or filling their
prescriptions at the pharmacy.
So you got a tour in the last half hour from Maryland to Wisconsin,
the State of my neighboring friend Tammy Baldwin; to Rhode Island; to
the great State of Oregon on the west coast; to my home State of
Minnesota; to close by Senator Kaine's State of Virginia. What we are
seeing, while our States may be very different, and what we are hearing
are the same things: Regular people want to bring costs down. That is
what this bill is about--bringing costs down for families in America--
and there are many ways we are going to do this.
One is with straightforward tax cuts for people. Another is with
making it
[[Page S6975]]
easier to afford things. It is that simple. That is what I like most
about it in my State. They want to make it easier to get childcare.
They want to make it easier to get healthcare. They want to make it
easier for their parents at the moment when they go to assisted living
or they need to get someone in to help them, just like my dad, whom we
lost this year. He got that long-term care insurance. I don't know why
he did it, but he did. I knew the day that his money ran out, and he
was going to go on Medicaid because that was there for his safety net.
So many families in America know exactly what I am talking about, and
what this bill does is build on the safety net we have in place.
So let's remember that. Putting our kids first, our seniors first,
our families first, our healthcare first--that is what this is about.
We look forward, over the next few weeks, to getting this bill done
and getting it agreed to. To me, it is not always about what those top
numbers are and everything you hear on the news; it is for what it is
going to mean to the families in my State.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, 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. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Procedure
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask
unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, following the
disposition of the motion to discharge, the Senate resume legislative
session; that there be 3 hours for debate under the control of Senator
Lee or his designee and 1 hour under the control of the majority; that
upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the motion to
invoke cloture on the motion to concur with an amendment; that if
cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be considered expired,
amendment No. 3848 be withdrawn, and the Senate vote on the motion to
concur with the amendment; that if the motion to concur with the
amendment is agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and
laid upon the table without intervening action or debate; further, that
upon disposition of the House message with respect to S. 1301, the
Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No.
259; that if cloture is invoked on the nomination, all postcloture time
be considered expired and the Senate vote on the confirmation of the
nomination at 5:30 p.m., Monday, October 18.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on Motion to Discharge
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 410 Ex.]
YEAS--50
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--49
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NOT VOTING--1
BURR
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). Pursuant to S. Res. 27 and the
motion to discharge having been agreed to, the nomination will be
placed on the Executive Calendar.
____________________