[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 133 (Saturday, August 6, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4154-S4164]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               INFLATION REDUCTION ACT OF 2022--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I yield myself 30 minutes from the bill 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               H.R. 5376

  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I would like to start my remarks by going 
back to nearly the very beginning of this Congress, when we were 
debating what was called the American Rescue Plan. We were told then by 
our colleagues on the other side that this was going to save the 
country: $1.9 trillion of debt-financed spending, they said, was going 
to fix everybody's concerns in the United States.
  Where are we today?
  A 9.1-percent consumer price inflation, which we told them was 
coming; gas prices doubling; economic stagnation; GDP contracted by 
nine-tenths of a percent in the second quarter.
  We are now arguing over semantics about what is a recession.
  Sixty-five percent of the people in this country think we are already 
in a recession, and more than 80 percent of the country think our 
economy is on the wrong track.
  The nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model has made a comment about 
what we are looking at today, but what are we being told today? Another 
rescue plan, only this time they call it the Inflation Reduction Act. 
The Penn Wharton Budget Model says this bill will, if anything, raise 
inflation in the first few years of this budget, with a small and 
significant negative effect later in this decade. That same model 
concludes that there is ``low confidence that the legislation will have 
any impact on inflation.''
  But it does have an impact on all of us and our economy. It does 
nothing to bring the economy out of stagnation and recession, but 
rather the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 gives us higher taxes, more 
spending, higher prices, and an army of IRS agents.
  Let's talk about the taxes first.
  Hundreds of billions of dollars are raised through taxes, around 350 
to 400 billion.
  There is a new book minimum tax on corporations. There is a new tax 
on stock buybacks. There is, believe this or not, a new tax on 
gasoline--on oil and gas production and refineries--at the very time 
when our President has shut down production of oil and gas on our 
interior and offshore and has stopped the Keystone XL Pipeline, 
basically freezing America's production and driving us from a state of 
energy independence to a state of energy dependence, where we have to 
ask our friends and often our enemies across the globe to increase 
their gas production to help us deal with our prices at the pump.
  And this book minimum tax, everybody in America knows that 
corporations don't bear the burden of the taxes we put on them. Who 
does? Workers, consumers, and owners.
  A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study estimates that 31 
percent of these taxes will be borne by consumers via price hikes--
price hikes at a time when we are dealing with record inflation.
  Thirty-eight percent is borne by workers by way of lower wages or 
less employment, and 31 percent is borne by owners.
  Now, my colleagues are very quick to say: Well, this is just rich 
people and rich companies that are tax cheaters.
  The owners of the corporations, though, are primarily people in 
America who have retired and are leaning on a pension or who have not 
yet retired or are trying to save money for their retirement by putting 
their money into 401(k) programs or other investment programs. That is 
who bears the burden of these taxes.
  We just asked the Joint Tax Committee to tell us who bears these 
burdens? Who will bear the burden of these tax hikes?
  They told us, as the chart here shows, in 2023, that taxes will be 
increased by $16.7 billion on American taxpayers earning less than 
$200,000. In 2023, another 14.1 billion will come from taxpayers 
earning between $200,000 and $500,000. And by 2031, when the new green 
energy credits and subsidies provide an even greater benefit to those 
in America with higher incomes, those earning below $400,000 are 
projected to bear as much as two-thirds of the burden of the additional 
tax revenues collected in that year.
  That is what we are being offered as a solution to the crisis that we 
are now in in our economy.
  And as I will discuss later, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office has recently confirmed that a significant portion of the revenue 
that the IRS supersized funding they are claiming will be coming from 
audits that they are going to be taking will come out of taxpayers 
earning less than $400,000.
  So in response to this data that we have been able to show about 
their very tax proposals in this bill, the Democrats, surprisingly, 
have claimed that this Joint Tax Committee analysis isn't valid because 
it didn't include the effects of their spending that they were putting 
into the bill.
  Now, that is a novel idea. It is OK to raise taxes, and it is OK to 
put more tax burden on people making more than $400,000 because we are 
going to be sending some subsidies to some of them.
  So we asked the Joint Tax Commission to include those subsidies in 
its analysis, which they did.
  The analysis they gave us back incorporated the ObamaCare subsidies 
and shows that the burdens of the proposed tax increases in the 
Democrats' reckless bill will be so substantial and so widespread 
throughout all income categories--I repeat, all income categories--that 
no amount of temporary healthcare credits or even the subsidies that 
this bill gives for $80,000 luxury SUVs will overcome the tax increase 
burdens that will be overwhelmingly felt by lower and middle-income-
class Americans.
  Few, if any, Americans will get a net reduction in the burden that 
they will bear from the taxes and subsidies provided in this bill. And 
for any that do, it will only be temporary. The vast majority will 
still bear the burden of these taxes.
  The book minimum tax does not close loopholes. You often hear that 
from my colleagues on the other side as well. It raises taxes on U.S. 
companies by hundreds of billions of dollars, and it would not prevent 
all companies from paying zero tax. Instead, it would let some of the 
companies preferred by the Democrats continue to avoid their

[[Page S4155]]

taxes by using not loopholes but legitimate provisions for research and 
development tax credits and other kinds of tax credits that are 
intended to incentivize the conduct of those companies.
  The Joint Tax Committee has already estimated that half of the burden 
of the book minimum tax will fall on manufacturers.

  In other words--well, let me go into what 252 trade associations and 
chambers of commerce from across the country said when they realized 
that close to half of this burden will fall on manufacturers.
  This is from those trade associations that jointly--252 of them--
wrote to Congress:

       Enacting the proposed Corporate Book Minimum Tax would be 
     the antithesis of sound tax policy and administration. Its 
     introduction would be neither simple nor administrable and 
     would pose a competitive disadvantage to U.S.-headquartered 
     businesses while increasing the incidence of unrelieved 
     double taxation. It would also have a detrimental effect on 
     the quality of financial reporting.

  The Business Roundtable said:

       [T]he proposed book minimum tax would, among other things, 
     suppress domestic investment--

  Remember that, ``suppress domestic investment''--

       when increased investment is needed to spur a strong 
     recovery in our economy. This tax hike would also undermine 
     the competitiveness of America's exporters.

  Even with a carve-out for accelerated appreciation, there remain many 
unresolved problems with the design and structure of this minimum tax 
that make it a poor revenue option.
  So let's go to the next one that they raise: stock buybacks.
  Once again, my colleagues on the other side are quick to attack any 
company that does a stock buyback, saying that they are just trying to 
make owners of their stock who are rich tax cheaters even more wealthy.
  I have already explained that the owners of that stock are the vast 
majority of Americans who are retired or who are working for retirement 
or who are trying to invest a little bit to try to get ahead.
  Despite the claims that these are loopholes, they are doubling down 
on proposing a $74 billion tax on U.S. companies. Democrats want to 
create a third layer of tax on American companies, which will have the 
harshest impact on seniors and other savers.
  The Wall Street Journal in a recent editorial explained:

       Companies use buybacks to return cash to shareholders for 
     which they don't have a better use. Shareholders who sell 
     shares back to . . . [companies] can invest the proceeds 
     elsewhere. That beats letting the cash sit on corporate books 
     earning interest while CEOs get complacent or decide to buy a 
     business they don't really want or understand how to run.
       Buybacks aren't tax free: Owners who sell shares back to 
     the company realize a taxable gain. Any boost in the share 
     price contributes to a higher taxable gain for remaining 
     owners when they sell their shares in the future.
       Why not pay dividends instead? Companies and shareholders 
     might prefer buybacks in some instances, such as the company 
     is disbursing a one-time lump sum or shifting the balance of 
     equity and debt on its books. For the economy overall, 
     buybacks have the effect of distributing capital specifically 
     to those owners who choose to participate because they 
     believe they have a more productive use for it. Capital flows 
     from companies that don't need it to companies that do.

  Democrats are telling companies: If you return value to your retirees 
or to retirees in the country or if you return value to people's 
investment in 401(k) plans or the pension plans, then you will pay a 
punitive tax.
  The majority of American households have direct or indirect ownership 
of corporate stock via pensions, 401(k) plans, or other saving 
vehicles.
  Here are some interesting statistics about the Americans who will 
bear the burden of this tax:
  Eighty to one hundred million Americans have a 401(k) plan, 46.4 
million households have an individual retirement account, and half of 
the Generation Zers and millennials are invested in stocks.
  Seniors are especially dependent on investment income.
  The Association of Mature American Citizens reports that 68 percent 
of workers between the ages of 55 and 64 were active participants in a 
retirement plan to save for their golden years and that, on average, 40 
percent of seniors' net worth is held in stocks and mutual funds 
invested over and above those retirement accounts.
  Companies also rely on investments by individuals and institutions 
like pension funds to finance their operations.
  Successful companies use this capital to generate profits, which are 
then used for expansion, for research and development, for hiring and 
for benefits, and for investment in communities. Companies may also 
choose to pay down their debt or return excess funds to shareholders.
  Restricting stock buybacks could force companies to sit on cash or 
waste it on low-potential projects, both of which limit our economic 
growth and prosperity.
  The Tax Foundation points out:

       A large body of evidence supports the idea that companies 
     generally only consider stock buybacks when they have 
     exhausted their investment opportunities and met their other 
     obligations, meaning it is residual cash flow that is used 
     for buybacks. In fact, stock buybacks can supplement capital 
     investments, as they can help reallocate capital from old, 
     established firms to new and innovative firms.

  This unvetted stock buybacks tax is a crippling tax that reduces 
retirement security for Americans.
  So let's go to the next tax that they propose, and this one is the 
one that I said was just a little difficult to understand--the 
superfund tax and methane fee.
  Now, I understand why they call it the superfund tax because it is a 
16.4-percent increase on oil and gas production in the United States.
  According to the Energy Information Agency, regular gasoline prices 
have risen $1.94 per gallon since President Biden was inaugurated, an 
increase of over 80 percent. Americans are still paying, on average, 
more than $4 a gallon for gas, and many can still remember the $5-a-
gallon gas. The price for utility gas service is up by almost 40 
percent.
  These prices occur because President Biden shut down domestic energy 
production, including through permitting delays and canceling pipelines 
like the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  Now--again, unbelievably--the President's Democrat allies in Congress 
are doubling down with a methane tax and higher royalties on petroleum, 
reimposing and increasing by nearly 70 percent the Superfund tax on 
refiners of crude oil, importers of petroleum products, and crude oil 
exporters, costing almost $12 billion over 10 years that will 
ultimately be borne by American motorists. And Americans know that.
  In addition, higher taxes diminish the ability to improve domestic 
supplies of oil by making capital investments cost prohibitive at a 
time when the U.S. has already lost 1 million barrels a day of refining 
capacity compared to before President Biden's unwise restriction of 
fossil fuel production in the United States.
  On the methane fee, the American Gas Association says:

       New fees or taxes on energy companies will raise costs for 
     customers--

  Americans understand this. He continues:

       [C]reating a burden that will fall most heavily on lower-
     income Americans. . . . based on similar proposals introduced 
     earlier this Congress, we estimate that the fee could amount 
     to tens of billions of dollars annually. These major new 
     costs most likely will result in higher bills for natural gas 
     customers, including families, small businesses, and power 
     generators.
       Any increase in low-income households' energy costs could 
     prove devastating.

  The bottom line on taxes is that millions of Americans will bear the 
burden of these tax hikes. Some of my colleagues have claimed that 
those tax hikes are worth the supposed benefit. But let's look at those 
benefits.
  Drug price reform is one they refer to. The largest source of 
supposed savings in the Democrats' bill is a system of bureaucratic 
drug price controls that will lead to: higher launch prices, stifled 
growth, gutted domestic manufacturing jobs, and aiding foreign 
adversaries like China; higher launch prices for new medications, 
triggering financial strain at the pharmacy counter, as confirmed by 
the Congressional Budget Office; hundreds of thousands of American job 
losses, particularly in domestic manufacturing, which is already 
getting hit by the new book minimum tax, with some estimates projecting 
as many as 800,000 job losses; a competitive edge for the Chinese 
Communist Party, which has singled out biomedical innovation as a

[[Page S4156]]

pillar of its industrial policy strategy and could ultimately supplant 
the United States as the global life sciences leader, with a profound 
amount of national security implications; an unprecedented expansion of 
the DC Federal health bureaucracy, financed with a staggering $3 
billion in new administrative spending as the Federal Government takes 
even greater control over another segment of our healthcare economy.
  This bureaucracy would also have unbridled new government price-
setting authorities with permanent prohibitions on even judicial and 
administrative review and with initial implementation shielded from 
basic notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements; fewer new treatments 
and cures, with the University of Chicago analysis estimating 135 fewer 
new drugs approved between now and 2039, resulting from an 18.5 percent 
reduction in innovative research and development.
  There would be less funding for cancer R&D. Today, nearly 50 percent 
of the FDA pipeline is comprised of new cancer treatments. However, 
according to the same economists at the University of Chicago, the drug 
price controls would reduce funding for cancer R&D by nearly $18.1 
billion, over 9 times the amount of funding proposed for President 
Biden's Cancer Moonshot--so much for the President's Cancer Moonshot.
  There would be dangerous new mechanisms for compelling total 
compliance with Federal Government mandates, with potential 
applications across all sectors of the economy, including: an 
escalating noncompliance penalty of up to 95 percent on all gross sales 
levied every day for failure to meet any terms of the government's 
price-setting program--negotiation in name only--rendering any new 
Federal mandate, however sweeping, an offer you can't refuse. Even late 
paperwork would trigger this crippling, catastrophic penalty, which has 
a tax-exclusive rate of up to 1,900 percent. It is negotiation in name 
only.
  As a messaging gimmick, the Democrats have framed their government 
price-setting program as ``negotiation,'' but their legislation tells a 
far different story. Under their proposed program, the Secretary has 
absolute, unilateral, uninhibited price-setting authority--with no 
floor--enabling a price of $1 for even the most innovative new drugs. 
Manufacturers have no choice but to comply and to provide indefinite 
access to their products at the Secretary-dictated price, regardless of 
how unfair. They cannot walk away from the negotiating table or 
withdraw selected products from the Medicare market, even if the 
Secretary sets an economically untenable price, stripping even small 
businesses of any leverage.
  Judicial and administrative review of key decisions, including the 
price setting itself, are permanently prohibited.
  The bill completely disregards the rest of the prescription drug 
supply chain, targeting manufacturers while doing nothing to address 
other key players or to improve oversight and transparency.
  There is a better way. It is called the Lower Costs, More Cures Act. 
Senate Republicans have developed a commonsense alternative, based on 
more than two dozen solutions, aimed at providing relief at the 
pharmacy counter while ensuring long-term access to lifesaving new 
treatments and cures.
  Among other provisions--virtually all of which are based on proposals 
with bipartisan support--the Lower Costs, More Cures Act would reform 
the Part D benefit to reduce seniors' cost-sharing burden 
and incentivize plans to negotiate the best deals possible for 
enrollees. It would create a hard cap on the annual out-of-pocket 
spending for all seniors under Medicare Part D. It would increase Part 
D plan choices for seniors by enabling sponsors to offer additional 
plans with incentives for options that pass a greater share of the 
discounts directly to their beneficiaries at the pharmacy counter.

  It would permanently extend a Trump administration program providing 
Part D enrollees with access to plan options that cap out-of-pocket 
monthly insulin costs at $35 or less.
  It would permanently allow high-deductible health plans to offer 
predeductible coverage for preventive services, including insulin.
  It would establish a chief pharmaceutical negotiator to combat 
foreign freeloading, ensuring the best trade deals achievable for 
American consumers and job creators.
  It would strengthen consumer-oriented oversight through more useful 
cost comparison tools, price transparency measures, and robust 
reporting requirements for stakeholders across the drug supply chain, 
including pharmacy benefit managers.
  It would facilitate value-based arrangements where private and public 
sector payers can pay based on patient outcomes, driving better results 
for patients at a lower cost. And it would restructure payments for 
drugs administered in the doctor's office or hospital outpatient 
department to encourage physicians to deliver cost-effective treatment 
options when clinically appropriate.
  These are the kinds of solutions that our prescription drug pricing 
system requires, not an arbitrary and offensive Federal price-fixing 
program.
  Now, let's move on, finally, to the IRS funding for an army of 
auditors. This bill proposes $80 billion in new spending in mandatory 
appropriations to the IRS.
  Let me give that a little perspective. The annual budget of the IRS 
is only about $12.6 billion. So it is nearly six times the annual 
budget of the current IRS. Of this, $45.6 billion is for enforcement 
purposes. That is more than 57 percent--almost 60 percent of this $80 
billion is for enforcement purposes--and I will get to that in a 
minute--$25.3 billion for operations and support; only $4.8 billion for 
improving their business systems and bringing themselves into the 21st 
century with their technology so they can communicate with taxpayers; 
and only $3.2 billion for taxpayer services.
  Some estimate that this part of the chart--the $46 billion for an 
army of auditors--will allow us to hire as many as 87,000 new auditors. 
That would make the IRS one of the largest Federal Agencies--larger 
than the Pentagon, larger than the State Department, larger than the 
FBI, and larger than the Border Patrol--all of them combined.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the Democrats' 
reckless IRS funding increase would raise enforcement funding by nearly 
70 percent above what the IRS is currently projected to get. Increased 
audits for the middle-class, for small businesses, and those making 
less than $400,000 are inevitable and unavoidable under this act.
  How will this money be used? Well, interestingly, the White House--
after we started pointing this out, the White House and even the IRS 
Commissioner have said they won't use all this money for auditing 
people who make less than $400,000. And my colleagues just continue to 
say they won't do it.
  Multiple studies show, however, that in order to raise the money they 
are requiring to be raised under this bill from audits--around $200 
billion of more tax revenue from Americans by auditing them--they have 
nowhere else to look.
  Last year, the IRS announced that it plans to ramp up audits of small 
businesses by 50 percent this year. Why did they announce that? Because 
that is where they need to look to collect all of this new tax revenue 
that they want to get. So I asked the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee 
to estimate where most of this tax gap lies. Where is this trillion 
dollars of tax gap that my colleagues on the other side say is all 
coming from ``big'' tax cheats? The IRS looked at the data and 
determined that out of all the revenue projected to be raised from 
underreported income, 40 to 57 percent could come from taxpayers making 
$50,000 or less; 65 to 78 percent could come from taxpayers making 
$100,000 or less; and 78 to 90 percent could come from those making 
less than $200,000. Only around 4 to 9 percent could come from those 
making over $500,000. That is what the data shows.
  That is why the IRS announced a 50-percent increase in audits for 
small businesses, and that is why it is impossible for the Democrats' 
claims that they want to not have audits of people under $400,000 
cannot be honored.
  You know, in their bill in response to this criticism, they included 
a sentence that said, Nothing in this bill is ``intended''--focus on 
that word--nothing in this bill is intended to increase taxes on those 
making less than $400,000.

[[Page S4157]]

  Why did they use the word ``intended''? Because they know that that 
is not what they want to have happen, but it is what will have to 
happen, and they are not willing to use a stronger word.
  I have asked them--and I will ask them in an amendment on this 
floor--to say that none of this money can be used to audit taxpayers 
making less than $400,000 a year. Let's see how they vote on that 
amendment.
  Why couldn't they just say that this money ``shall not'' increase 
taxes on people making under $400,000 per year? Why couldn't they say 
that these funds ``cannot'' be utilized to audit taxpayers making less 
than $400,000 per year? Because they know they can't say that and claim 
the amount of revenue that they want to spend unless they audit those 
making less than $400,000 per year. The fact is, the tax cap isn't just 
millionaires or billionaires or oligarchs or whatever the term of the 
attack is today. Referring to all tax gaps and misreporting--that 
everybody who has not accurately reported their income is a ``tax 
cheat''--is misdirection. It calls all of these people who make less 
than $400,000 who are simply having trouble with this complex Internal 
Revenue Code a tax cheat. That is unfair.
  We have examined the IRS's own data on how successful it is in having 
the courts sustain--sustain its claims that these folks in the 
$400,000-or-less category and other categories are cheating on their 
taxes.
  Over the past 20 years, the IRS has had a less than 47-percent 
success rate and a less than 45-percent success rate over the last 10 
years. In other words, the IRS more often asserts that these 
deficiencies exist than the courts agree with. That is hardly evidence 
for a multitude of tax cheats, but it is firm evidence that innocent 
taxpayers are often subjected to unnecessary and inappropriate 
scrutiny. We can be sure they will be with 87,000 new auditors--again, 
making the IRS larger than all of those other Agencies that I talked 
about.
  By the way, folks may remember just a short time back when the 
proposal also included language that would let the IRS get into the 
bank accounts and monitor the transactions of the deposits and 
withdrawals of all Americans. Well, let me say it better--all Americans 
who had more than $10,000 worth of transactions in a year, which is, 
essentially, almost all Americans. Now, admittedly, that language isn't 
in this bill yet, but the broad authority that is given to the Internal 
Revenue Service with this $80 billion of supersizing will undoubtedly 
result in rules and regulations issued by the IRS to achieve that 
objective. They just knew that they couldn't put it in statute because 
they would be rejected immediately by the American people.
  I encourage the American people to see past this and to reject this 
legislation. It is too many taxes, too much spending, and too big of a 
burden on the American people across all income categories. We don't 
want to supersize our Internal Revenue Service, and--go back to that 
very first statistic I gave you--it is not even going to have a 
statistically significant impact on inflation. If anything, the taxes 
will drive prices up.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to reject this reckless bill.
  With that, I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I yield myself 20 minutes from the 
bill time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, Hans Christian Andersen, in 1837, 
wrote a story about group think. It is called ``The Emperor's New 
Clothes.'' It begins with a leader who really loved his clothes. Some 
unsavory characters saw that, and they set up a weaving loom to make 
the finest clothes in the land, but they were actually weaving just 
air; there was nothing to it. The catch was they had sold the story 
that, if you can't see what they are weaving, it must be that you are 
just not wise.
  So the Emperor sends a couple of his advisers to go check out the 
weaving to see what it looks like. They see, obviously, nothing because 
there is nothing there, and they all declare ``Oh, it is beautiful; it 
is lovely'' because they don't want to be seen as unwise.
  Then it ends up with the Emperor preparing for a big parade, and that 
is where I pick up the story. Let me read to you from Hans Christian 
Andersen, from 1837, when he tries on the ``new clothes.''
  These scoundrels, these unsavory characters who had sold him this 
said:

       ``How well Your Majesty's new clothes look. Aren't they 
     becoming!''
       The advisers all chirped in. He heard on all sides, ``That 
     pattern, so perfect! Those colors, so suitable! It is a 
     magnificent outfit.''
       Then the minister of public processions announced: ``Your 
     Majesty's canopy is waiting outside.''
       ``Well, I'm supposed to be ready,'' the Emperor said, and 
     turned again for one last look in the mirror. ``It is a 
     remarkable fit, isn't it?'' He seemed to regard his costume 
     with the greatest interest.
       The noblemen who were to carry his train stooped low and 
     reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle. 
     Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn't 
     dare admit they had nothing to hold.
       So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid 
     canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, ``Oh, 
     how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to 
     perfection? And see his long train!'' Nobody would confess 
     that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him 
     either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the 
     Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.
       ``But he hasn't got anything on,'' a little child said.
       ``Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?'' said its 
     father. And one person whispered to another what the child 
     had said, ``He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't 
     anything on.''
       ``But he hasn't got anything on!'' the whole town cried out 
     at last.
       The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But 
     he thought, ``This procession has got to go on.'' So he 
     walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the 
     train that wasn't there at all.

  When the facts come out, it is hard sometimes to admit you are on 
display, that the bill actually doesn't do what the title says it is 
supposed to do. This time, the bill is called the Inflation Reduction 
Act. They say it is designed to be able to lower inflation and to 
reduce the deficit except that now it has actually been scored. It 
doesn't actually reduce inflation, and deficit reduction is as 
invisible as the Emperor's new clothes.
  The score for inflation stated in the public scoring that ``the 
impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero.''
  The CBO scored the bill and said it ``would have a negligible effect 
on inflation.''
  Remember, this is the bill titled: the ``Inflation Reduction Act.'' 
The score on the deficit end, after many on the other side of the aisle 
here have said it would have $300 billion in deficit reduction, it is 
less than a billion. But wait, there is more to the story on even that 
$100 billion.
  More than 200 economists wrote a letter to Senator Schumer detailing 
how this bill will not reduce inflation nor reduce the deficit. Taxing 
more and spending more will only make the problem worse.
  They closed by saying this statement:

       The bill deficit reduction is likely to prove illusionary 
     due to implausible spending phase-outs.
       In summary, we agree with the urgent need to reduce 
     inflation, but the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is a 
     misleading label applied to a bill that would likely achieve 
     the exact opposite effect.

  What they said was, the Emperor has no clothes. It doesn't really 
reduce inflation. At some point, the emperor has to make a decision: Am 
I going to keep parading through the streets, when everyone knows the 
Inflation Reduction Act doesn't reduce inflation or am I going to head 
back and fix it?
  Let me start with just the plan that is in this bill.
  Here is the bill. It is titled: The ``Inflation Reduction Act of 
2022.'' So the plan my Democratic colleagues have laid out--let me just 
give you a couple of details in the plan to reduce inflation in the 
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
  Here is one: Up to $4 billion has been allocated to study cow burping 
and their production of methane. I am sure that that is going to bring 
down the price of beef right away. As I have heard, even on the floor 
today, this is going to bring down the prices at the grocery store by 
having up to $4 billion allocated to study cow burping.
  It adds $2 billion in construction grants to improve walkability in 
context-sensitive projects. No one seems to know what the words 
``context-sensitive projects'' even mean or how $2

[[Page S4158]]

billion in construction to improve walkability will bring down 
inflation.
  There is $3 billion for environmental justice block grants to 
facilitate workshops--workshops--to bring down inflation. Aren't you 
confident that the price of eggs and bread will go down after $3 
billion is spent on environmental justice workshops?
  There is $17 million for consumer-related education and partnerships 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By the way, that is not reducing. 
Those are partnerships to discuss reducing.
  There is a brandnew tax credit for Elon Musk that is in this, though. 
I am sure that it will bring down inflation. Tesla has used up all of 
its credits for its electric vehicles so this bill renews it and does a 
special perk for Tesla to give them an unlimited number of new tax 
credits. I am sure Elon Musk is thrilled about his unlimited new tax 
credits to him, and I am sure all of our prices will go down based on 
Elon Musk's new multibillion-dollar tax credit that he gets. Again, the 
bill is the Inflation Reduction Act.
  There is a new fee on methane that will raise the price of natural 
gas, which has been estimated to raise the price of our natural gas to 
the consumer by 17 percent--a 17-percent increase on our natural gas. 
Now, let me remind you that this is the Inflation Reduction Act that 
will increase the price of our heating, of our cooking, and of our 
energy production--17 percent.
  There is a new tax on imported oil and new fees on domestic oil 
produced on Federal lands.
  There are new inspection fees and owners' fees on pipelines. I do not 
understand how new fees and new taxes on oil and gas are supposed to 
lower the price of natural gas and of gasoline, but that is what is 
being declared in the Inflation Reduction Act. If only we had more 
taxes on oil, gas, and natural gas, then prices would somehow magically 
go down.
  As has been mentioned multiple times on the floor, this Inflation 
Reduction Act hires more than 80,000 new IRS auditors, with no limit on 
whom they can audit. If you thought that there would be a limit to 
those people making $40,000 or more on being audited, you were wrong. 
Now, that could have been in this bill, but they chose not to put it in 
this bill. There are no guardrails for who can be audited by the IRS 
with billions of dollars being allocated to new IRS agents. Every 
single American in every income bracket, every small business, and 
every large company--everyone--is going to experience new IRS audits in 
the days ahead.
  Remember this night. Remember this night. In the next 10 years, when 
you get an IRS audit, it was the Democrats in this body who sent the 
IRS to your house. So keep your records because IRS audits are about to 
dramatically go up due to the gift of the Inflation Reduction Act.
  Maybe this bill should instead be called the CPA Hiring Act because I 
assume millions of taxpayers who struggle under our complicated Tax 
Code already will now have to hire a CPA knowing their chances of being 
audited are greatly increasing now. They know the complicated rules of 
the IRS. Most taxpayers I talk to submit their tax forms every year and 
hope they get it right because it is so complicated, but because of 
this night and this vote, there will be auditors coming after you to 
make sure that you got it right.
  The Democrats, in the days ahead, when the IRS comes to this body for 
a hearing, will be asking them: Did they pull in additional money based 
on the audits they gave them? They are not telling you this, but they 
assume the IRS will collect $200 billion more once they give them these 
new auditors. You can be assured that that is going to be a metric that 
is going to be checked in the days ahead. The IRS will suddenly be like 
the smalltown police force that has a quota for writing tickets on the 
highway through their small town in order to help pay for the new city 
hall. If you have to pay for city hall, you need to write more tickets 
on the highway. It is about to be that way with the IRS. They need to 
audit more and go get more because we gave you more people.
  Remember, this is the Inflation Reduction Act. I have yet to figure 
out how Americans getting more audits reduces inflation, but as has 
been advertised, this is going to bring down the cost of groceries, and 
this is going to bring down the cost of gas by more people getting 
audited by the IRS.
  One of the other interesting plans in this bill to reduce inflation 
is to force more Americans to join a union. Now, I have to tell you 
that I have no angst against unions. Unions are a choice. Those 
individuals should be able to choose to join a union and be a part of 
collective bargaining as an American right and privilege.
  Let me say this: 10.3 percent of the American workforce is union--
10.3 percent. In the energy portion of this bill, which is billions and 
billions and billions of dollars, the unions get billions of dollars, 
and nonunion workers get nothing. So, if you work in the energy sector 
right now and if you are not a union employee, you are about to get cut 
out because the way this bill is written it gives Federal payouts to 
companies that use union laborers, which will make nonunion energy 
companies uncompetitive and will force them out of business or force 
them to unionize.
  Quite frankly, this bill should be called the Mandatory Union Bill of 
2022, not the Inflation Reduction Act, because I am not sure how 
forcing more people into a union reduces inflation, but that is a major 
portion of this bill.
  I am confident the union bosses across the country are thrilled to 
finally see a return on their investments since they gave heavily to 
Democrats in 2022 to get them elected, and this is their payoff. There 
will no longer be 10.3 percent of workers in unions. This is going to 
force more companies to have to unionize or they will not be able to 
survive because of the Federal credits that only go to companies that 
hire union labor. Does forced unionization sound like the solution to 
inflation reduction to you? It does to apparently half this body.
  It creates a subsidy in health insurance to be announced right before 
the fall elections this fall. And it is not for those who are in 
poverty. Those who are in poverty, all the way up to 400 percent of 
poverty, already get healthcare subsidies. Oh, no, this is not for 
those folks at the poverty level--200 percent, 300 percent, or 400 
percent of poverty; this is a family of four making $200,000 who will 
get this healthcare subsidy.
  What do the economists think will happen with this new subsidy? They 
believe employers will drop their health insurance and will push 
employees under the government Affordable Care Act policies and will 
shift more and more people onto the government rolls. Remember, this is 
the Inflation Reduction Act.
  As homelessness increases across the Nation right now, the bill adds 
$1 billion into HUD for zero emissions electricity generation in 
affordable housing. That is what it is called, zero emissions 
electricity generation in affordable housing. It is not about 
increasing access to housing for those who are homeless; it is solar 
panels in public housing. I am confident the people who are living on 
the street, trying to survive a 9-percent inflation rate, are really 
not hoping that they can find someplace with a solar panel, but that is 
what is in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, solar panels in public 
housing. That is their solution to solving inflation.
  While many of us have been pushing back hard to block China from 
buying more land in the United States, this bill actually gives ag 
subsidies to land owners regardless of who is the owner of the land. 
They don't have to be a U.S. citizen. They don't have to be American 
ownership. We are literally opening up that to owners of land to be 
able to get access to it.
  I have also heard over and over again that there are no new taxes in 
the Inflation Reduction Act. I have heard that in national media from 
my Democratic colleagues saying it over and over again and on this 
floor. Well, it seems to be true. If you are a green energy company, 
that is true; there are no new taxes for you. They will have huge tax 
breaks. And while there is a push for everyone to have a 15-percent 
minimum tax, that is not exactly true for those folks who are in these 
green energy companies that are major Democrat donors. They will not 
have that same minimum tax standard.
  But the Tax Foundation found this. This is their quote:


[[Page S4159]]


  

       On average, tax filers in every quintile would experience a 
     drop in after-tax incomes.

  Let me run that past you again. ``On average, tax filers in every 
quintile would experience a drop in after-tax incomes'' if this bill 
passes. That means everyone in the country, under $400,000 and over 
$400,000 a year--everyone has a drop in after-tax income.
  One of the new taxes that was just added into the bill today is the 
stock buyback tax. This is to punish companies that are listed on our 
stock exchanges that buy back stocks to raise the value of stock. Now, 
they buy back stock so that the stock value goes up. They are putting a 
tax on them to be able to punish them to try to prevent them from doing 
this. They make it sound like they are hitting the big, fat cat 
corporate CEOs and the guys on Wall Street, keeping the value of their 
stock lower. They are going to really stick it to the man--except 60 
million Americans are invested in a 401(k) plan for their retirement. 
Sixty million. The largest owners of stocks in America are retirement 
plans, insurance companies, and nonprofits. Google ``largest owners of 
stocks.'' So the people who will be hurt the most in this new plan to 
drive down the stock market prices are nonprofits, insurance companies, 
and retirement plans. Fifty-eight percent of Americans own some kind of 
stock.
  This is a tax directly and deliberately designed to keep the price of 
individual stocks from going up. Sure, that is going to hurt CEOs who 
own their own stock, but it is also going to hurt everyday Americans 
who just own stock on their own, and it is going to hurt all of those 
retirement plans. But they seem not to care whom they hurt in this as 
long as they can also hurt CEOs. Driving down the stock market will, I 
guess, reduce inflation, if that is their plan in their Inflation 
Reduction Act, is to drive stock prices lower for retirees and 
nonprofits and individual investors.
  Another new tax that was added today is a 15-percent minimum tax on 
businesses that are funded by private equity. I have to tell you, this 
one shocked even me when it got slipped in today. Most companies that 
are funded by private money are small businesses, research companies, 
small manufacturing companies. This adds a new 15-percent tax on those 
small businesses.
  Basically, if you are owned by private money or funded by private 
money separate from the owner itself, you are considered a subsidiary, 
and so you get this big tax laid on you.
  Let me give you an example of this. I know directly a company in 
Oklahoma that is a small manufacturing company. They are funded by 
private outside money. During COVID, my Democrat colleagues had the 
same vendetta against manufacturing that was funded by private equity. 
This particular company, unlike every other company across the country 
during COVID, could not get access to the Paycheck Protection Program 
because Democrats said: If you are funded by private outside money, 
then we are not going to get you access to that because you are in evil 
private equity areas--even though they are vastly small businesses.
  This particular manufacturing company in Oklahoma produces valves. 
This valve company had hundreds of employees before COVID. Once COVID 
happened and business dropped off immediately, because they couldn't 
get access to the Paycheck Protection Program like every other small 
business, they laid off hundreds of workers. Those workers weren't rich 
folks. Those were folks turning a wrench and making a great product 
that a lot of people wanted. They got laid off simply because of how 
they were funded.
  Now my Democratic colleagues want to jump right on top of them at the 
end of COVID, as the company is finally starting to come back and they 
are hiring people back, to now slap a brandnew tax on top of them that 
no one has discussed, no one has evaluated, and no hearings have 
occurred on it to determine how wide and how broad this will be. 
Literally, the owners of this company will wake up tomorrow morning, 
because in the middle of the night, a new tax got added onto them right 
at the tail end of COVID simply because my Democratic colleagues don't 
like any company--regardless of what they do, regardless of the workers 
who actually work there, they don't like how they are funded through 
private individuals who fund them.

  This bill doesn't lower inflation. I listed a lot of things. Can a 
single American go: Oh, that will take down inflation; that will work. 
None of those things take down inflation.
  It also doesn't reduce the deficit. Brace yourself for this. Their 
plan for reducing the deficit is not doing programs they were already 
not going to do. That is their plan. That is the deficit reduction.
  Let me give you an example of this. Let's say you are going through 
Walmart, shopping, and you are with your shopping cart. You step aside 
to be able to get something off the shelf, and when you turn back 
around, somebody has stuck in your basket a big bag of frozen brussels 
sprouts. Now, you didn't put them in there; somebody else put them in 
there.
  As you go through the aisle, you look down and you see this big bag 
of brussels sprouts. I don't know about you, I don't want frozen 
brussels sprouts. Maybe some of you love those. Great. But if somebody 
slipped a bag of frozen brussels sprouts into my cart, I would put it 
back. I would put that away and say: No, I am not going to buy that. 
Somebody else put that in my cart.
  Here is what I wouldn't say. I wouldn't say: Somebody put a bag of 
frozen brussels sprouts in my cart. I am going to put it back on the 
shelf. That is deficit reduction in my cart. I wouldn't say that.
  Here is what I mean by that. During the end of the Trump 
administration, they laid the groundwork for seniors to get a rebate at 
the pharmacy counter for Medicare prescriptions to make sure that every 
senior got a discount at the pharmacy counter. That was the plan. That 
is what the Trump administration put in place.
  When the Biden administration came in, they didn't like that plan to 
give discounts to seniors at the pharmacy counter, so they set that 
plan aside and said: We are not going to do that. Instead, they have 
come up with this new plan that I will explain in just a second. But 
they are saying that because they didn't do the plan that Trump was 
planning to do, because they didn't do that plan, that is $100 billion 
in savings by not buying what they never intended to buy, ever.
  Let me just tell you, if you don't buy the brussels sprouts, you just 
don't have the brussels sprouts, but you are not saving the money from 
that. You just didn't get them. That is not real savings. So when they 
say it is deficit reduction, it is because they are not doing what they 
never said they were going to do, and now they are magically calling it 
deficit reduction. That is not real reduction of the deficit; that is a 
budget gimmick in Washington, DC--a huge budget gimmick. Can I just 
say, the Emperor has no clothes. It is not real.
  In the place of this rebate rule, in its place, they have created a 
real method of price controls for some drugs. And it is not price 
negotiations; it is price controls. They are spending $3 billion to set 
up a system for the government to be able to select prices on one of 
the most used drugs in America.
  By the way, it starts in 2026, is when this starts. I have heard some 
people on the floor say: We are going to have lower prices right away. 
This plan starts in 2026. It wouldn't actually affect anyone's 
pharmaceuticals until 2027. So if you are planning on a reduction in 
prices, it is not coming soon; it is 5 years away, if there is a price 
decrease at all.
  The way it is set up is the President, whoever that may be 5 years 
from now, will have a new authority not to negotiate prices in the next 
10 years. It is not a negotiation, it is setting the price, because if 
you disagree with the next President, whoever the next President is, 
and what they set on the price, they can raise the taxes on your 
company 95 percent. So if you disagree with the price that they pick, 
whoever the next President is, what they pick for the price, then your 
company gets hit with a 95-percent tax. How does that sound for 
government sheer power over a company, to crush whoever they choose? 
That is how this is set up. You don't follow what I say, we will crush 
your company.
  What does that mean for the future? Drug companies will have new 
incentives to not use existing drugs for new

[[Page S4160]]

treatments because here is how it typically works: If a cancer drug 
works for lung cancer, then they start experimenting with other types 
of cancer to see if it works on those. But in this system the Democrats 
are setting up, if a drug works for lung cancer, they have a 
disincentive to try it on other cancers because if the drug gets too 
used, then it falls into this new negotiation category. So the 
incentive for the drug companies is not to try new ways of using this 
drug for fear of getting too big.
  Can I tell you what this looks like in real life? I have a friend at 
home whose wife has pancreatic cancer, and they are desperately trying 
every treatment and trying to get into every clinical trial they can 
get into, desperately. They are praying, and they are working, and he 
is being an awesome husband, and she is being a tough warrior going 
through nausea and pretty awful treatments. They are trying to get into 
clinical trials, which is already hard. This bill will make it even 
harder because existing cancer drugs will have a disincentive to test 
out new ways to be able to serve their cancer. Thank you very much to 
my Democratic colleagues who are reducing the number of cancer cures 
for the future. How does that cure inflation in the Inflation Reduction 
Act?
  There is also a special little feature in it, in the way the drug 
piece is set up, that it incentivizes more IV drugs and fewer oral 
drugs because IV drugs get more time and oral drugs get less time. So 
the incentive is to set up IV drugs instead--for the drug companies.
  So for all of us who would prefer taking a pill than taking a drug 
intravenously, tough luck. Democrats prefer IV drugs to oral drugs. So, 
in the future, when you are taking an IV instead of an oral medication, 
it is because of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
  Can I just remind everyone that Medicare has insolvency in 6 years--
2028. This Inflation Reduction Act takes the savings from this new 
prescription plan from Medicare and takes it out of Medicare. It 
doesn't stabilize Medicare, which is going insolvent in 6 years. It 
takes it out of Medicare and moves it over to the Affordable Care Act 
subsidies.
  It literally takes money designed for 76-year-olds on a fixed income 
and gives them to 26-year-olds and their family making $200,000 a year. 
That is the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. By the way, did I mention, 
again, that those subsidies land right before the election this fall?
  This bill is three-quarters of a trillion dollars that not a single 
person in this Chamber has read--755 pages of it--that came out a few 
hours ago. The media, which also hasn't read this bill, continues to be 
able to talk about what a great plan it is for inflation reduction. 
They continue to praise the bill, though they have read the same 
things: It doesn't reduce inflation; it doesn't reduce the deficit.
  They have joined in the chorus talking about the beauty of the 
emperor's new clothes. I am willing to say what a lot of people in this 
room know in their gut but they are afraid to say. It doesn't reduce 
inflation. It doesn't reduce the deficit. The emperor has no clothes.
  Let's reject this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. I yield myself 11 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I got a chance to go home. I had some close 
family friends who had a loss in their family over the last few days. I 
wanted to go back and see them.
  I get this email at 3 a.m.--I didn't see it until 5 a.m.--that my 8 
a.m. flight was canceled. So I had trouble getting here this morning. I 
was finally able to get here in time for the vote we took just a few 
hours ago, but I didn't get here for the first two.
  So I had a chance that morning to do two things. First, I had a 
chance to take my son to football practice. It is that glorious time of 
year when high school football is going. Then the other thing I had a 
chance to do is I had a chance to go to a Cuban bakery that is close to 
my house. I don't get to go often, but when I do go, especially on 
weekends, I look for one of these little corners and just sit there. 
And I really like to go because I get to hear people talking--people 
who live on planet Earth, not people who are here in politics and in 
the bubble that is Washington.
  And you get to hear people talk. And one of the first things I heard 
today is about two ladies who were in line, and they were talking about 
how difficult it had become. You know, it is back-to-school shopping 
time, and even with the tax-free holiday week that we had in Florida, I 
could hear them talking about how much more expensive it was going to 
be this year to buy and how the list was longer and everything cost 
more--like pencils, all the stuff. I couldn't hear everything. I didn't 
want to entirely eavesdrop, but I could hear what they were talking 
about.
  A few minutes later, these two guys come in. It was like: Hey, are 
you taking the boat out today?
  No, I am not taking the boat out. I can't take my kids out. The gas 
is too expensive. It is crazy to fill it up. It is twice what it used 
to be for the boat--x, y, and z.
  A few minutes later, someone else came by who was talking about the 
reports on the news. We have a massive migration crisis which impacts 
the whole country, not just the land border. But we had this weekend, I 
think, six or eight Border Patrol engagements in the Florida Keys, 
people getting on rafts and leaving and coming there--maybe two more 
today.
  And it struck me as I am sitting there--and I have been reminded of 
this every time I go home, but it really struck me before I came here 
today that we like to talk a lot about how divided politics is in 
America. And it is. It is very polarized. But I think we make a huge 
mistake when we think it is as simple as what normal political 
divisions are in this country, which is between Republicans and 
Democrats or between the left and the right.
  The polarization in American politics, the division--the sharpest 
division in American politics today--is between the priorities of 
millions and millions of people who live paycheck to paycheck, the 
working-class heroes of our country that we have always bragged about, 
have always looked up to, that we all recognize make us different than 
the rest of the world--between the things that matter to them and what 
the people that run this place--and I don't just mean the Senate but 
the Federal Government and politics in general--are focused on.

  There is a universe of difference between the stuff we spend time 
voting on and talking about and arguing about in politics and in this 
place and what people are worried about on a daily basis. I know a lot 
of you think that everyone is glued to their TV and Twitter watching 
everything we are doing here tonight. They are not. They might know 
something is going on tonight--maybe--but most people are worried about 
their everyday life.
  What they expect is that we would be here--I don't know--working on 
the things that matter to them. I am telling you that what the people, 
by the millions, registered to both political parties--people who voted 
for Biden, people who voted for Trump--I am telling you, what they are 
worried about is the fact that the streets in many cities in this 
country have been turned over to criminals.
  We have got prosecutors funded by Soros who refuse to put people in 
jail. They won't do it. Entire categories of crime--they won't even 
prosecute them. Even in Florida, a State where we do prosecute people, 
if you go to a CVS or a Walgreens, everything is locked up behind that 
little plastic case because people just walk in and steal the stuff. It 
is a spirit of widespread, rampant criminality, and it is worse in 
other parts of the country.
  One of the reasons why people are leaving these other places--these 
were once beautiful, glorious cities. They are unlivable. That is what 
people are worried about. They are worried about becoming a victim of a 
crime because some animals are running loose terrorizing people and 
prosecutors won't do anything about it--not to mention that we spent 2 
years demonizing police officers around here as well. That is what they 
are worried about.
  They are worried about the border. They really are worried about the 
border. I get it. Maybe now it is going to change because they are 
busing them to New York and here to Washington. But I get it. It is 
very easy, in the

[[Page S4161]]

Upper West Side of New York or in the West Hollywood area, to not worry 
that much about immigration: We shouldn't have a border. Let's be nice.
  But the people whose hospitals are being overrun, whose schools are 
being overcrowded, whose communities are being strained are the 
communities that are taking this influx--7,000, 8,000 people a day. We 
are the only country on this planet that lets people just show up and 
say, ``Hey, I am here; I am staying''--the only one.
  Mexico doesn't allow you to do that. You can't do that to Mexico. You 
can't do that to Canada. You can't do that in Europe. But you can do it 
here. People know it.
  That is what they are worried about--a huge problem.
  And they are worried about the price of everything. People focus on 
gas. It is funny. The President said he couldn't control gas prices 
until they started going down a little. You know one of the reasons why 
it is going down? People are driving less. They are not going on 
vacation. They are not taking the boat out because it is expensive.
  Frankly, that is what they wanted. Do not be fooled. That is what 
they wanted. They were not unhappy about high gas prices. They were 
just upset that it happened a few months before an election. But the 
Democrats and the left were not unhappy about high gas prices because 
they don't want you to drive. They want everybody to take a bus or buy 
one of these $90,000 Chinese electric cars. That is what they want 
everybody to do. We will talk about that in a minute.
  They were not happy, but it is not just that. I don't know how many 
people here do their own groceries, but in my house we do. I am just 
telling you, it is twice what it used to be. I get it. My kids are 
growing, and they eat twice as much, too, but it is twice what it used 
to be--on everything, on everything. And that is just food.
  That is the other problem with inflation. People talk about 
inflation. The inflation that matters the most is the necessities, not 
the flat screen TVs, not the new car--the necessities. That is what is 
going up in price: housing, clothes, back-to-school supplies, food. All 
of that is through the roof--caused, by the way, partially by a bill, 
one of the first things they did in March: $1.9 trillion of Federal 
money--of your money, the people's money--poured right into the 
economy. We had a supply shortage, and we created more demand with all 
of that money.
  Anyway, that is what people are worried about: inflation, the crime, 
the border, the real-life stuff. What have we spent our time focused on 
and fighting around here? I can tell you. First, a fake--and I mean 
fake, completely fake--electoral rights crisis, election rights 
crisis--totally fake. We spent a lot of time on that.
  We spent a lot of time arguing about whether we were going to vote on 
a bill to make it easier to shoot police officers. We spent a lot of 
time around here talking about--in the Federal Government in general--
things like pregnant people, something that does not exist. In the 
5,500 years of human history, every single pregnant person that has 
ever existed happened to be a woman, but we talk about pregnant people.
  We have a military that likes to put out tweets about the proper use 
of pronouns. We worry a lot about those things. We have focused a lot 
on those things.
  Do you know what China is focused on? Blowing up our aircraft 
carriers. Maybe we should worry more about that.
  This basically is Build Back--whatever the name--Build Back Better 
junior, just a little bit less--a lot of money but just less money. 
They might as well have voted for the one they had. I don't know why 
the Senators who kind of gave them their vote on this didn't just agree 
to the other one. This is just a smaller version of that. That is what 
this is. But, anyway, that is what we are focused on.

  So you can see, we are up here. We are going to vote late at night 
and into the morning, which is fine with me. I don't know if it is fine 
with everybody, but it is fine with me. But at least, if we are going 
to do that, let's be about the things that the people care about, that 
matter to the real people in the real world.
  It is not. Instead, here is what we are going to do. Here is what we 
are going to do. What we are going to spend time on is a $30 billion 
slush fund they call green loans. That is what it is, guys. It is a 
slush fund. It is for all these people who have companies that are in 
the green energy space. Those are their buddies. They are now going to 
be able to tap into this loan program. They have done this once before 
but not a $30 billion slush fund.
  We are going to spend $60 billion solving environmental racism. I 
don't even know what that is. I don't know if anybody knows what that 
is. Like when they say ``Latinx.'' I thought that was a band. I have 
never heard that word before in my life, and I don't know what 
environmental racism is.
  Nine billion on tax credits to help people that already have electric 
cars buy another electric car. Let me tell you guys something. You may 
not realize this. I get it, maybe, because the bubble around here is so 
thick. So let me tell you the truth. A lot of people who voted for you 
guys, as well, are not buying an electric car this year, next year, or 
the year after that for a lot of reasons: No. 1, charging stations. It 
is the common sense of everyday people. They are not doing it anytime 
in the near future. Maybe this will help them 30 years from now or 
their grandkids 30 years from now but not today. They are not buying an 
electric car because, even with your little rebate, it is still too 
much for them.
  They are lucky if they can get a new one with gas in it. They have 
got to buy a used car. That is another problem we have. We are going to 
help, though, with this $9 billion to help people buy tax credits--by 
the way, with a Chinese battery in it. Oh, yeah, you can't make those 
batteries without China--so, great for China. I imagine spending a 
bunch more money on solar panels that are also made in China. And, to 
kick it all off, thank God--this is a good one because I know a lot of 
people are worried about this--$1.5 billion to plant more trees--
whatever.
  And then, on top of all that, they are going to hire an army of IRS 
agents. This is the one that I love. They are going to go after the 
people who aren't paying enough on their taxes.
  Let me explain to you something. I don't like it. I don't necessarily 
think it is a good thing, but I am going to explain something to these 
people who don't understand this. These billionaires--who, by the way, 
fund all their campaigns, just got a huge break in this bill. It is 
very ironic that these billionaires, these corporations, these people 
have armies of lawyers and law firms and accountants. And I am telling 
you, they will fight these agents.
  So who do you think these agents are going to go after? Because 
fighting these corporations isn't easy, and you will eventually run out 
of billionaires to go after. They are going to go after small 
businesses. They are going to go after working people--maybe people who 
make $250,000 a year. We think that is a lot of money. In some places 
it is in this country. In some places, it is a good living. But you are 
not rich at $250,000 in some parts of this country. You are doing all 
right, no doubt about it, but you are not a billionaire.
  They are going to go after them. They are going to go after the 
people who cannot afford to hire an army of lawyers and accountants to 
fight off the IRS agents--thousands of IRS agents, not police officers 
to go after criminals; IRS agents to go after American taxpayers. That 
is who they are going to go after.
  I promise you--and I regret to say it--that a lot of hard-working 
people are going to be getting letters in the mail saying: Hey, we want 
to talk to you about your taxes from 5 years ago, from 3 years ago, 
because we think you might have messed up.
  And you don't have an army of lawyers. You are going to pay them 
whatever they say, even if you have to take out a credit line on your 
house, because you don't want trouble with the IRS. That is what this 
bill does. That is what this bill is. Everyone else is covered.
  And they cynically call it the Inflation Reduction Act. And let me 
tell you why they call it that. This is actually very sad and 
outrageous. They call it that because--I am telling you, and I hate to 
say it, but a lot of the people behind this kind of stuff, they see 
hard-working, everyday Americans as a bunch of uneducated simpletons 
who will just fall for this. And the media

[[Page S4162]]

will help them. They know the media will help them--not all the media, 
but a lot of the reporters will help them, even though the reporters 
themselves keep calling this a climate bill because they are so giddy 
about that part of it.
  But they think the people are going to just fall for it. People are 
not going to fall for it. I don't care how smart you think you are and 
how uneducated you think they are. They have got something most people 
involved in our government have lost or maybe never had. It is called 
common sense, and they have the common sense of knowing that making it 
easier for people to buy, with a credit, an electric car in 3 years is 
not going to do anything for them. They are not buying an electric car 
anytime in the near future.
  You know what they want? They want gas prices to come down because 
America is producing more oil. That is what they would like. That is 
what they would like.
  They would like you to put criminals in jail and keep them there. 
They would like you to secure our border, just a little bit. Don't 
pretend that you are doing anything about it, because they know the 
truth.
  Guys, it is a scam. This very weekend, this very Friday--and I live 
in Miami. I don't read about this stuff in a magazine. I see it with my 
own eyes; I hear it with my own ears.
  I had this couple telling me the flat-out story. Their kids were 
already here because their kids were born here. Years ago, when they 
were here visiting, their kids were born here. U.S. citizens. Their 
kids are already here. This couple paid $5,000 each. They were driven 
to the border in a van. They were turned over to an agency right on the 
border who turned them over to the officers. They spent a day and a 
half in detention. Their papers were filled out. They were turned back 
over to the agency. The agency asked them: Where you would like to go?
  I would like to go to Miami.
  They gave them a ticket to go to Miami. They even gave them a little 
card to buy things before they got there. And now they are living in 
South Florida.
  And what do you think? You don't think they are going to call back 
home and tell people: Hey, we made it, and here is how we made it. And 
those are the people that can afford to buy the $5,000 each or save it. 
A lot of people can't. So they have to turn themselves over into the 
hands of these criminal, delinquent traffickers, evil persons who take 
advantage of these migrants. And they are coming because we are 
inviting them to come. This administration is inviting them to come. 
They are inviting them to come.
  When you tell people: Don't come. But if you do, you are going to get 
to stay, they are going to come. And that is what is happening. We are 
not focused on that. They get it. People back home get it. And you are 
not going to convince them that any of the stuff here is any good for 
them.
  And it is happening, frankly, because the modern Democratic Party--
listen, I live in South Florida. It is a majority Democratic county. I 
have had Democrat friends. I have worked with liberals my whole life. I 
have done a bunch bipartisan stuff. You are not bad people. But the 
modern Democratic Party does not care about working Americans. The only 
thing they care about is the agenda of a bunch of laptop liberals and 
Marxist misfits who threaten to burn down any city any time they don't 
get their way on some issues and a bunch of climate extremists. And 
that is what this bill reflects--at least two of those three. And that 
is what this bill does.
  That is the only people they cater to. That is what their issues are 
always about. And what they do is they put on the disguise of calling 
it the Inflation Reduction Act. But they can't even say it with a 
straight face. They really can't because they know it is not true.
  This bill has nothing to do with what real people in the real world 
are worried about every single day. And the ironies are so thick.
  I think about this carried interest loophole, as they call it. We 
have got prominent Members of the Democratic Party in the Senate who 
have made a career out of calling that basically an unfair and immoral 
benefit for hedge fund managers and greedy billionaires. They have made 
a career out of it. Yet today, they will vote on a bill that stripped 
out taking rid of that loophole. They will vote for it. They will vote 
for it. That is the irony embedded in all of this.
  So they will do their press conferences and speeches. They will be 
very impressed with themselves. The Twitter warriors are going to love 
it. The MSNBCs and the ``Meet the Presses'' are all going to say--
whoever, CNN, whatever--they are all going to be giddy about it. But 
for millions and millions of working Americans, nothing is going to 
change for them for the better. There isn't a single thing in this bill 
that helps working people lower the price of groceries or the price of 
gasoline or the price of housing or the price of clothes. There isn't a 
single thing in this bill that will keep criminals in jail. There isn't 
a single thing in this bill that is going to secure our border. And 
those happen to be the things that working people in this country care 
about. And the gap between the people who run this place and the people 
who are the backbone of this country is so massive, the disconnect so 
great, that the division that is driving our politics is reaching a 
boiling point, unfortunately.
  What makes this Nation different from all the countries in the world 
is our working class. Every nation has rich people. Every country in 
the world has wealthy people. What has made us different is that here, 
by the millions, people like my parents--a bartender and a maid--were 
able to own a home and raise a family and leave them better off than 
themselves. And they were never rich and they were never famous, and 
they lived the American dream because they retired with dignity. And 
with their own eyes, they saw their children have the opportunity to do 
the things they themselves never could do. That is what makes us 
different. Those are the people that are hurting. Those are the people 
that got wiped out in 2007 and 2008 when Wall Street created a crisis 
and when Wall Street got bailed out. Those are the people whose kids 
couldn't go to school because in some parts of this country, we shut 
school down for a year and a half, while the people shutting down the 
schools, their kids were going to private schools and had private 
tutors. And those are the people that are getting destroyed right now 
by this economy. And they are being ignored and disrespected and 
completely, completely obliterated by a bill that does absolutely 
nothing for them.
  And that is what your U.S. Senate will spend late into the night and 
early into the morning voting on. The disconnect is massive. And I can 
point to a lot of examples, but this has become exhibit A in that 
disconnect.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, as I was reading through this reckless 
spending spree that my Democratic colleagues are in such a rush to get 
this thing passed so that they can get it signed into law--I was 
reading it, and I thought, you know, we have been through this exercise 
before.
  We have before us a bill that is too expensive to afford. It has been 
thrown together behind closed doors, in secret, perfectly branded to 
prey on the struggles, the fears of the American people because after 
all, fearful people are easier to control.
  And what do we know? The Democratic Party, they are all about control 
and they are all about power.
  Now, I remembered that this isn't the first time in the Schumer 
Senate that the Democratic colleagues have tried to turn a crisis into 
an opportunity. A little over a year ago, they pulled the exact same 
bait-and-switch with a $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan. Senator 
Graham talked about this before. It was to bring, oh, so much 
prosperity. It was to solve all of your problems, help was on the way. 
But it was a big government blowout in the form of $350 billion in the 
slush fund for blue cities, a State tax cut ban, a $60 billion tax 
hike, subsidized government healthcare, and a union pension bailout.
  Now, it is pretty clear who the Democrats were trying to rescue with 
that bill. And it was not hard-working American taxpayers. They got the 
shaft on that. And they know it.
  And then, of course, we considered the infrastructure package that 
had almost nothing to do with infrastructure, but it served as a very 
useful vehicle for a lot of the Green New Deal.

[[Page S4163]]

  Remember, Build Back Better--they couldn't get it across. They had to 
break it into parts. So you have seen parts of it in different bills. 
Part of it was in that infrastructure package.
  To Tennesseans, this was a missed opportunity because they 
desperately need meaningful improvements to broadband infrastructure 
and access to high-speed internet connections. It was a missed 
opportunity for all Americans seeing crime and drugs that are in their 
communities because of that open border. And it was a missed 
opportunity for the Keystone XL Pipeline and for support for American 
energy.
  Missed opportunities continue to be their thing. Just a few short 
days ago, we passed a CHIPS and Science bill. Sounds really good and 
constructive. But over the course of a few years, this ballooned from 
an emergency investment in semiconductors into an almost $300 billion 
gateway to industrial planning and, of course, more of the Green New 
Deal.
  My Democratic colleagues took an opportunity to unravel our dangerous 
relationship with the Chinese Communist Party and squandered it on a 
tee-up to seizing more control over the manufacturing and upstream 
suppliers we should be empowering.
  Fast forward to this month, and here we go again, sifting through a 
package that costs nearly a trillion dollars, yet is somehow still 
marketed as the Inflation Reduction Act.
  And I will say to my Democratic colleagues and Senator Schumer and 
Senator Manchin, the American people are laughing at the name of this 
bill. They are laughing at this. They know better than this. They can 
see right through what you have done. They know what is going on. And 
they know that your priorities do not line up with their priorities and 
their concerns.
  In reality, this bill provides no pathway to reduce our current 
inflation. It will, however, put pressure on the economy, raise taxes 
on just about everyone, kills jobs, stifles innovation, weaponizes the 
regulatory state against small businesses and private enterprise.
  Now, all these things have the potential to devastate the economy and 
make life harder for hard-working taxpayers.
  I want to focus on how Joe Biden and the Democrats are using 
regulators to overrule the will of the people and to seize more control 
over the country because this tactic has truly been a favorite of the 
Democrats. They expand the regulatory state. They issue mandates. They 
institute lockdowns. And, there is that word again: ``control.'' They 
are after the control.
  If you need an example, look no further than the dozens of newly 
arrived rules and regulations that they have used to gut American 
energy. Radical climate activists in the environmental lobby won big 
when those went into effect. But everyone else lost.
  If you were an energy consumer, a truckdriver, someone who was 
traveling, and workers who had their jobs just regulated out of 
existence, that is what the Democrats did for you.
  Here is another. In April, the Biden Border Patrol announced that 
they were holding up construction on the border wall so that they could 
do an environmental assessment.
  Now, if you recall, this is one regulatory barrier that President 
Trump eliminated when he took office because he understood the danger 
posed by our lack of border security. He was listening to the American 
people and the Border Patrol and people that lived there. He knew what 
was happening.
  Well, under President Biden, the open borders advocates won. But the 
ranchers, the border communities, small-town law enforcement--they 
lost.
  The Biden administration loves to use the regulatory hammer so that 
they can pick winners and losers that they want. They will punish you. 
They will punish you. It is what they are doing with the bill that we 
are considering tonight in the middle of the night, on the weekend, 
when people are at the lake, when people are out with their children, 
having fun, enjoying the summer. Here we are.
  It is so interesting that they have married the strategy they used 
last March by catering to--you guessed it--blue States, unions, and 
climate justice warriors.
  Here is just one example of one of the regulatory schemes contained 
in the bill that will benefit the usual Democratic allies but wreak 
havoc on everyone else. Right now, manufacturers that burn fossil fuels 
can earn a $35 tax credit for every ton of carbon dioxide they capture 
and store.
  The bill cuts that tax credit down to $17. But there is a catch. A 
business can earn an $85 tax credit if they comply with labor standards 
that are laid out in the bill. This, of course, means that in order to 
survive, manufacturers and fossil fuel companies will be mandated to 
use union labor.
  Nuclear power plants will have a similar hit. If this legislation 
passes, they will earn $12 more per ton in tax credits if they go to 
the unions instead of letting the free market determine who they hire.
  Now, the problem here doesn't only have to do with unions versus 
right-to-work policies. The problem is that the base tax credit 
reductions in this bill were designed to kill companies that don't want 
to play along with the left's green crusade and funnel money to Chuck 
Schumer's political allies.
  Hear me out. If, for example, you are running a utility in a right-
to-work State and you want to keep taking advantage of tax credits, you 
are going to be in a very tight spot. When this bill becomes law, you 
will be stripped of your practical ability to hire right-to-work 
employees and mandated to use union labor instead. The kowtowing to 
union demands is also part of a pattern.
  Just a few days ago, my Democratic colleagues killed my amendment to 
the PACT Act that would have given toxic-exposed veterans expedited 
access to community care. Now, why did they do that? To protect union 
employees in VA facilities, of course. We can't take a step like that; 
it might privatize VA, they seem to think.
  Now, instead of the healthcare that they deserve, these veterans are 
left with nothing but false hope--access to the queue but no access to 
the care.
  Over and over again, it never stops here in the Schumer Senate. The 
Democrats say one thing; they turn around and do another thing.
  The bill also increases renewable tax credits but only for projects 
located in the so-called environmental justice communities, wherever 
they are. That is a very creative way for my Democratic colleagues to 
tell us they are using this increase to funnel money to the cities and 
States they deem worthy of support.
  The measure is simple: You comply or you go bankrupt. Then, again, 
you might go bankrupt if you do comply. Doing so will increase project 
costs and labor costs, which will, in turn, increase costs on 
everything. Everyone loses except the Democrats and their political 
allies.
  Joe Biden and the Democrats have become famous for saying one thing 
and doing another. They promise inflation reduction, then raise 
manufacturing costs. They promise economic relief but then raise your 
utility costs and your grocery bills. They assure the American people, 
time and again, that Big Government can solve your problems, and then 
they use Big Government to absolutely beat the living stew out of 
private enterprise.
  My Democratic colleagues have touted this latest disastrous version 
of their ``Build Back Broke'' agenda as progressive. And I do hope the 
American people are figuring out what ``progressive'' means: tax 
increases, massive transfers of wealth, ideological conformity backed 
by the full faith and credit of the United States.
  If you want to be broke and grovel to the government, this bill is 
for you. These hundreds of billions of dollars will serve a purpose but 
not to reduce inflation or bring relief. Blue States, unions, radical 
activists will once again come out on top. Meanwhile, families working 
hard to make ends meet, workers, business owners, local leaders are 
still on the verge of losing everything. I think my Democratic 
colleagues know this, but they have decided that the pain and the 
suffering is worth it. After all, they continue to tell us we need to 
be transitioning. We need to be transitioning. I don't think people 
like what they are going to have to transition to.
  When I am home in Tennessee, they certainly don't like it. I will be 
back Monday doing meetings across the State, and I will have to tell 
them that, once again, the Democrats have taken advantage of their 
desperation and their exhaustion with what is

[[Page S4164]]

going on. And, once again, the Democrats have sold them a bill of goods 
that ignores our current crisis, prioritizes the pet projects the 
Democrats have, and the American people are once again getting the 
shaft. I will tell them that, for the Democrats, this isn't about 
service; it is about control. It is about power. And to Tennesseans, 
this is all frightening. They think that this is a reckless, 
manipulative, dangerous abuse of power. There is very little, if 
anything at all, that is pro ``we the people'' in this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________