[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 12, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3219-S3221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Inflation

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, month after month, week after week, day 
after day, family budgets are being battered by inflation--inflation 
made worse by the reckless spending habits of the Federal Government 
and particularly of the Biden administration.
  Gas prices are up nearly 50 percent from a year ago, and grocery 
bills--as any of us can see when we go to the grocery store--have 
soared. From eggs to milk to meat to produce, everyday essentials cost 
more today than they did last year.
  The pain of inflation is having a dramatic impact on the American 
people. This quote from the New York Times yesterday sums it up pretty 
well:

       Widespread concerns about the economy and inflation have 
     helped turn the national mood decidedly dark, both on Mr. 
     Biden and the trajectory of our nation.

  It is a sentiment I have heard over and over again in my 
conversations with my constituents in Texas, and it is one that is 
increasingly visible in public surveys. A recent poll from the New York 
Times and Siena College found that more than three-quarters of voters 
think that the United States is headed in the wrong direction--three-
quarters of the country. Only 13 percent said the country was on the 
right track.
  With voter confidence at a concerning low, our Democratic colleagues 
have made an interesting calculation. They are trying to resurrect 
their ``Build Back Broke'' agenda. Now, you may remember this bill, 
which was called Build Back Better, but I think it can more accurately 
be described as ``Build Back Broke'' or ``Build Back Bankrupt.'' This 
bill went out with a whimper last year because our Democratic 
colleagues didn't even have the support among their Members to pass it 
in an evenly divided Senate where the Vice President breaks the tie.
  So they have now chosen this moment, for some reason, to bring it 
back. To have a shot at passing this proposal, our Democratic 
colleagues have slimmed and trimmed the bill, but it still packs a 
painful punch, especially where it has to do with energy prices.
  Last month, the national average of gasoline exceeded $5 a gallon for 
the

[[Page S3220]]

first time on record--5 bucks a gallon, plus. Since then, prices have 
fallen some, but the national average today is still $4.66 a gallon. 
Now, that is better than $5, but it is certainly no reason for 
celebration, and it still costs almost 40 bucks more to fill up a 
pickup truck today than it did a year ago.
  In standard fashion, the Biden administration has tried to blame 
someone else. Mr. Biden has implausibly blamed Vladimir Putin for the 
high price of gasoline. So rather than acknowledge the impact of its 
own policies which have discouraged investment in new production, new 
supply, the administration is trying to blame the very energy companies 
that we are depending on to produce more oil and gas so we can make 
more gasoline and so we can bring the price down.
  I have heard from oil and gas producers in Texas who are working to 
ramp up production and bring down prices for consumers. It is as if the 
law of supply and demand has somehow been repealed during this 
administration. They simply don't get it that if you want to bring down 
the price of something, you need to increase supply or reduce demand. 
This administration doesn't understand that it is not as simple as just 
pushing a button on a machine to increase output. This is a process 
that takes time. It takes investment. It takes time to build the 
pipelines and the infrastructure. It takes time to drill the wells and 
produce the oil and send it to the refineries to make into gasoline and 
jet fuel.
  While industry is working to increase supply, Washington Democrats 
are looking for new ways to put an even tighter squeeze on domestic 
energy. You would have thought that the Russian invasion of 
Ukraine demonstrated the irresponsibility of not maintaining multiple 
accesses to energy. As a matter of fact, Mr. Putin had convinced most 
of Europe to depend solely on Russian supply, and then when that is no 
longer available or when he uses it as a weapon, they are looking 
around for alternatives. But they are not easy to come by. They take 
time, and they take some investment.

  According to reports, we are hearing that our Democratic colleagues 
are considering a new tax that would require energy producers to pay 
hefty fees if they emit more methane than our Democratic colleagues 
would allow.
  Natural gas accounts for about 40 percent of our electricity, double 
the amount of renewable resources. You know, we are having a hot spell 
in Texas. I know it is July. It is always hot in Texas in July, but we 
are having a particularly bad spell of 100-degree-plus days in my 
hometown of Austin, TX, and across the State. And one of the problems 
is that, for some reason, the wind that we depend on to produce 
electricity from wind turbines has died down during this hot period, so 
not only do you have the constraints on natural gas and other sources 
of energy, but now even renewable sources like wind are not producing 
as much electricity as we need in order to maintain the grid, in order 
to maintain things like air-conditioning.
  Hitting producers of natural gas with a methane fee and other 
proposed tax hikes isn't going to change the fact that we need natural 
gas to keep the lights on. We have seen emissions reduced by about 15 
percent over recent years, primarily because the country has 
transitioned from coal to natural gas. You would think that would be 
something that we would celebrate, and certainly our energy supply 
continues to transition as we come up with new and different ways to 
satisfy our demand and our economy's need for affordable energy.
  One change this tax that our Democratic colleagues are considering 
would have is on energy costs for American people. Electricity costs 
are already up 12 percent from last year, and with this new methane 
fee, they would certainly rise even more. So instead of policies that 
would reduce the pain at the pump and at the grocery store of sky-high 
prices, actually, our Democratic colleagues are considering policies 
that would make it worse.
  I understand this proposal is still in the drafting phase, but it is 
an example of the sort of things that our colleagues are considering in 
their ``Build Back Broke'' reconciliation bill. Last go-around, the 
``Build Back Broke'' included tax credits for rich people buying 
expensive electric vehicles. Now, most of my constituents in Texas 
can't afford an $80,000 electric vehicle, but if you are a well-to-do 
person and you can pay that price, you will get a tax credit, courtesy 
of Uncle Sam and the Federal Government and our Democratic colleagues. 
But you won't get it if you are buying a used car on a parking lot 
because you need to take your kids to school or you need to be able to 
drive to work.
  Our colleagues also propose to provide billions of dollars in 
taxpayer-funded rebates and grants to cover the cost of retrofitting 
private homes--not public buildings but private homes.
  While the climate policies would be sure to hurt working families, 
another piece of this proposal would give the richest Americans another 
cause to celebrate. The so-called millionaire tax break has been 
scrapped and revived many times over the past few years. It is 
extremely unpopular among working families for a very simple reason: It 
allows millionaires and billionaires in blue States to pay less Federal 
taxes. It is a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. That is the 
proposal.
  When our colleagues tried to include this provision in their most 
recent partisan spending attempt, the price for this tax cut for 
millionaires and billionaires was $285 billion. That is quite a tax cut 
for the wealthiest people in America.
  According to the liberal Tax Policy Center, 93 percent of those 
making a million dollars or more would receive a tax break averaging 
about $48,000--a $48,000 tax cut for people making a million dollars or 
more or at least 93 percent of them.
  So this isn't an attempt to support those who are struggling to make 
ends meet or to bring down high prices that are wiping out family 
budgets; it is a get-out-of-jail-free card for the wealthiest people in 
America who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes.
  Under this proposal, two-thirds of those making more than a million 
dollars would receive a tax cut next year. Nearly 90 percent of those 
earning between $500,000 and a million dollars would receive a tax cut. 
These aren't the families who have been forced to buy just a few bucks' 
worth of gasoline because they can't afford to fill up their car or 
remove items from their shopping list because they simply find them to 
be too expensive or have to make conscious choices for cheaper items at 
the grocery store in order to feed their family to deal with inflation. 
We are talking about not making their life better but making life maybe 
a little bit better for the wealthiest of Americans.
  If this proposal were enacted, about 70 percent of the benefit would 
go to the top 5 percent of earners; that is, people making $366,000 a 
year--roughly six times the median income in Texas.
  The millionaires who stand to gain the most from this change are 
those who live in blue States like New York or California that have 
higher State and local taxes. They would get to deduct up to $80,000 of 
their State and local taxes and send the bill to the American taxpayer.
  Working families in Texas should not be forced to subsidize the tax 
bill for Manhattan millionaires. Inflation is already pummeling folks 
in Texas. The last thing we need to do is to send more tax breaks to 
the wealthiest of Americans, who are not hurting at this time when the 
vast majority of Americans are hurting.
  Well, I guess it shouldn't be a surprise when the majority leader of 
the Senate is from New York and the Speaker of the House is from 
California, two of the highest taxing States at the State and local 
level. And I understand they are hearing from their constituents 
saying: We want our old tax break back that we lost in 2017. But you 
shouldn't prioritize tax breaks for the wealthiest of your constituents 
over dealing with the rising costs of working families.
  This proposal won't ease the burden that Americans are facing or help 
our country build back better; it will ensure that we never reach the 
prepandemic economy that was the envy of the world. No PR blitz or no 
spin doctoring can hide the truth about this reckless tax-and-spending 
spree proposal that apparently the majority leader is considering. It 
wraps ill-conceived tax plans, irresponsible spending, and hurtful 
energy policies into another partisan exercise.

[[Page S3221]]

  And let's get this straight. No Republican is going to vote for this. 
So if, in fact, our Democratic colleagues can pass it--and they can if 
all 50 Senators on the Democratic side and the Vice President vote for 
it--it will be they who own it and who will be accountable to the 
American people in the upcoming midterm elections. But it is fair to 
ask where have these policies gotten us so far.
  While the administration has kept its foot on the neck of domestic 
energy policy while the President is making, apparently, a trip to 
Saudi Arabia to talk to Muhammad bin Salman about increasing Saudi 
production of oil--not here in America, which would create jobs, which 
would create more supply, arguably bring down price at the pump--he is 
going hat in hand to a foreign leader in a nondemocratic country and 
saying: Will you please open the spigot just a little bit more?
  I think it is embarrassing.
  We have also seen our Democratic colleagues spend nearly $2 trillion 
on a party-line vote earlier this year that helped ignite inflation to 
its current 40-year high levels. This new tax-and-spending spree--or, I 
should say, the old tax-and-spending spree bill which is now being 
repackaged and presumably resold--won't be any different from the 
earlier one.
  So it isn't time to hand out tax breaks to the well-off or push our 
country toward unrealistic energy goals at a time of more demand and 
not enough supply. We need more domestic energy supplies. That would 
provide relief for working families and a shot at waking up from the 
economic nightmare that we find ourselves in.
  So this reconciliation bill--this ``Build Back Broke'' bill that is 
apparently being contemplated by our Democratic colleagues--is not the 
solution. It is making the problem worse.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator from New Hampshire.