[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 135 (Friday, August 12, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H7561-H7576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5376, BUILD
BACK BETTER ACT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1316 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1316
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
5376) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of
S. Con. Res. 14, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to
consider in the House, without intervention of any point of
order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the
Budget or his designee that the House concur in the Senate
amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for three
hours equally divided among and controlled by the respective
chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on the
Budget, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, or their
respective designees. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without
intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 1316.
The rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R.
5376, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. It makes in order a motion
offered by the chair of the Committee on the Budget or his designee
that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 5376.
Finally, it provides 3 hours of debate on the motion equally divided
among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on the Budget, Energy and Commerce, and Ways
and Means, or their respective designees.
Mr. Speaker, for too long too many people in this country have felt
like the work that happens in Washington isn't meant to help them. Like
the people who work in this city are not on their side. You know what?
For a long time they have been right. For decades, corporate special
interests and their out-of-touch friends in the Republican Party have
blocked progress in Washington. They got what was good for the rich and
powerful, not what was right for working families and the middle class.
No more. That time is over. President Biden and Democrats are putting
people over politics. We are fighting to create better jobs, safer
communities, and a brighter future for our planet. This is a historic
bill, Mr. Speaker, and at the end of the day it is not a complicated
vote. It all comes down to what your values are.
Democrats have been fighting for years to lower drug prices, and this
bill lets Medicare negotiate with drug companies to lower the price of
prescription drugs. It caps the out-of-pocket cost of insulin at $35
for people on Medicare. It stops excessive price hikes on drugs and
says, if you are on Medicare you won't have to pay more than $2,000 a
year for your prescriptions. Meanwhile, Republicans oppose this bill
because it will cut into Big Pharma's corporate profits. Boo-hoo. I
mean, really? They oppose this bill because they want to let
pharmaceutical companies continue price gouging. Give me a break.
This bill listens to the climate experts who tell us that melting
glaciers and record heat are not normal. It puts us on a path to
cutting carbon emissions 40 percent by 2030, helping create millions of
new jobs along the way. This is a huge investment in energy security
made in America by American workers that lowers energy costs for
working families. It is the biggest investment in fighting climate
change in history. Ever. This is a turning point in the fight to
protect our planet.
Republicans oppose this bill because they have never given a damn
about pollution or climate change--they are more interested in
protecting Big Oil's bottom line. That is whose side they are on.
Let's look at healthcare costs. This bill cuts healthcare costs for
millions of people by locking in lower Affordable Care Act premiums,
saving people $800 a year on average. Republicans oppose it because
they want insurance companies to make more money by ripping people off.
You can't make this stuff up.
Democrats want a tax code that is fair, where rich and powerful
people pay what they owe, just like everyone else. Honest, hardworking
middle-class families have to pay their fair share, but the top 1
percent dodge $160 billion in taxes each year.
The Republican answer? They want to make it easier for the rich and
powerful to cheat. Whose side are they on?
Mr. Speaker, this is historic. It is bold. Just so everyone
understands, it lowers the deficit, and it is fully paid for with no
new taxes on families making $400,000 per year or less, and no new
taxes on small businesses. Those who oppose this bill don't want to
talk about how it will help people. Instead, they are pushing total
made-up BS.
The money in this bill for the IRS isn't going to result in increased
audits on anyone making under $400,000 a year. Don't take my word for
it.
Who appointed Charles Rettig, the current Commissioner of the IRS?
Oh, it was Donald Trump.
Charles Rettig, Trump's appointee, says the money in this bill will
go towards better customer support, quicker turnaround times, so people
can get long-overdue refunds, and enforcing tax laws against rich
people cheating on their taxes. Don't take it from me, take it from
Trump's own hand-picked IRS Commissioner.
I get calls into my district office every day from people who are
frustrated that their calls to the IRS go unanswered and their tax
returns are late. This bill will help fix it. Look, here is the truth.
This bill puts our government back on the side of working people in
this country.
Like I said earlier, this is about values: Democrats put people over
politics. We are fighting to reduce inflation for the people, lower the
cost of healthcare and prescription drugs, make heating, cooling, and
electricity bills cheaper, combat climate change with green energy, and
lower the deficit.
Let's just tell the truth. Republicans are cheering for inflation.
Every day they come to this floor cheering for us to fail. In my
opinion, they are cheering for this administration and this country to
fail because they think it will help them politically. They don't put
people over politics. They put Big Pharma, oil CEOs, corporate tax
evaders, and greedy insurance companies over everything else. It is
rotten, it is wrong, and it is hurting America.
Enough with the cynicism. This is a great day for America. I am proud
to be here. It is not very often we get to pass bills that are going to
change the course of history for generations to come. I will sleep
better tonight knowing that when we pass this bill we are putting
people over politics to leave a better world for our kids and
grandkids. This is a historic moment. Let's get this bill passed and to
the President's desk.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
[[Page H7562]]
McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while I recognize we are engaged in a very, very
partisan exercise and a harsh partisan debate, I do want to acknowledge
the loss from our congressional family of the Representative from
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski). I so appreciated your presence at her funeral
yesterday. I know it was a difficult time for many of us. We also lost
two of our congressional staffers, who, in many ways, are like family.
Emma Thomson used to work in my office as my communications director.
It has been a tough week, and now we end it with today's rule
providing for the consideration of a Senate amendment to H.R. 5376, the
so-called Inflation Reduction Act. I say the so-called Inflation
Reduction Act because you would almost need a degree in nanometrology,
you would almost need a micrometer to be able to measure the amount of
deficit reduction that is included in this failed legislation that we
have in front of us.
In fact, this is the second time we have seen this legislative
vehicle. The Democrats tried to push through a partisan budget
reconciliation. Now, what does that mean?
That means that there is zero input from the Republican side of the
aisle. Why is that important?
You have a House and a Senate that are almost evenly divided. It is
50-50 in the Senate. They relied on the Vice President's vote to get
this across the finish line. As we heard this morning at the swearing-
in of our new Member, you have a bare majority in the House of
Representatives.
So don't try to tell people that this has been an exercise that is
well thought out, that has come through the committees of jurisdiction
where people have had input. No. No Republican has had any input into
this travesty that we have in front of us today.
Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Budget Committee. We did not mark up a
budget resolution for fiscal year 2022. Instead, what happened?
The budget was deemed passed in a rule vote without any--zero--floor
consideration.
This bill is a reconfigured Build Back Better Act that the House
passed last October that didn't really have the breath to rise up off
the floor, but somehow Senators cut a deal--Democratic Senators cut a
deal with themselves--and now we have it on the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I stress again, this bill had no Republican input, and
it will have a negligible effect on inflation. President Biden has
stated that this bill will reduce inflationary pressures. Oh, my God,
just make stuff up. What do you mean, inflationary pressures?
That is not the same thing as actually reducing inflation. In fact,
when you look at the language of this bill, you will recognize that
there are things started but they are only for a short period of time.
In reality, we know that once something is started it never stops up
here. If you remove the sunset provisions and assume all spending in
this bill is going to be extended through the 10-year budget window,
this bill actually spends $745 billion and adds $148 billion to the
national debt. After Democrats pushed through a $1.9 trillion
reconciliation package--and we all remember when that happened,
February and March of 2021--billions of dollars more in spending is the
last thing that American consumers need in the middle of record-high
inflation.
To combat inflation, the Federal Reserve has had to raise interest
rates. They were late in starting, they dismissed inflation, and they
said it was transitory; it wasn't really happening, a figment of your
imagination. But since March they have raised interest rates by 2.25
percent, the fastest cumulative rate hike in over 10 years.
According to the Congressional Budget Office--and we really haven't
heard from them much this Congress--but according to the Congressional
Budget Office, the increase in interest rates will cost taxpayers an
extra $100 billion this year alone.
Let me describe for you what is costing Americans so much. There are
severe negative impacts in implementing government drug price controls,
which are included in this bill. However, what most people do not
understand is the effect this reconciliation package will have on
healthcare and doctor's practices in America.
At the end of this year, doctors are expecting a payment update in
Medicare that is now calculated to be zero percent. Anywhere else in
this town, a zero percent update is viewed as a pay cut because we have
8 to 9 percent inflation. Guess what?
That same inflation affecting household budgets affects your budget
running a medical practice. In addition to that, there is a 4.5 percent
Medicare conversion factor, which is reduced, and the adoption of
several changes to the evaluation and management of Current Procedural
Terminology codes.
The net effect is a big cut to the Nation's doctors. That is really
where we should have been focusing some of our efforts. Instead, we
tell our doctors and our nurses: You are our heroes. You got us through
the coronavirus pandemic--the worst pandemic in 100 years. Thank you,
heroes. Here is your pay cut. And the doctors go: Wait. What?
{time} 0930
Under this legislation, we will see changes to part B drug
reimbursements that would lead to an average of a 40 percent cut for
healthcare providers. Yet, Wednesday during the Rules Committee
hearing, I offered an amendment with Dr. Murphy to actually fix this
problem. I thought: Maybe this is just an oversight. Maybe they didn't
really mean to do this.
Unfortunately, it was rejected in the Rules Committee by a party-line
vote.
The confluence of these cuts threatens the sustainability of medical
practices and will lead to physicians closing their doors. So let me be
quite clear about that: A vote for this bill is a vote to close medical
practices.
To make matters worse, the providers who would be affected work in
fields such as oncology, rheumatology, interventional pain management,
hematology, internal medicine, and gastroenterology. I never thought I
would be up here fighting to save specialty practices, especially
oncology--community oncology--which focuses on the treatment of cancer.
But as these practices close--and they will close--care will shift to
hospitals.
What happens when the care shifts to hospitals from the doctors'
offices?
Oh, it goes up by a factor of about 66 percent. So instead of saving
money, we are actually costing money.
Ultimately, the combined financial pressures will result in limited
access to treatment for patients including those in rural areas.
Following a major pandemic and a healthcare workforce shortage, we
should be encouraging physicians to keep their practices open in order
to have a more stable healthcare system that would benefit patients.
But, instead, we do exactly the opposite.
If this bill is signed into law, millions of patients could die
waiting--waiting for those new drugs and cures that will no longer be
developed in their lifetime. The last bill signed into law by President
Obama at the end of 2016 was the 21st Century Cures Act, something that
our Committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, worked on, this
House passed, everyone was proud of the 21st Century Cures Act. We
wanted to deliver the 21st Century Cures Act to patients who had been
long-suffering, we wanted to get them there faster, and we wanted to
get them there at lower cost. But now we are doing exactly the
opposite.
Millions of patients could die waiting for new drugs and new cures. I
have heard directly from providers that potentially millions of
patients will be affected if doctors close their doors. This bill is
anti-doctor and anti-patient, and we will, unfortunately, see those
consequences after final passage.
This reconciliation bill also includes numerous Green New Deal
provisions:
There is a tax on natural gas production that will be passed on to
consumers. Make no mistake about it. It is going to make it harder and
more expensive to heat homes, to buy groceries, and to farm the land.
This bill establishes a Department of Energy loan guarantee at $250
billion to support greenhouse gas reduction projects. I have been here
long enough that I remember Solyndra in the Obama administration. This
was a failed investment that cost the American taxpayers $500 million.
There is also an energy efficiency home appliance rebate program to
allow wealthy Americans to update
[[Page H7563]]
their homes to the tune of $9 billion, and a $1 billion program to
electrify garbage trucks and school busses.
The bill includes $27 billion in a greenhouse gas reduction fund at
the Environmental Protection Agency that will be a slush fund for
greenhouse projects--$27 billion to the Environmental Protection Agency
with no guardrails and with no oversight and we just hope that they are
going to fix problems. Good luck with that.
It also reinstates the Superfund excise tax on crude oil and imported
petroleum, and this will result in an additional $11 billion tax burden
on our oil and gas industry in the midst of record-high gas prices. It
is a telling mental image that the President was forced to go hat in
hand over to the Middle East, over to Saudi Arabia, and ask them to
pump more oil. It is not as if we ran out here, but the President went
over to Saudi Arabia hat in hand. And how embarrassing: they told him
they actually weren't able to produce any more than they were right
now.
Last but not least, this bill contains a $7,500 tax credit for
electric vehicles that must be made with a certain percentage of
minerals mined in the United States or countries with U.S. free trade
agreements. Most of the minerals come from China and Russia. There is
not a single electric vehicle currently on the market that complies
with this provision, and the European Union recently warned that this
may violate the World Trade Organization domestic content and local
assembly rules.
I could continue but let me highlight some of the tax increases that
average Americans will face.
This bill creates a 15 percent minimum book tax on companies, but it
includes exclusions for Green New Deal tax credits.
A fix to the carried interest loophole was axed in the Senate to buy
one vote and replaced with a 1-year extension of the State and local
SALT tax cap. This was done to appease one Senator. It was removed and
replaced with a passthrough loss limitation which will prohibit
passthroughs from claiming a certain amount of after loss. Democrats
have chosen to protect individuals in high-tech States over Main Street
businesses.
There is also a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks which will
harm retirement investments.
There are extensions of production tax credits for renewables--as if
we haven't subsidized them enough already.
And $80 billion--$80 billion--for the Internal Revenue Service
including 87,000 new agents--new agents who will all be members of a
Federal employees' union, likely contribute to Democratic campaigns,
but are not required to be CPAs.
I mean, where in the world do you go to make stuff like this up?
Oh, yes, the United States House of Representatives run by Democrats.
This has a 600 percent IRS funding increase over last year and a
doubling of the number of employees.
Wouldn't it be great to double the amount of employees in the FAA?
How many people have recently been stuck trying to get from one place
to another with air travel in this country?
Instead we are expanding the IRS.
Currently, the best accounting firms are struggling to hire CPAs. How
is the IRS going to attract qualified individuals? It will only create
tax technicians who could be injurious to citizens if not properly
trained.
Americans deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I feel as if I just walked into the Festivus
celebration, the annual airing of grievances. There is so much that
needs to be responded to.
Let me just say two things.
On inflation, last week, five former Treasury Secretaries issued a
statement--five former Treasury Secretaries--urging us to pass this
critical legislation to ``help increase American competitiveness,
address our climate crisis, lower costs for families, and fight
inflation.''
Larry Summers was among those former Treasury Secretaries who said
that this bill helps fight inflation. My Republican colleagues love to
cite Mr. Summers but it seems as though they only like to acknowledge
his analysis when he agrees with the point that they are trying to
make.
Just on process, I just have to say this: Perhaps my friends are
forgetting the extensive hearings and markups that we held during
consideration of Build Back Better. The Energy and Commerce markup
alone took 3 days. Almost every piece of the Inflation Reduction Act
was included in some form in the original House bill. Of course, it is
not identical. Unfortunately, we had to let the Senate work its will,
too. Believe me, I wish we could send the House-passed bill straight to
the President's desk. But I don't have the time to go through an
exhaustive list.
Let me just remind my colleagues of just a few of the many provisions
that this body already considered through regular order. The ACA
premium reduction, prescription drug pricing reform, clean energy tax
credits, energy-efficiency rebates, funds to fight wildfires, rural
energy programs, clean vehicle manufacturing, funds to reduce air
pollution, drought assistance, and a lot, lot, lot more.
Now, I understand that my colleagues don't like this bill, but it has
gone through regular order, and it is way past time that we send it to
the President's desk for his signature.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Torres), who is a member of the House Rules Committee.
Mrs. TORRES OF California. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my comments
by thanking President Biden for doing what he actually had said that he
is going to do and delivering for the people. I also thank our Vice
President from California, Kamala Harris, for being courageous and
splitting that 50/50 Senate. I also recognize the leadership of both
Houses that have brought us to where we are today to consider a Senate
amendment to H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA, of 2022.
This is a critical piece of legislation that will help reduce the
Federal deficit and tackle inflation, lower healthcare and prescription
drug costs, and address the climate crisis. The Inflation Reduction Act
will also help lower energy bills for working families all while
changing the Tax Code to ensure--to ensure the corporations--you know,
Mr. Speaker, the ones that can donate politically and be considered as
if they were humans?
If they are able to give money politically, then they should be able
to also pay their own fair share of taxes, and the filthy rich should
also pay their fair share.
Many families are still struggling to make ends meet with the cost of
goods on the rise, forcing many to choose between basic necessities
like food and lifesaving medication to stay healthy.
Let us not forget that we shut down our economy as a result of a
massive world pandemic. Let us not forget that Russia, the bully, has
declared war on their neighbor; and, yes, China continues to shut down
many of their communities as a result of high coronavirus infections.
So inflation is high.
It is disappointing to see that American families pay nearly twice as
much for their prescription drugs in comparison to other developed
countries.
Why is that?
Because we have been handcuffed because we are not able to negotiate
fair pharmaceutical prices. I have even heard from my constituents that
medication can be so expensive that in many cases they decide to reduce
the recommended dosage and to decline medication altogether.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Mrs. TORRES of California. This is unacceptable. The Inflation
Reduction Act will allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices
with pharmaceutical companies. The cost to seniors per year will not
exceed $2,000. It also caps insulin for them at $35 per month. This is
a game changer for working class people, not only in my community but
across America.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this bill and to be proud to
help American families move forward.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the ranking member of the House Rules
Committee.
[[Page H7564]]
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for
yielding.
(Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, it is worth asking why we are here at all
right now, quite frankly. We face no emergency. The government is not
about to shut down. Nothing in this bill is actually going to take
effect in the immediate future. We are simply here because my friends
on the other side want to create the illusion that they are doing
something positive before the midterm election.
I think they also fear that the American people will actually have a
chance to look at this monstrosity over a month and their own Members
would then have to go home and give a full accounting of what they have
done here. Sadly, we are going to rush this through without appropriate
consideration.
It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, 180 of our own Members-plus are not
even here. They are not here because they have submitted a declaration
because we are in a health emergency.
What health emergency?
We have vaccines, we have therapeutics, the airports are full of
people. People are traveling pretty easily, but 180 Members won't be
here--both parties. Again, that is a sad commentary on the manner in
which we are operating this House.
This bill comes before us in a process that I can only describe as
lousy. No committee of jurisdiction in either the Senate or the House
has dealt with this bill as written. No House Member has had any
meaningful input in this legislation. The reality is this bill was
negotiated in back rooms by two Senators and rammed through the Senate
on a partisan vote. My friends have picked it up without changing it,
without considering it, and they are going to ram it through here
today. That is a process that they ought to be embarrassed by.
There are two reasons to oppose the legislation itself, Mr. Speaker.
The first is simply because of what is in it. The Democrats are
repeating the mistake they made last year. They are going to try and
spend their way out of inflation--a novel approach.
{time} 0945
We see how well that worked when they rammed through the American
Rescue Plan under reconciliation. It is going to work exactly the same
way again.
On top of that, we are going to try and tax our way out of recession.
That is a novel, new economic idea: Raise taxes while you are in a
recession, something other administrations of both parties have always
rejected as a bad idea. But my friends, feverishly intent upon action,
are going to do it here.
We are going to do one thing, and I guess that could start
immediately. We are going to hire, as my friend from Texas suggested,
87,000 new IRS employees. Only my friends on the other side think that
is a good idea. Nobody thinks 87,000 new IRS agents are going to do
anything to help us with inflation, or help us with the problems that
we have in energy, or help us in any meaningful way improve the economy
or the lives of the average American.
What is not in this bill is another reason to vote against it. It
does nothing to deal with inflation. Indeed, during the Rules
Committee, we submitted a letter from 280 economists that said this is
going to make it worse, not better.
They can rely on Mr. Summers. I will rely on the 280 economists from
both parties and every point of view who said this is not going to work
when it comes to inflation. There is nothing in this bill that is going
to increase energy production in the United States, nothing at all.
Finally, there is nothing meaningful, as my friend from Texas pointed
out, that will actually reduce the deficit. That deficit doesn't begin
to come down until 7 years from now under this legislation. That
assumes everything stays the same for 7 years. That is not going to
happen.
For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we ought to reject this rule. We
ought to submit this bill to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction
in this House, allow them to do their work, and continue to negotiate
with the Senate. There is no emergency. There is no hurry here. We
don't need to ram this through.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of the rule and
the rejection of the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule to provide for consideration
of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5376, the grossly mis-named Inflation
Reduction Act. Instead of actually doing something to address the
current economic crisis, the bill is instead yet another partisan tax-
and-spend bill. My friends on the other side of the aisle will tout the
deficit reduction as good for reducing inflation--and that's true. But
the bill we are considering isn't a serious attempt at deficit
reduction. Eighty percent of the deficit reduction they claim in this
bill doesn't even show up for seven years. And the deficit reduction
they claim is laughable when you consider the one point nine trillion
spending bill they put on American's credit card just last year.
Americans need relief now.
I shouldn't be surprised but I am disappointed at the Majority's
egregious surrender of the House's institutional prerogatives. When you
have a process that is this bad, you should expect bad results. And the
process on this bill was about as bad as it gets. The bill before us
was written behind closed doors with just two senators negotiating its
provisions. No Member of the House had any input into the package, nor
did any but a few senators. Nor have we been given an opportunity to
amend this package when the Majority completely rewrote the original
bill at the Rules Committee, when we first considered this on the floor
in November of last year, or today since every Republican amendment to
this package was blocked in the rule. Instead, the House is preparing
to pass exactly what the Senate produced behind closed doors. At least
the Senate had the luxury of a CBO score during its consideration. The
House isn't even afforded that. This is an embarrassment.
The Majority pushed through a reckless one point nine trillion dollar
reconciliation bill last year, stubbornly insisting it would not lead
to inflation, even though economists were warning us the exact
opposite. Today, hardworking American taxpayers are suffering for their
hubris.
Instead of learning their lesson, the Majority is once again pushing
another foolhardy tax-and-spend package through on partisan lines. They
were wrong last year and they are wrong again this year. Unfortunately,
it will be the average American who again pays the price in the form of
more inflation, fewer jobs, slower growth, and a lower standard of
living for every family in America.
It is easy to see why when you think about the policies that are
actually included in this bill. A tax hike on corporations that will
inevitably pass their increased costs onto consumers. A six hundred
percent increase in the budget of the IRS so they can hire an army of
eighty-seven thousand new agents. Massive spending on Green New Deal
priorities, including giving subsidies on luxury electric vehicles to
high-earning individuals. Policies like these are bad enough in good
times, but raising taxes when we are in a recession to give subsidies
to the rich to buy luxury electric vehicles just doesn't make any
sense.
But we should also talk about what is not in this bill. Despite the
title, there's nothing in this bill that will reduce inflation. There's
nothing in this bill that will address our current energy crisis, and
in fact, the policies in here will make it worse. While my friends in
the Majority are willing to pour tens of billions of dollars into
Solyndra-style green energy programs, there is nothing in this bill
that will lower the price of gasoline, nothing that will make it
cheaper to heat and cool homes, and nothing that will ensure energy
independence for America. The Majority could have chosen to prioritize
these things but didn't.
Instead, the Majority is showing what their priorities truly are. An
army of new IRS agents to harass taxpayers at all income levels. A
massive and unaffordable tax increase that will make the recession
worse. Massive new spending programs on the Green New Deal. Subsidies
for high-income folks to buy luxury electric vehicles. It all adds up
to a bad deal for taxpayers, a bad deal for the economy, and a bad deal
for the nation.
[[Page H7565]]
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this bill will make inflation
worse, not better, and will make the recession longer and deeper. We
should not make the exact same error the Majority made last year in
passing yet another tax and spend boondoggle. We cannot tax and spend
our way out of a recession, and we cannot tax and spend our way into
lower inflation. The nation has already suffered enough after last
year's reconciliation bill. Doing so all over again will only make this
suffering worse.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With all due respect, my friend asked why we are here in August and
what is the emergency. Well, the Inflation Reduction Act actually
addresses an emergency that a lot of families are faced with right now.
Rising grocery costs, rising fuel costs, those things are
emergencies, maybe not to people on the other side of the aisle here,
but they are to a lot of families in my district and across the
country. Rising prescription drug prices are an emergency.
If that is not enough, addressing the issue of the climate crisis. I
mean, the front page of The Washington Post: ``As U.S. prepares for
climate action, planet isn't waiting around.'' The planet is,
literally, on fire, and we are actually addressing that in a meaningful
way with this bill, the biggest investment ever to combat the climate
crisis. Now, that is an emergency.
You should talk to young people in your district who have been
fighting passionately to try to get Congress to finally address this
issue. Talk to your farmers in your district. They will tell you that
climate change is real.
Maybe my friends would rather be on vacation, but we are here, in
August, to do something meaningful for the American people and for this
planet.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Auchincloss).
Mr. AUCHINCLOSS. Mr. Speaker, the Inflation Reduction Act represents
the biggest climate action in history and rightfully boosts offshore
wind production to meet our renewable energy goals.
First, the bill provides a $10 billion investment tax credit for
clean energy manufacturing facilities. This will benefit wind turbine
manufacturers, propelling a nascent industry that will create jobs and
clean energy both in Massachusetts and across the country.
Further, the bill provides additional tax support to manufacturing
projects located in energy communities, including those that previously
housed coal power plants, like Brayton Point in my district. Offshore
wind farms that connect to wholesale electric grids in such communities
should be eligible for this additional support, as well, to maximize
these credits' impact.
The Inflation Reduction Act is a generational step forward in taking
on Big Oil and Gas and driving our Nation toward a clean energy future.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to join me in passing this bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), a fellow member of the House Committee on
Rules.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment that I do talk
to farmers, and what farmers are talking to me about is the incredible
costs of their inputs this year. That is what they are talking about.
They are not coming to me about climate change. They are coming to me
about the cost it is for them to do business and the inflation they are
facing.
Last year, my Democrat colleagues sling-shotted us into record
inflation with trillions in reckless spending. Now, they have the
audacity to use that very crisis to justify doing it again.
They call this bill the Inflation Reduction Act. In reality, this is
just another installation of their tax-and-spend agenda that got us
here in the first place.
This time, they are spending $80 billion in funding to send 87,000
new IRS agents to shake loose change from Americans to pay for their
spending spree. With this new staff, the IRS will be bigger than the
Pentagon, State Department, FBI, and Border Patrol.
This new IRS army will increase audits on individuals by more than
1.2 million, nearly half of which will be on Americans making $75,000
per year or less. You don't have to take my word for it. This is
according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
What do Americans get in return? $3 billion in grants to promote
climate justice; $7.5 billion for wealthy families to purchase their
next Tesla; $1.3 billion for those same families to boost the sale
value of their old Tesla; and $1 billion for electric garbage trucks.
This bill is riddled with provisions that carry the Green New Deal
stamp of approval.
This bill is not designed to help the country recover. It is not
going to help American families pay for groceries. It is not designed
to help American families. It is designed to send an army of IRS agents
after low- and middle-income Americans so Democrats can pay for their
Green New Deal.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Lamb).
Mr. LAMB. Mr. Speaker, if you were in western Pennsylvania for the
2020 campaign season, you would have seen a lot of commercials about
what Republicans were going to do on the issue of energy and for energy
workers and what Democrats were going to do. The contention was that
Republicans were going to make us energy dominant, that they were going
to help all these workers and give them more job opportunities, and
that the Democrats were going to take all that away.
So here today, we have a bill that is all about energy dominance and
energy jobs. If you build pipelines, this bill is for you because of
the increased money for carbon capture and hydrogen.
If you make the steel tube that goes into those pipelines, if you
work at a nuclear power plant, or if you build things for the nuclear
power plant, this bill is for all of you. It strengthens and widens our
energy portfolio and gives us more options at a better price.
Yet, today's bill is not a Republican bill. It is a Democratic bill.
I wish it wasn't only a Democratic bill, but it will be because when it
comes to the needs of these workers and the true need for our country
to be energy secure, we are the ones doing the job.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), another valuable member of the House
Committee on Rules.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and fellow
Rules Committee member for the time.
Mr. Speaker, 61 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck,
yet here we are today, considering another reckless tax-and-spend bill
that doubles down on the same failed economic policies that brought us
to the current situation in the first place.
Under Democrats' one-party rule, inflation has increased nearly 550
percent. Let me repeat that. Inflation has increased nearly 550
percent.
Americans are spending over $2,000 more a year on gas. Our economy,
despite the new definition, is actually in a recession.
Despite what the majority claims, this bill will do nothing to reduce
the record-high inflation that is forcing Americans to pay more for
just about everything.
But just don't take my word for it. Analysis from the Wharton School
found this bill will actually increase inflation through 2024. This
bill will also increase taxes on individuals earning under $400,000 a
year while funneling taxpayer dollars to the wealthiest Americans.
Under this bill, coastal elites, members from the ruling class, will
receive $7,500 to buy electric vehicles while everyday Americans will
have to pay more at the pump thanks to $12 billion in taxes on American
energy producers.
Unsurprisingly, this legislation is stuffed full of socialist Big
Government handouts, including more than $400 billion for the radical,
dangerous Green New Deal policies.
It also provides the IRS with $80 billion for 87,000 new agents to
apparently audit just 700 billionaires. The IRS doesn't need 87,000
agents to audit the rich; they need 87,000 agents to harass the working
class and pay for their far-left handouts.
Ultimately, this bill will push our Nation deeper into recession and
make life even more unaffordable for American families.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times
[[Page H7566]]
article titled, ``IRS says funding won't mean more audits for middle-
income Americans''; an AP article titled, ``IRS plans to hire 10,000
workers to relieve massive backlog''; a TIME article titled, ``Trump
Allies Are Attacking Biden For a Plan to Hire 87,000 New IRS Agents
That Doesn't Exist''; and a New York Times article titled, ``For Older
Americans, Health Bill Will Bring Savings and `Peace of Mind.' ''
[From The New York Times, Aug. 4, 2022]
The I.R.S. Says New Funding Won't Mean More Audits for Middle-Income
Americans
(By Alan Rappeport)
Washington.--Charles P. Rettig, the Internal Revenue
Service commissioner, told Congress on Thursday that the tax
collection agency would not increase audits of households
earning less than $400,000 if it was given the additional $80
billion that lawmakers were considering in a proposed climate
and tax legislation package.
Providing more funding for the I.R.S. has been a top
priority of the Biden administration and has emerged as key
way to finance some of the policies that Democrats are
proposing without raising individual tax rates. The
additional funding is expected to go toward hiring more
enforcement agents to crack down on wealthy tax evaders and
corporations and to modernize the agency's antiquated
technology.
``These resources are absolutely not about increasing audit
scrutiny on small businesses or middle-income Americans,''
Mr. Retting wrote in a letter to lawmakers. ``As we have been
planning, our investment of these enforcement resources is
designed around Treasury's directive that audit rates will
not rise relative to recent years for households making under
$400,000.''
That commitment is in keeping with President Biden's
promise not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans.
Mr. Rettig added that better technology and customer
service at the I.R.S. would make honest taxpayers less likely
to be audited.
The I.R.S. funding is projected to raise $124 billion in
additional tax revenue over a decade. Treasury Department
officials believe that this estimate is overly conservative
and that an agency with more robust audit abilities will
deter tax cheats.
Democrats are expected to consider the additional funding
as part of a new package, the Inflation Reduction Act, which
includes raising taxes on corporations and lowering
prescription drug costs, among other provisions. The overall
package has garnered stiff opposition from Republicans and
would need every Senate Democrat to support it in order to
pass.
Among the provisions that Republicans oppose is the I.R.S.
funding. Republicans have a long history of trying to starve
the I.R.S. of funds and have complained for years that it is
being used as a political weapon and unfairly targets
conservative groups.
The agency's scrutiny has crossed party lines, according to
the I.R.S. inspector general. But it came under fire again
last month after The New York Times reported that James B.
Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and his deputy, Andrew G.
McCabe--both perceived enemies of former President Donald J.
Trump--faced rare, exhaustive audits during the Trump
administration. The I.R.S. said Mr. Rettig had not been
involved in the audits.
In assailing the proposed legislation, the Republican
National Committee claimed this week that an ``army'' of
87,000 I.R.S. agents would ``disproportionately target poorer
Americans.''
Mr. Rettig, whose term expires later this year, insisted on
Thursday that those suggestions were unfounded.
``Large corporate and high-net-worth taxpayers often engage
teams of sophisticated representatives pursuing unsettled or
sometimes questionable interpretations of tax law,'' he said.
``The integrity and fairness of our tax administrative system
relies upon the ability of our agency to maintain a strong,
visible, robust enforcement presence directed to these and
other similarly situated noncompliant taxpayers.''
[From AP NEWS, Mar. 10, 2022]
IRS Plans To hire 10,000 Workers To Relieve Massive Backlog
(By Fatima Hussein)
Washington (AP).--The IRS said Thursday it plans to hire
10,000 new workers to help reduce a massive backlog that the
government says will make this tax season the most
challenging in history.
The agency released a plan to work down the tens of
millions of filings that includes speeding up the
traditionally slow hiring process, relying more on automated
processes and bringing on more contract workers to help with
mailroom and paper processing. Getting it done will be the
big challenge, tax experts say.
The agency faces a backlog of around 20 million pieces of
correspondence, which is more than 15 times as large as in a
normal filing season, according to the agency. And the IRS
workforce is the same size it was in 1970, though the U.S.
population has grown exponentially and the U.S. tax code has
become increasingly complicated.
Additionally, the need to administer pandemic-related
programs has imposed an entirely new workload on the agency.
White House officials have said the agency is not equipped
to serve taxpayers even in nonpandemic years. A senior
administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity
Thursday to preview the new IRS plan, said processing returns
will continue to be a massive challenge so long as the agency
operates on 1960s infrastructure.
The IRS' latest plan to combat the current backlog includes
creating a 700-person surge team to process new returns,
adding 2,000 contractors to respond to taxpayer questions
about stimulus and child tax credit payments and developing
new automated voice and chat bots to answer taxpayer
questions.
There is no plan to extend the current April 18 filing
deadline, the senior official said. The new IRS plan comes as
lawmakers have made persistent calls for additional federal
funding for the agency.
Congress' mammoth $1.5 trillion omnibus package, released
early Wednesday, would provide $14.3 billion to the Treasury
Department, including $12.6 billion devoted to the IRS. That
would be the largest funding increase for the tax agency
since 2001.
However, Republicans have questioned the need for
additional funding. Florida Sen. Rick Scott's ``11 Point Plan
to Rescue America,'' unveiled in February, proposes a 50% cut
in funding and workforce at the IRS.
The White House and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
have roundly rejected Scott's idea.
Caroline Bruckner, a tax professor at the American
University Kogod School of Business, said the agency is ``at
a competitive disadvantage'' for finding new staff based on
its reputation for employees being wholly overworked. She
said she based this on her own survey of tax students she
teaches.
Bruckner said, ``It's absurd we have put so much work on
the IRS'' without giving it the necessary resources to help
Americans in the way that is expected.
Bruckner says along with increased funding, the IRS also
``really has to change its narrative and the way it talks
about its mission to one of service and being one of the most
important antipoverty systems that we have in the U.S.''
[From TIME, Aug. 9, 2022]
Trump Allies Are Attacking Biden For a Plan To Hire 87,000 New IRS
Agents That Doesn't Exist
(By Eric Cortellessa)
Since news broke on Monday that the FBI searched former
President Donald Trump's South Florida home, Republican
members of Congress and right-wing media figures have
launched a new line of attack against Democrats: that the
Internal Revenue Service intends to use nearly $80 billion in
new funding to pursue similar intrusions on average
Americans. Those dollars, Trump allies are saying, will go
toward the hiring of 87,000 new IRS agents.
``Do you make $75,000 or less?'' tweeted House Minority
Leader Kevin McCarthy. ``Democrats'' new army of 87,000 IRS
agents will be coming for you--with 710,000 new audits for
Americans who earn less than $75k.'' Richard Grenell, Trump's
former Acting Director of National Intelligence, wrote on the
social media platform: ``The FBI raids Trump's house and the
Democrats vote to add 87,000 new IRS agents to go after
Americans. Wake up, America.''
Other high-profile conservatives have insinuated that the
Biden administration intends to direct those additional
auditors to dig up dirt on the President's political
opponents. ``After todays raid on Mar A Lago what do you
think the left plans to use those 87,000 new IRS agents
for?'' tweeted Sen. Marco Rubio.
It's a notion that has taken off like wildfire, signaling
what is likely to be a prominent broadside from Republicans
against Democrats in the midterm elections.
There's only one problem. It's not true.
The Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark climate, health
care and tax package that passed the Senate on Sunday and is
expected to head to Biden's desk after the House approves it
on Friday, includes roughly $78 billion for the IRS to be
phased in over 1O years. A Treasury Department report from
May 2021 estimated that such an investment would enable the
agency to hire roughly 87,000 employees by 2031. But most of
those hires would not be Internal Revenue agents, and
wouldn't be new positions.
According to a Treasury Department official, the funds
would cover a wide range of positions including IT
technicians and taxpayer services support staff, as well as
experienced auditors who would be largely tasked with
cracking down on corporate and high-income tax evaders. ``It
is wholly inaccurate to describe any of these resources as
being about increasing audit scrutiny of the middle class or
small businesses,'' Natasha Sarin, a counselor for tax policy
and implementation at the Treasury Department, tells TIME.
At the same time, more than half of the agency's current
employees are eligible for retirement and are expected to
leave the agency within the next five years. ``There's a big
wave of attrition that's coming and a lot of these resources
are just about filling those positions,'' says Sarin, an
economist who has studied tax avoidance extensively and who
was tapped by the Biden administration to beef up the IRS's
auditing power.
In all, the IRS might net roughly 20,000 to 30,000 more
employees from the new funding, enough to restore the tax-
collecting agency's staff to where it was roughly a decade
ago.
The IRS currently has roughly 78,000 employees. According
to John Koskinen, who served as IRS commissioner from 2013 to
2017, that's down from around 100,000 when he
[[Page H7567]]
first started. By the time he resigned four years later, he
said, it was clear that the agency was in the grip of a
systematic attempt by the GOP to weaken it.
``Nobody loves tax collectors,'' Koskinen tells TIME.
It's an effort that goes back to 2010, when Republicans
took back control of the House of Representatives and
immediately instituted a series of crippling cuts on the IRS.
Since then, overall funding for the IRS has fallen further,
by more than 20 percent, while enforcement funding has
dropped by 31 percent. That's made it easier for high-net-
worth tax cheats and major corporations to avoid federal
taxes to the tune of billions of dollars.
``The largest corporations in the United States with over
$20 billion of assets have had their rate of audits go from
nearly 100% to 50%,'' says Janet Holtzblattt, a senior fellow
at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. ``Among wealthy
individuals who had a positive income of a million dollars or
more, the audit rate fell from 8.4% in 2010 to 2.4% in
2019.''
Meanwhile, the employee shortage only made it harder for
average Americans to reach IRS customer support, which has
been inundated with requests far beyond what the staff could
handle. ``I used to say there's no Democratic or Republican
way to run the IRS,'' Koskinen says. ``The people who are
significantly disadvantaged are the average taxpayers who
have a simple question and can't get through. Those are
Republicans as well as independents and Democrats.'' As of
last month, the IRS backlog included 10.2 million unprocessed
individual returns.
Funding from the Inflation Reduction Act will also go
toward tech modernization. The IRS currently uses technology
from the 1960s, called COBOL, to process and intake
individual tax returns. According to government officials,
the agency has struggled to find workers who are still
equipped to code under the antiquated system.
The increased funding for the IRS is a key part of
Democrats' plan to pay for the Inflation Reduction Act. By
going more forcefully after tax cheats and increasing
compliance, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the
agency will increase revenue by $204 billion over the next
decade.
Yet while the IRS may be in desperate need of more funding,
it's not exactly most Americans' favorite government
institution. Nobody likes to fork over a big check to Uncle
Sam. Which is a big reason why Republicans are likely to keep
hammering this point in the coming months, and potentially
pointing to 87,000 new IRS agents who will never materialize.
``I think a lot of people are going to be upset by this
across the country and across the political spectrum,'' Hogan
Gidley, Trump's former White House deputy press secretary,
tells TIME, when asked about IRS funding. He falsely
described the Biden administration's plan as hiring ``85,000
IRS agents to come after mom-and-pop businesses.''
But if Gidley's right, Americans will only be angry because
of what Republicans are telling them about the IRS--not
what's actually happening there.
[From The New York Times, Aug. 10, 2022]
For Older Americans, Health Bill Will Bring Savings and `Peace of Mind'
(By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Noah Weiland)
Washington.--After Pete Spring was diagnosed with dementia
in 2016, he and his wife emptied their checking account in
part to pay for his prescription drugs, then ran through
$60,000 in pension payments before resorting to a charge card
to help make sure Mr. Spring had the heart and Alzheimer's
medications he needed to survive--just two of the 11 drugs he
took. Mr. Spring, of Marietta, Ga., died in April, before the
unveiling of the tax, climate and health bill that the Senate
passed over the weekend. The measure aims to lower the cost
of prescription drugs for people on Medicare, like him; his
wife, Gretchen Van Zile, has been left to look back on what
felt like an outrageous injustice.
``Here seniors are in their golden years,'' said Ms. Van
Zile, 74, ``and the only people seeing gold are the
pharmaceutical companies.''
Nearly 49 million people, most of them older Americans, get
prescription drug coverage through Medicare, yet many find
that it does not go very far. Low-income people quality for
government subsidies, so those in the middle class--people
like Mr. Spring and Ms. Van Zile--are hit hardest by high
drug costs.
The Senate bill, which the House is expected to pass on
Friday, then send to President Biden's desk, could save many
Medicare beneficiaries hundreds, if not thousands of dollars
a year. Its best-known provision would empower Medicare to
negotiate prices with drug makers with the goal of driving
down costs--a move the pharmaceutical industry has fought for
years, and one that experts said would help lower costs for
beneficiaries.
But the legislation would also take more direct steps to
keep money in people's pocketbooks, though they would be
phased in over time.
Beginning next year, insulin co-payments for Medicare
recipients would be capped at $35 a month. As of 2024, those
with costs high enough to qualify for the program's
``catastrophic coverage'' benefit would no longer have to
pick up 5 percent of the cost of every prescription. And
starting in 2025, out-of-pocket costs for prescription
medicines would be capped at $2,000 annually.
``This is a huge policy change and one that has been a long
time coming,'' said Dr. Stacie Dusetzina, an associate
professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University. ``For
people needing high-cost drugs, this will provide significant
financial relief.''
Between 2009 and 2018, the average price more than doubled
for brand-name prescription drugs in Medicare Part D, the
program that covers products dispensed by pharmacies, the
Congressional Budget Office found. Between 2019 and 2020,
price increases outpaced inflation for half of all drugs
covered by Medicare, according to an analysis from the Kaiser
Family Foundation.
Perhaps no drug has been talked about as much as insulin,
the diabetes medication that is more than 100 years old.
Prices for insulin and its analogues have risen so fast that
many diabetes patients who rely on the drug put themselves at
risk by taking less than is prescribed to cut costs.
More than three million Medicare beneficiaries take one of
the 42 different types of insulin that are covered by
Medicare, according to an estimate by the Kaiser Family
Foundation, which found that the average out-of-pocket cost
is $54 a month. But for some people, the costs are much
higher.
Evelyn Polay, 82, of Merrick, N.Y., spends more than $1,200
every three months on four different diabetes medicines,
including Humalog and another type of injectable insulin,
which she has been taking for about 30 years.
She still works as a part-time bookkeeper and counts
herself as fortunate. ``It's not a question of do I eat or do
I take my medicine,'' she said.
But she worries about other people, including her own
grandchildren, three of whom also have diabetes. Democrats
tried to apply the bill's proposed $35 co-payment to all
insulin prescriptions, including those covered by private
insurers. But Republican senators forced the removal of that
language--even though seven of them wanted to keep it in the
bill. To hear the voices of older Americans who confront high
drug costs month in and month out is to hear fear and worry,
anger and stress. Many say they are figuring out how to get
by, skipping vacations and other niceties for which they
saved.
For Kim Armbruster, 65, who recently retired after a 40-
year nursing career, keeping down the costs of her
medications for diabetes, psoriatic arthritis and Graves'
disease, an autoimmune disorder affecting the thyroid, has
been a scramble since she started on Medicare in March. Ms.
Armbruster, of Cary, Ill., said she had saved extra insulin
from prescriptions filled when she had commercial insurance,
enough to keep costs down before a monthly cap kicks in. But
her other conditions have caused immense financial strain.
By June, she had reached Medicare's threshold for
catastrophic coverage after paying more than $7,000 for
Enbrel, a drug she takes for the arthritis; Synthroid, which
she takes for Graves' disease; Eliquis, for atrial
fibrillation, insulin and her insulin pump.
``It's all about thinking ahead, looking for alternatives
and strategizing the home budget to be able to take the
necessary meds,'' she said. Learning to keep up with costs,
she added, had been like ``baptism by fire, to learn
everything I can possibly learn about it to maneuver drug
costs and stay healthy without complications.''
The carousel of medications taken by Mr. Spring, the
dementia patient who died in April, included eye-popping
price tags for drugs including Eliquis, for a heart
condition, and Namenda, an Alzheimer's drug. Mr. Spring also
took an antidepressant and medications to dull the side
effects from Namenda.
Those drugs ran the couple around $1,000 a month. Had the
$2,000 annual out-of-pocket cap been in place when her
husband was alive, Ms. Van Zile said, they would have reached
it by March every year. Ms. Van Zile retired from her job
working for Fulton County in Georgia so that she could take
care of her husband, further cramping their savings. ``His
sense of humor put a smile on my face every day,'' she said.
``The bitter aspect of it was the financial stress.''
Democrats have been promising for years to lower the cost
of prescription drugs. So have some Republicans, including
former President Donald J. Trump. But the Senate bill passed
along party lines, without any Republican votes. In the 50-50
Senate, Vice President Kamala Harris broke the tie vote.
Republicans, and the pharmaceutical industry, insist that
the measure will stifle innovation and reverse progress on
therapies and treatments, including those for cancer care--a
high priority for Mr. Biden. The industry's main trade group,
PhRMA, says the bill, which imposes stiff penalties on
companies that refuse to negotiate, amounts to government
price setting--not negotiation.
At a media briefing last month, Stephen J. Ubl, the chief
executive of PhRMA, warned that Democrats were ``about to
make a historic mistake that will devastate patients
desperate for new cures.''
But backers of the measure say new treatments are
meaningless if patients can't afford them. The promise of
Medicare, enacted in 1965, has always been that it would take
care of older Americans. The prescription drug benefit was
not added until 2003.
It includes the provision for catastrophic coverage, in
which the government picks up the full cost of medicines--
except for 5 percent, paid by the patient--after an
individual
[[Page H7568]]
spends $7,050 a year out of pocket. The Kaiser Family
Foundation says that 1.3 million Medicare beneficiaries hit
the catastrophic threshold each year; 1.4 million have out-
of-pocket costs of $2,000 or more.
``You rarely hear people complain about turning age 65 and
going on Medicare; it's often a relief,'' said Larry Levitt,
the foundation's executive vice president for health policy.
``But the way Medicare now works, there can be some nasty
surprises for people with very high drug expenses, and this
bill will provide a lot of relief.''
A study conducted by Dr. Dusetzina highlighted how the
middle class gets squeezed. She examined 17,076 new
prescriptions issued between 2012 and 2018 for Part D
beneficiaries, and found that those receiving subsidies were
nearly twice as likely to obtain the prescribed drug within
90 days as those without subsidies.
Among those who did not qualify for subsidies, 30 percent
of all prescriptions for cancer drugs went unfilled, as did
more than 50 percent of prescriptions to treat immune system
disorders or high cholesterol.
Patti Kellerhouse, a 64-year-old in Henderson, Nev., was
diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer in 2017 that had
spread to her liver. On long-term disability through her
employer, she had paid $10 a month out of pocket for the oral
cancer treatment she needed. But when she transitioned to a
Medicare Advantage plan, the medication cost more than $3,100
for the first month.
While she has been able to afford the price jump, it has
stressed her financial planning. She is saving money for a
new car, among other things. She said she has daughters and
grandchildren whom she would like to continue supporting.
``I worked hard my whole life,'' she said. ``These are high
co-payments. They shouldn't happen when you're at retirement
age.''
Many Americans make tough choices about whether to continue
taking drugs they need. Bob Miller, a 71 year-old multiple
sclerosis patient in Prior Lake, Minn., is among them.
Every other day for 12 years, Mr. Miller took Betaseron, a
brand-name prescription drug that can delay the progression
of his disease by staving off flare-ups of numbness, muscle
stiffness and other symptoms that can leave patients worse
off than they were before. But the drug was expensive; even
with his Medicare insurance, it cost more than $10,000 a
year.
So he quit taking the drug in 2016 after consulting with
his doctors, who told him he could ``roll the dice'' and
survive without it--at least for the time being. Since then,
he has lived with the unsettling worry that he is gambling
with his own health.
``In the background, you don't know what's going on,'' Mr.
Miller said. 'There might still be some damage being done to
my nerve fibers.''
When a neurologist recently told him it might help to go
back on a disease-modifying drug, Mr. Miller told him he
would like to, if not for the prohibitive cost. The new
legislation, he said, will deliver something he has been
longing for: ``Peace of mind.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, seniors know that this bill will help
bring down their healthcare and prescription drug costs dramatically.
Passing this bill will be a huge sigh of relief for 34 million
Americans covered by Medicare.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, the American people asked, and Democrats
are delivering.
I am proud to join my colleagues in moving this historic effort to
fight climate change, lower prescription drug prices, and reduce the
deficit.
Every district in our country has felt the pain of inaction on the
growing climate crisis, from forest fires in the West to unprecedented
flooding in the Midwest and Northeast.
My district is no exception. Just this week, I visited the Brandywine
River Museum of Art, home of Andrew Wyatt's masterpieces, which, 1 year
ago, experienced devastating damage when extreme weather caused the
nearby river to rise over 18 feet.
Yesterday, I toured the wetlands at John Heinz National Wildlife
Refuge to discuss measures to address the ever-more-frequent flooding
being experienced in the nearby Eastwick neighborhood.
From one end of my district to another, my constituents are seeing
the devastating impact of climate change every single day. Congress
must deliver results for these people: legislation that makes a
difference for hardworking Americans.
When my Republican colleagues were in the majority, they used their
control over this body to pass tax cuts for the wealthy and deny
healthcare to millions of Americans. But Democrats have proven over and
over they take seriously their job to deliver results for all of their
constituents, and that is why we are here today.
Through tax incentives, grants, and loans, the Inflation Reduction
Act will reduce CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2030. This
legislation will invest in our energy sector to promote innovation and
renewable energy, and it will do this while supporting workers' unions
and creating more than 9 million new jobs over the next decade.
The bill will also ensure that vulnerable communities like Eastwick,
most likely to feel the impact of a climate crisis, will receive the
tools and attention they deserve.
Beyond addressing climate, the bill will radically lower the cost of
expensive prescription drugs, help 13 million Americans keep their
health insurance, and empower the IRS to go after wealthy corporations
and tax cheats. Notably, it will do all this while reducing the budget
deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation, and I urge all
of my colleagues to do the same.
{time} 1000
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).
Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule to consider the Senate amendment to
H.R. 5376, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. This partisan
legislation is full of new tax hikes, which will negatively impact
Oklahomans throughout my district. Sadly, the legislation will only
worsen inflation and further the Democrats' Green New Deal priorities.
The bill should instead be called the Green New Deal lite.
To make matters worse, the bill will not solve the energy crisis our
Nation is currently facing. It raises the royalty rate for onshore oil
and gas leases, imposes a new per-acre fee to nominate these parcels,
and provides billions for so-called environmental justice initiatives.
The legislation also includes a natural gas tax, which would make it
more expensive to heat homes, cook, and more.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the
rule and oppose this legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a distinguished member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk a big game about
deficit reduction. They used the same parliamentary procedure, budget
reconciliation, when they were in power and in control of this
majority, and they blew a $2 trillion hole in the deficit.
House Democrats here today, putting people over politics, have put a
bill on the floor that would reduce the deficit by billions of dollars.
Apparently, that is not enough for my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle.
This bill will lower costs. It will create better-paying jobs for the
American people, and it will invest in climate action and the
existential threat of our time facing my constituents in Colorado.
Since 1982, Colorado has experienced natural disaster after natural
disaster that has cost our State over $55 billion, including the most
destructive fire in the history of my State just this past December.
It is time for us to take this climate crisis seriously. That is
exactly what this bill does, through investments in R&D, through
investments in energy storage and battery technology, and so much more
to enable our transition to a clean energy future.
I am proud to support this bill because I believe it delivers for the
American people. Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge my colleagues to support
it, as well.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will
amend the rule to allow the House to consider an amendment that would
stop the IRS from hiring 87,000 new agents to target and harass lower-
income Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
[[Page H7569]]
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Smith), who is here to explain the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas
for yielding me time.
As Mr. Burgess pointed out, if we defeat the previous question, I
will move to amend the rule to make in order my amendment to strike
funding for IRS enforcement activities.
The administration's own Treasury Department has said this funding
would be used to hire 87,000 new IRS agents. This has been verified.
These agents will be focused on targeting American families, small
businesses, farmers, and ranchers with audits.
Families and small businesses are struggling. That is no secret.
Inflation is at 8.5 percent. Food and gas prices are at record highs.
Despite this bill's name, reasonable economists agree it will do nearly
nothing to actually reduce inflation, especially in the near term.
Small business pessimism about costs and access to workers is at all-
time highs, and audits would only compound this misery. Estimates put
the starting cost to a small business being audited in the range of
$10,000 to $75,000. Ridiculous. That is the last thing our small
businesses need, the vast majority of whom follow the law. They are
law-abiding individuals and law-abiding businesses.
My amendment makes the following changes to the bill.
It strikes the $45 billion for enforcement activities, which include
legal and litigation support, digital asset monitoring, and enforcing
criminal statutes. Those are audit activities.
It strikes $25 billion for operation support, which includes rent
payments, printing, postage, and other administrative activities to
support the new auditors. It also strikes $104 million for the Office
of Tax Policy at IRS, the office which creates new tax regulations.
It strikes $153 million for the U.S. Tax Court, where cases related
to these new audits would be heard, and it strikes $50 million for
Treasury to implement these changes.
Now, let me tell you what this amendment would not do. This amendment
leaves in place $3.2 billion for taxpayer services to help address the
backlog of nearly 20 million unprocessed returns. We agree this backlog
is a serious problem, and taxpayers need better customer service. It
leaves in place $4.8 billion for badly needed IRS systems
modernization.
According to the CBO, the bill would still reduce the deficit if we
adopt this amendment while leaving every other provision of the package
intact.
Unless there are Senate Democrats who believe auditing families and
small businesses is the single most important part of this bill, they
should have no problem expeditiously passing it again.
Because we would only make in order this one single amendment, if we
defeat the previous question, it will only delay final passage of the
bill by about 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I have many serious concerns about this bill that the
rule makes in order, which I will discuss later. I find it particularly
troubling the Democrats think auditing thousands of more American
families and small businesses is the solution to inflation.
Let's defeat the previous question and help assure law-abiding
Americans that the IRS isn't going to show up at their doors.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For anybody to suggest that the IRS is somehow coming after people is
absurd and dangerous. This fear-mongering has to stop.
Yesterday, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Chuck Grassley, made this outrageous statement that armed IRS agents
will go door-to-door with assault rifles after this bill passes. All I
can say to that is everyone grab your tinfoil hats.
I mean, in response, Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden said: ``It is
unbelievable that we even need to say this, but there are not going to
be 87,000 armed IRS agents going door-to-door with assault weapons.''
This is funding for answering phone calls, upgrading computer
systems, and getting our constituents the refunds that they have been
waiting for, for months and months.
I get it. My Republican friends do not want to give the IRS the
ability to go after wealthy tax cheats, big corporations that are using
every loophole possible to avoid paying taxes. But do you know what?
Our constituents have to pay their fair share. These rich people ought
to pay their fair share, as well.
I get it. My Republican friends, when they were in charge, passed a
$2 trillion tax cut to make it easier for the rich and powerful to
cheat on their taxes. This Democratic majority is going to make sure
they pay their fair share.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to support the rule and the
underlying bill.
As I do so, let me ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
to join me in asking President Trump to lower the rhetoric so we don't
have people dying every day because of his provocative words.
Let me say, this bill is a miracle of success. It is a miracle
because we, the Democrats, are giving back $300 billion to reduce the
inflation that was created by the Trump tax cut that has been killing
us for the last couple of years.
I am excited about the idea that those who are not paying their fair
tax, the top 1 percent--$160 billion they do not pay--yet we will raise
no taxes on those making $400,000 or less.
We will make corporations and ultrawealthy persons pay their fair
share through the IRS working to help working people. No new taxes on
families. That is crucial.
Now, on the underlying bill, I would have wanted to offer an
amendment dealing with the carried interest, which would have gotten us
$14 billion. I wanted to make sure that we had the $35 limit on insulin
and, as well, help for Medicaid recipients.
This is a great bill. I support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend you and Chairman McGovern for
the Rule enabling the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, H.R. 5376, to be
considered and voted on the floor today.
Rapid action on the Inflation Reduction Act is vital, as it will have
a major positive impact on quality-of-life for American families,
reduce inflation for all Americans, and bolster our national economy
and competitiveness for years to come.
This landmark legislation will provide urgently needed relief, as
well as many reforms and initiatives that will help our nation
transition to its next era of economic success for all Americans.
Even though H.R. 5376 doesn't include every solution that I hoped
would be included, I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the
rule and the bill because of the overwhelmingly positive effects that
the Inflation Reduction Act will have.
The bill makes historic investments to combat climate change by
putting the United States on a path to reduce emissions by 40 percent
by 2030, including investments in clean energy and energy efficiency
that will lower household energy costs.
The bill's clean energy and emission reduction programs attack the
climate crisis at its source--electric utilities, cars, trucks, and
even methane-producing farm animals--while ensuring that rural and
disadvantaged communities share the benefits.
It would bring electric cars--and the fuel costs they save--within
the reach of working families. It would also lower utility bills,
promote community solar projects, and boost America's clean energy
manufacturing base and workforce.
The Inflation Reduction Act will lower the costs of prescription
drugs by empowering Medicare--for the first time--to negotiate prices,
while limiting out-of-pocket costs and price increases. Medicare would
negotiate a maximum price of high-cost prescription drugs for Medicare
Part B and Part D that will take effect in 2026. This provision will
make prescription drugs more accessible and stop drug companies from
raising the price of prescription medicines faster than inflation.
This legislation will also extend the Affordable Care Act's health
insurance premium tax credits through 2025. This will avert a huge
price hike in premiums for the majority of the 14 million people who
have enrolled in ACA Marketplace plans.
The Inflation Reduction Act would create a more equitable tax system
by applying a 15 percent minimum tax to corporations with more than $1
billion in average annual income
[[Page H7570]]
over a three-year period. This would ensure that these corporations at
least pay roughly the same rate as many working taxpayers.
The bill would also impose a 1 percent excise tax on corporate stock
buybacks, and it would enable the IRS to reverse staff cuts and ensure
compliance with tax laws and regulations.
By creating a more equitable tax system, this legislation will ease
the pressure of inflation and allow more Americans to participate
productively in the economy. Americans overwhelmingly agree that
corporations have paid too little for too long. Only in Washington
would Republicans fight against cutting costs for low- and middle-
income workers and their families in defense of wealthy corporations.
That point about fundamental equity brings me to one of my regrets
about this bill. When the agreement that led to this bill was announced
in July, it had a provision to close the carried interest loophole.
That tax code loophole allows managers of private equity and other
investment funds to pay lower taxes on their earnings than those paid
by wage and salary earners.
The Senate agreement, as it was first announced, would have closed
the carried interest loophole by extending the required holding period
to five years, which is more in line with how long private equity funds
typically hold their investments. But unfortunately, the Senate dropped
that provision from the bill, giving up $13 billion that it would have
raised over ten years.
The carried interest loophole benefits billionaires, and by that
provision being dropped from the bill, billionaires scored a victory
worth billions of dollars at the time when most Americans are
struggling to make ends meet.
Obviously, that offends principles of equity and fairness, and, if I
had the opportunity amend H.R. 5376, I would have offered an amendment
to close the carried interest loophole.
Another amendment that I would have offered would have lowered the
costs of insulin for people whose health care coverage is with private
insurance companies.
While I am delighted that H.R. 5376 imposes a $35 per month cap on
the price of insulin for people covered by Medicare, this cap should
have extended to Americans with private insurance. I was very upset
that Senate Republicans rejected that policy, as it is unconscionable
to force people to choose between affording their life-sustaining
insulin or their other daily needs. Some Americans have died because
they couldn't afford their insulin, which has been subject to
unjustifiable pricing practices.
So, I would have offered an amendment to ensure that all Americans,
including those with private health insurance, benefit from a $35 per
month cap on their insulin costs.
Finally, I was disappointed that Senator Raphael Warnock's amendment
about Medicaid expansion was not adopted by the Senate. This amendment
sought to close the Medicaid coverage gap so that 2.2 million people
living in poverty, with no affordable health care, would be able to see
a doctor when they are sick, pregnant, or have other health needs.
The third amendment I would have offered would have closed the
Medicaid coverage gap for health care to impoverished Americans who
have a need for, and the right to, health care. Although it is not in
this bill, I will continue to fight for this.
Even without those three elements, the Inflation Reduction Act is
excellent legislation that will be a great leap forward for the
American people, particularly for my constituents in the 18th
Congressional District of Texas, as well as for all of America.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Smith) for the purposes of rebuttal.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, in this
exchange here, the claims being made that this bill will just do so
many wonderful things for our country and that they are holding
harmless folks making less than $400,000.
The CBO just reported that at least $20 billion in savings from this
bill will come from families making less than $400,000 a year, hardly
what has been stated by the folks advocating for this bill.
We know that the facts point out that it is 87,000 new employees,
including agents, over at the IRS, and these full-time equivalents
would take place by 2031. I am not sure where those folks come from,
necessarily. I know it has been stated that this would fill vacancies
or answer retirements for the next few years. But why do we need new
money for that? That should already be budgeted.
Certainly, these agents at the IRS have law enforcement authority.
They have badges that let them walk around the magnetometers at the
airports. Certainly, I would assume they are armed, as well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates 78
to 90 percent of new revenue from unreported income will come from
folks earning less than $200,000 per year.
I think we need to be very cautious as we move forward and grow an
agency that even President Clinton pushed back on when he was
President, realizing that the agency was harassing the American people.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear to my colleagues that, actually, in
the Senate bill, there was explicit language that made it very clear
that none of this money would be used for audits for people earning
$400,000 or less or targeting small businesses. But Republicans over in
the Senate insisted that the language be stripped out, and now they are
complaining about it.
But do you know what? I have good news for you.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Treasury Secretary
Janet Yellen that makes it crystal clear that that is not what is going
to happen, along with a letter from Donald Trump's appointed IRS
Commissioner, who is still there, who made it very clear that it won't
be used for that.
Secretary of the Treasury,
Department of the Treasury,
Washington, DC, August 10, 2022.
Charles P. Rettig,
Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service,
Washington, DC.
Dear Commissioner: The Inflation Reduction Act includes
much-needed funding for the IRS to improve taxpayer service,
modernize outdated technological infrastructure, and increase
equity in the tax system by enforcing the tax laws against
those high-earners, large corporations, and complex
partnerships who today do not pay what they owe.
These crucial investments have been a focus of the Biden
Administration since the President's first day in office, and
I was heartened to see the legislation pass the Senate this
weekend.
Notwithstanding the changes that arose because of
Republican challenges during the Byrd process, I write today
to confirm the commitment that has been a guiding precept of
the planning that you and your team are undertaking: that
audit rates will not rise relative to recent years for
households making under $400,000 annually.
Specifically, I direct that any additional resources--
including any new personnel or auditors that are hired--shall
not be used to increase the share of small business or
households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited
relative to historical levels. This means that, contrary to
the misinformation from opponents of this legislation, small
business or households earning $400,000 per year or less will
not see an increase in the chances that they are audited.
Instead, enforcement resources will focus on high-end
noncompliance. There, sustained, multiyear funding is so
critical to the agency's ability to make the investments
needed to pursue a robust attack on the tax gap by targeting
crucial challenges, like large corporations, high-networth
individuals and complex pass-throughs, where today the IRS
has resources to initiate just 7,500 audits annually out of
more than 4 million returns received.
This is challenging work that requires a team of
sophisticated revenue agents in place to spend thousands of
hours poring over complicated returns, and it is also work
that has huge revenue potential: indeed, an additional hour
auditing someone making more than $5 million annually
generates an estimated $4,500 of additional taxes collected.
This is essential work that I know the IRS is eager to
undertake.
For regular taxpayers, as you emphasized last week, the
result of this resource infusion will be a lower likelihood
of audit by an agency that has the data and technological
infrastructure in place to target enforcement resources where
they belong--on the high end of the income distribution,
where the top 1 percent alone is estimated to not be paying
$160 billion in owed taxes each year. That's important as a
matter of revenue-raising, but it's also essential as a
matter of fairness.
Crucially, these resources will support a much-needed
upgrade of technology that is decades out-of-date, and an
investment in taxpayer service so that the IRS is finally
able to communicate with taxpayers in an efficient, timely
manner. I look forward to working with you on creating new
digital tools to allow taxpayers to get information from the
IRS instantaneously and on improving taxpayer service, so the
agency is well-equipped to answer calls when they come in.
This historic investment in our tax system will accomplish
two critical objectives. It will raise substantial revenue to
address the
[[Page H7571]]
deficit; and it will create a fairer system, where those at
the top who do not today comply with their tax obligations
find it far less easy to do so, and where all taxpayers
receive the service from the IRS that they deserve, and that
your dedicated workforce is eager to deliver. The importance
of the work ahead cannot be overstated.
Sincerely,
Janet L. Yellen.
____
department of the Treasury,
Internal Revenue Service,
Washington DC, August 4, 2022.
Dear Member of the United States House of Representatives:
It has been the greatest honor of my professional life to
spend the last four years at the helm of the IRS. I am struck
each day by the commitment of dedicated IRS employees to
helping American families. And our employees have done all
that without the tools to do so effectively. For too long,
the agency has not had the resources that it needs to ensure
the tax laws are enforced fairly and that Americans receive
the level and quality of service they deserve. We are the
greatest country in the world, yet the agency that touches
more Americans than any other continually struggles to
receive sufficient resources to fulfill its important
mission.
The resources in the reconciliation package will get us
back to historical norms in areas of challenge for the
agency--large corporate and global high-net-worth taxpayers--
as well as new areas like pass-through entities and
multinational taxpayers with international tax issues, where
we need sophisticated, specialized teams in place that are
able to unpack complex structures and identify noncompliance.
These resources are absolutely not about increasing audit
scrutiny on small businesses or middle-income Americans. As
we've been planning, our investment of these enforcement
resources is designed around the Department of the Treasury's
directive that audit rates will not rise relative to recent
years for households making under $400,000. Other resources
will be invested in employees and IT systems that will allow
us to better serve all taxpayers, including small businesses
and middle-income taxpayers. Enhanced IT systems and taxpayer
service will actually mean that honest taxpayers will be
better able to comply with the tax laws, resulting in a lower
likelihood of being audited and a reduced burden on them.
Large corporate and high-net-worth taxpayers often engage
teams of sophisticated representatives who pursue unsettled
or sometimes questionable interpretations of tax law. The
integrity and fairness of our tax administrative system
relies upon the ability of our agency to maintain a strong,
visible, robust enforcement presence directed to these and
other similarly situated taxpayers when they are
noncompliant. These important efforts also support honest
taxpayers who voluntarily comply with their filing and
reporting requirements.
The IRS has fewer front-line, experienced examiners in the
field than at any time since World War II, and fewer
employees than at any time since the 1970s. Advances in
technology have been helpful but have not kept pace with the
ever-increasing responsibilities and challenges facing the
IRS. As a result, the IRS has for too long been unable to
pursue meaningful, impactful examinations of large corporate
and high-net-worth taxpayers to ensure they are paying their
fair share. This creates a direct revenue loss from evaders
and lessens the potential to deter others from pursuing a
similar path of noncompliance. Every American should support
a fair and impartial system of tax administration supported
by an appropriately resourced tax administrator. In fact, the
continued success of our country depends, in part, upon the
success of the agency in appropriately, fairly and
impartially enforcing the tax laws and in providing
meaningful, impactful services to every American.
As an extremely proud American, I'm grateful for your
support of the IRS and our dedicated employees. I cannot be
forceful enough in emphasizing that these resources will be
transformative for the agency and for American taxpayers. I
am available to meet with you at your convenience to discuss
the foregoing.
Thank you,
Charles P. Rettig.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let's stop the misinformation and stop the
fear-mongering.
I get it. My Republican friends do not want to lower the costs of
prescription drugs for senior citizens. They don't want to do anything
about climate change. They don't want to pay down the deficit or the
debt. I get it. But we do, and the American people do, and I am proud
of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee
on Financial Services.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the very long and
difficult negotiations that have taken place following the Build Back
Better Act, led by President Biden and the Democrats. I applaud all the
beneficiaries of the reconciliation bill in what is now the Inflation
Reduction Act.
This act includes historic climate change legislation. It will lower
prescription drug costs, reduce the cost of Medicare, and, hopefully,
force major corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.
However, as chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, I have
worked with members of my committee and many Members of Congress to
confront the housing crisis in this country. We organized a request for
$150 billion in the Build Back Better Act, which included rental
assistance with Section 8 vouchers, development of more affordable
housing units, support for first-generation home buyers, repairs to fix
deteriorating public housing, and fair housing enforcement to eliminate
discrimination and unlawful evictions.
However, there is not one nickel, not one dime, not one dollar, for
the development of housing in this bill. We can no longer afford to
have housing as an afterthought, a ``nice to have,'' or simply
something that can wait until later. It is foundational to the
prosperity of families, key to a healthy economy, and crucial to
fighting inflation.
Yes, I am disappointed. I am going to vote for this bill because so
many people are going to benefit in different ways, but I am
disappointed that housing does not show up anywhere in this
legislation.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. David Scott), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture.
{time} 1015
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. This is an important bill, and, yes, it will bring down
inflation.
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with basic economics, and unless we
have multiple forces working simultaneously, we will not be able to
bring down the costs of food particularly.
I raise this point because, as Chairwoman Waters pointed out, it does
help in terms of prescription drugs. It brings down the cost of
healthcare. Those reflect some of our basic needs. It helps our
veterans with their healthcare.
Just as I stepped up and helped to deal with the step-up, we are
having a problem with the front end of our food supply chain. We have
17,000 of our ranchers and small farmers going out of business every
year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15
seconds.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this is
very important, and it sets the stage for this bill working with our
lower food and fuel costs to continue the process.
Finally, we will have a bill in September that addresses the front
line of our supply chain that will also bring down costs and inflation.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Smith) for rebuttal.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear that if
Secretary Yellen were accurate when she said that inflation was
transitory, we would have no reason to be here right now. Obviously,
she has backed off those comments based on realities, and that is what
we need to focus on. Now, the realities and the facts are not what some
hopes might be for some legislation on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record documents from the CBO, the JCT,
the GAO, and the Department of the Treasury.
CBO has received a number of questions regarding our
estimate of an amendment offered by Senator Crapo during the
floor debate on H.R. 5376 last weekend. That amendment,
#5404, would limit the use of additional funds for the
Internal Revenue Service. If the amendment had been adopted
none of the additional funds could have been used to audit
taxpayers with taxable incomes below $400,000.
CBO did not complete a formal cost estimate in advance of
consideration of the amendment but the agency did provide the
following information to the Senate Budget Committee:
CBO estimates that the amendment 5404 would have the
following effects:
No effect on outlays in the one or ten year budget windows;
would reduce outlays in the five year budget window.
[[Page H7572]]
No effect on revenues in the one year budget window; would
reduce the ``non-scorable'' revenues resulting from the
provisions of section 10301 in the five and ten year budget
windows.
No effect on outlays after 2031 but would decrease the
``non-scorable'' revenue resulting from the provisions of
section 10301 after 2031.
CBO has not completed a point estimate of this amendment
but the preliminary assessment indicates that amendment 5404
would reduce the ``non-scorable'' revenues resulting from the
provisions of section 10301 by at least $20 billion over the
FY2022-FY2031 period.
Thanks,
Leigh Angres,
Director of Legislative Affairs,
Congressional Budget Office.
____
Congress of the United States,
Joint Committee on Taxation,
Washngton, DC, August 17, 2021.
Memorandum
To: Redacted.
From: Thomas A. Barthold.
Subject: Distributional Information.
This memorandum responds to your request for distributional
information on a proposal in Treasury's ``General
Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2022 Revenue
Proposals'' (the ``Greenbook''). The proposal, ``Introduce
Comprehensive Financial Account Reporting to Improve Tax
Compliance,'' requires financial institutions to report
inflows and outflows for every account with at least $600 of
inflows or outflows in a year, for tax years beginning after
December 31, 2022. Although these inflows and outflows do not
directly correspond to any line items on tax returns, the
proposal is estimated to reduce underreporting of income,
particularly on income subject to little or no information
reporting, such as individual business income, self-
employment income, and small C corporation income. We
estimate that the proposal would raise $206 billion over the
2022-31 budget window.
We are unable to provide distributional effects for this
proposal because we do not impute unreported income to our
individual tax model, in part because the distribution of
unreported income is not well identified. Instead, we provide
some distributional information on the tax gap attributable
to the types of taxpayers that might be most affected by this
proposal. In particular, underreporting of non farm
proprietor income, i.e., Schedule C income, was estimated to
contribute $68 billion to the annual $245 billion individual
income tax underreporting tax gap for tax years 2011 to
2013.\1\ Underreporting of Schedule C income also contributes
heavily to the $45 billion self-employment (SECA) tax
underreporting tax gap for those same years.\2\
The table below presents a distribution of estimated tax
assessments from representative random audits related to
underreporting of Schedule C income. To estimate these tax
assessments, income adjustments from these audits were
multiplied by estimated average marginal tax rates.\3\ As the
table shows, more than half of the assessed amounts are
estimated to come from taxpayers with reported income between
zero and $50,000.\4\ To the extent that taxpayers with sole
proprietor income tend to have lower income than taxpayers
with partnership or S corporation income, the distribution of
the tax assessments related to underreporting of Schedule C
income might not represent the distributional effects of the
Green Book proposal. To provide a fuller picture, the table
also presents a distribution of estimated tax assessments
related to underreporting of Schedule E income.\5\ Many
random audits of Schedule E income did not include entity-
level audits. Entity-level audits were likely more common
among smaller, single-owner businesses.\6\ Thus, the Schedule
E distribution below is incomplete and could skew toward
lower incomes relative to a hypothetical distribution
resulting from random entity-level audits.
The distributions below are grouped by reported adjusted
gross income and therefore skew toward lower-income taxpayers
relative to distributions done by true income (reported
income plus unreported income). However, when audit
adjustments are added to reported income, affected taxpayers
tend to remain in the reported income group or move up only
one income group.\7\
PERCENTAGE OF ESTIMATED TAX ASSESSMENTS RELATING TO UNDERREPORTING OF .
. .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported Adjusted Gross Income . . . Schedule C . . . Schedule E
(2010 dollars) income income
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than $0........................ 5% 6%
$0 to $50,000....................... 52% 34%
$50,000 to $100,000................. 21% 25%
$100,000 to $200,000................ 12% 13%
$200,000 to $500,000................ 6% 14%
$500,000 and over................... 4% 9%
Total........................... 100% 100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
endnotes
1. Table 5, Internal Revenue Service, Tax Gap Estimates for
Tax Years 2011-2013 (Pub. 1415), September 2019.
2. Table 2, ibid.
3. The random audits were done by the IRS National Research
Program for tax years 2006-2014. Income adjustments from
these audits are presented in tables A3 and A5, Jason
DeBacker, Bradley Heim, Anh Tran, and Alexander Yuskavage,
``Tax Non-compliance and Measures of Income Inequality,'' Tax
Notes Federal, February 17, 2020, pp. 1103-1118. The
estimated marginal tax rates are from the Joint Committee
staff's individual tax model and combine income and SECA tax
rates.
4. In 2010 dollars. The income ranges in the table are also
in 2010 dollars.
5. Schedule E encompasses many types of income, including
partnership and S corporation income, but table A5 in
DeBacker et al. (2020) does not distinguish between them.
6. See p. 11, Gerald Auten and David Splinter, ``Comment:
Tax Evasion at the Top of the Income Distribution: Theory and
Evidence,'' August 5, 2021, available at http://
www.davidsplinter.com/AutenSplinter-TaxEvasion.pdf.
7. Table 2, DeBacker et al. (2020).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
As discussed below, we analyzed data for the most recent
years available to determine (1) audit rates by selected
income categories and the reasons for differences across
these categories, and (2) audit outcomes and resources used
for auditing individual tax returns across the income
categories and the likely reasons for any trends. Our scope
of work focused on taxpayer income and did not include
analyzing audits by other characteristics, such as type of
audit, type of auditor, or audit location.
Income levels. The Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 2020
Data Book Table 17 provides data on audit rates and results
by various groupings of total positive income. However, for
our analysis and to simplify reporting, we developed fewer,
broader income categories by combining IRS's income
groupings, as shown in table 2. We analyzed IRS data using
our broader income categories and compared the results with
IRS's groupings. When the finer-level analysis provided
additional insight, we discuss those insights in the report.
In general, we used our broad income categories throughout
the report to discuss general audit trends.
Similar to IRS, our income categories include returns with
the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). We also analyzed EITC
returns as a separate category because of their high volume
and improper payment reporting.
a. restoring irs resources
The first step in the President's efforts to restore IRS
enforcement capability is a sustained, multi-year commitment
to rebuilding the IRS. This involves spending nearly $80
billion on IRS priorities over the course of the decade
including hiring new specialized enforcement staff,
modernizing antiquated information technology, and investing
in meaningful taxpayer service--including the implementation
of the newly expanded credits aimed at providing support to
American families. Importantly, the additional resources will
go toward enforcement against those with the highest incomes,
and audit rates will not rise relative to recent years for
those earning less than $400,000 in actual income.
The President's proposal includes two components: a
dedicated stream of mandatory funds ($72.5 billion over a
decade) and a program integrity allocation ($6.7 billion over
a decade). These mechanisms provide for a sustained, multi-
year commitment to revitalizing the IRS that will give the
agency the certainty it needs to rebuild.
The IRS proposal includes year-by-year estimates of the
additional resources that will be directed toward the agency
as well as the specific activities that these resources would
support. The design ensures that the IRS is able to absorb
and usefully deploy additional resources over the entire 10-
year horizon and keeps budget growth manageable at around 10
percent per year.
____
Secretary of the Treasury,
Department of the Treasury,
Washington, DC, August 10, 2022.
Charles P. Rettig,
Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service,
Washington, DC.
Dear Commissioner: The Inflation Reduction Act includes
much-needed funding for the IRS to improve taxpayer service,
modernize outdated technological infrastructure, and increase
equity in the tax system by enforcing the tax laws against
those high-earners, large corporations, and complex
partnerships who today do not pay what they owe.
These crucial investments have been a focus of the Biden
Administration since the President's first day in office, and
I was heartened to see the legislation pass the Senate this
weekend.
Notwithstanding the changes that arose because of
Republican challenges during the Byrd process, I write today
to confirm the commitment that has been a guiding precept of
the planning that you and your team are undertaking: that
audit rates will not rise relative to recent years for
households making under $400,000 annually .
Specifically, I direct that any additional resources--
including any new personnel or auditors that are hired--shall
not be used to increase the share of small business or
households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited
relative to historical levels. This means that, contrary to
the misinformation from opponents of this legislation, small
business or households earning $400,000 per year or less will
not see an increase in the chances that they are audited.
Instead, enforcement resources will focus on high-end
noncompliance. There, sustained, multi-year funding is so
critical to
[[Page H7573]]
the agency's ability to make the investments needed to pursue
a robust attack on the tax gap by targeting crucial
challenges, like large corporations, high-net-worth
individuals and complex pass-throughs, where today the IRS
has resources to initiate just 7,500 audits annually out of
more than 4 million returns received.
This is challenging work that requires a team of
sophisticated revenue agents in place to spend thousands of
hours poring over complicated returns, and it is also work
that has huge revenue potential: indeed, an additional hour
auditing someone making more than $5 million annually
generates an estimated $4,500 of additional taxes collected.
This is essential work that I know the IRS is eager to
undertake.
For regular taxpayers, as you emphasized last week, the
result of this resource infusion will be a lower likelihood
of audit by an agency that has the data and technological
infrastructure in place to target enforcement resources where
they belong--on the high end of the income distribution,
where the top 1 percent alone is estimated to not be paying
$160 billion in owed taxes each year. That's important as a
matter of revenue-raising, but it's also essential as a
matter of fairness.
Crucially, these resources will support a much-needed
upgrade of technology that is decades out-of-date, and an
investment in taxpayer service so that the IRS is finally
able to communicate with taxpayers in an efficient, timely
manner. I look forward to working with you on creating new
digital tools to allow taxpayers to get information from the
IRS instantaneously and on improving taxpayer service, so the
agency is well-equipped to answer calls when they come in.
This historic investment in our tax system will accomplish
two critical objectives. It will raise substantial revenue to
address the deficit; and it will create a fairer system,
where those at the top who do not today comply with their tax
obligations find it far less easy to do so, and where all
taxpayers receive the service from the IRS that they deserve,
and that your dedicated workforce is eager to deliver. The
importance of the work ahead cannot be overstated.
Sincerely,
Janet L. Yellen.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please stop the
fearmongering and pandering to the extremists.
People are listening when people speak on this House floor. We had
someone show up at an FBI field office with a nail gun. Enough of the
misinformation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make one
point. The extent to which this is a partisan bill is a result of
selective memory and a willful refusal on the part of my Republican
colleagues to work with us.
This legislation is replete with items that I am proud to have
authored with Senator Grassley: The small energy wind tax credit; 30D
in terms of electric vehicles; the 179 building tax credit. These are
historically bipartisan in nature. There was a time when the
Republicans used to work with us on that. They have chosen to move in
the opposite direction, to their shame.
We are going to remedy that today.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Washington Post
piece titled, ``Climate change's impact intensifies as U.S. prepares to
take action.''
[From The Washington Post, Aug. 11, 2022]
Climate Change's Impact Intensifies as U.S. Prepares To Take Action
(By Chris Mooney, Brady Dennis and Sarah Kaplan)
For residents of the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, the
United States' recent success in clinching a major piece of
climate change legislation may feel like too little, too
late.
Over the past 40 years, as the world's largest historical
emitter of greenhouses gases repeatedly failed to take
significant action on the climate, the region surrounding
Svalbard has warmed at least four times faster than the
global average, according to significant research published
Thursday.
The study suggests that warming in the Arctic is happening
at a much faster rate than many scientists had expected. And
while U.S. lawmakers this summer hashed out the details of a
massive bill to speed their nation's shift toward cleaner
energy--the culmination of months of deliberations--the new
findings were just the latest visceral reminder that the
planet's changing climate isn't waiting around for human
action.
Recent studies on subjects including tree mortality in
North America and evidence of weakening ice-shelves in
Antarctica, combined with a stream of extreme weather events
that include last month's European heat wave and torrential
floods of late in Kentucky and South Korea, are providing
steady evidence of global warming's intensifying impact on
the planet.
The Arctic is where some of the shifts are most severe.
Svalbard, a cluster of Arctic islands famed for populations
of polar bears, experienced its hottest June on record. A
record 40 billion tons of ice from the archipelago had melted
into the ocean by the end of July. Melting permafrost and
unstable mountain slopes are threatening homes.
And that's just a sampling from a region that has warmed at
an astounding rate--roughly 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees
Fahrenheit) since 1979.
``It's a really vulnerable environment in the Arctic, and
seeing these numbers, it's worrying,'' said Antti Lipponen, a
scientist with the Finnish Meteorological Institute who
contributed to Thursday's peer-reviewed study published in
Communications Earth & Environment.
The study provides sobering context for this week's
expected passage by the House of Representatives of the
Inflation Reduction Act. Experts say it is a landmark piece
of legislation that will drive down U.S. emissions of
greenhouse gases by incentivizing the purchase of electric
vehicles and energy-efficient appliances, and a quickening
pace of renewable-energy installations. Recent estimates
suggest that the bill could lower U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions by as much as a billion tons per year by the end of
2030.
But that's still tiny, compared with the more than 2
trillion tons of planet-warming carbon dioxide gas that
humanity has emitted since the year 1850--a figure that does
not include any other warming gases, such as methane, which
also is playing a major role in the world's temperature
increases.
The Inflation Reduction Act will mark ``an historic
moment'' for the United States--one that hasn't seemed
plausible since President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al
Gore pushed for significant action in the 1990s, said Bill
Hare, a climate scientist and the chief executive at Climate
Analytics, a prominent science and policy institute. The bill
could have a global ripple effect that spurs other countries
to take more ambitious steps, Hare said.
Yet, Hare noted that the legislation does not bring the
United States to President Biden's goal of cutting emissions
at least in half by 2030 from their 2005 levels. It also
includes provisions for additional oil and gas drilling and
easing permitting processes for fossil fuel infrastructure--
contradicting findings from the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the world must
nearly eliminate coal and significantly slash the use of oil
and natural gas to have a hope of avoiding catastrophic
warming.
At the same time, Hare noted, there is an ongoing ``rush
for gas'' in Africa and Australia ``that is quite
inconsistent with the Paris agreement,'' the 2015 accord in
which nations vowed to progressively lower their emissions to
avoid dangerous levels of warming. And Russia's war in
Ukraine has prompted a near-term scramble for fossil fuels
even in relatively climate-conscious Europe.
These forces continue to push the world off track from
meeting the Paris accord's most ambitious goal: limiting
global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7
degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. Beyond that
threshold, experts warn, the world faces a future of chronic
food crises, escalating natural disasters and collapsing
ecosystems.
Already, with the world have warmed by roughly 1.1 degrees
Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit), deadly climate impacts are
unfolding. Europe is broiling amid record-setting heat waves
that have scorched crops and sparked wildfires. At least
eight people were killed in Seoul as the heaviest rainfall in
more than 100 years deluged the South Korean capital.
Droughts have ravaged Mexico and contributed to a spiraling
hunger crisis in East Africa. In the United States, people
are dying of extreme heat, and in overwhelming Hoods and
raging wildfires.
``This summer is just a horrorscape,'' said Kim Cobb, a
climate scientist at Brown University and the lead author of
the IPCC's most recent report on the science of climate
change. ``And I know it won't be stopping in the near term.''
These disasters underscore what an exploding body of
scientific research continues to show: that adverse climate
change continues to outpace the plodding progress of
political action. Even a historic investment such as the
Inflation Reduction Act, Cobb said, is dwarfed by the scale
of the crisis.
``There needs to be an infinite acceleration in frequency
of this kind of legislation,'' she said. ``I think the planet
is sending that message pretty loud and clear.''
Startling trends in the Arctic
Take the new Arctic study, which shows that the amplified
warming occurring at the top of the planet, while long
expected, exceeds what climate models predict by a noticeable
margin. ``We suspect that either this is an extremely
unlikely event, or the climate models systematically
underestimate this Arctic amplification,'' Lipponen said of
the rapid pace of Arctic warming.
[[Page H7574]]
The study takes as its starting point the year 1979 because
of the availability of satellite data covering the Arctic. It
defines the Arctic as the region above the Arctic Circle, and
the authors acknowledge that if longer periods are considered
or if the Arctic is defined more broadly, the rate of Arctic
warming can appear somewhat less.
The warming is most concentrated to the east of Svalbard,
in the Barents and Kara seas, regions that have also seen
some of the fastest loss of Arctic sea ice. This ice has
traditionally reflected a huge amount of the sun's heat back
into space, keeping the planet cool. But as it vanishes from
the sea surface, more sunlight is absorbed by the ocean--and
then the warmer sea surface supports even less ice.
It is one of the most well-known climate ``feedbacks''--a
phenomenon through which an effect of warming contributes to
further warmth. Although scientists try to account for this
feedback in the models they use to predict future climate
change, they might be underestimating it. At the extreme, the
new study finds some regions between Svalbard and the Russian
island of Novaya Zemlya that are warming at a rate of over
1.25 degrees Celsius, or 2.25 degrees Fahrenheit, every
decade,
That's massively disruptive to Arctic life, human and
otherwise.
But interconnections among the ice, atmosphere, land and
ocean mean that no part of the planet will be unaffected. As
extreme temperatures bake the carbon-rich permafrost of
northern landscapes, the thawing earth releases carbon
dioxide gas.
Even as people begin to cut their emissions, nature's
emissions have just begun.
A sudden collapse
There's also concerning news from the other pole.
NASA scientists, led by Chad Greene, have derived a
technique allowing them to study the enormous, sometimes
country-size platforms of ice, called ice shelves, that
encircle Antarctica. These are Earth's main defenses against
massive sea level rise, acting as a bracing mechanism that
holds back Antarctica's inland ice.
But the shelves are sustaining severe damage. Several, like
Larsen A and B, have collapsed entirely. Thwaites Glacier,
Antarctica's most worrying and perhaps most vulnerable spot,
has lost about 2 trillion tons of ice from its ice shelf,
which has dramatically retracted inland, new research found.
The overall area lost from Antarctic ice shelves since 1997--
about 14,000 square miles--is a little bit larger than
Maryland and represents about 2 percent of the total ice
shelf area.
As a reminder of these ice shelves' vulnerability, the
Conger Ice Shelf in East Antarctica--traditionally thought to
be the coldest and most stable part of the ice sheet--
suddenly collapsed this year.
Conger was not very large for an Antarctic shelf--merely
the size of a large city. But its unexpected collapse--which
appears to have been triggered by a sudden period of unusual
warmth--should prompt alarm, scientist say.
``It means that Antarctica's ice shelves are vulnerable,
and they can still surprise us,'' NASA's Greene, who works at
the agency's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said of the event.
Greene's study, which appeared in Nature this week, was co-
written with colleagues from NASA and the University of
Tasmania.
``Conger counters a common expectation that ice shelf
collapse should only occur after a long period of thinning
and weakening,'' he continued. ``Conger tells us that ice
shelves can collapse without any warning signs whatsoever.''
Imperiled northern forests
In another sign of the swiftly shifting climate, new
research this week also details how tree species that
dominate North American boreal forests--including firs,
spruces and pines--are experiencing growing stress and a
decline in the survival of saplings in response to rising
temperatures and reduced rainfall.
The five-year, open-air experiment details how critical
trees that have populated the southern edge of boreal
forests--a key ecosystem for wildlife, timber production and
for soaking up massive amounts of carbon dioxide--are
suffering profound impacts as the world warms. But the
species that are most likely to replace them, such as maples,
are not poised to expand their distribution fast enough to
fully replace the trees that are on their way toward dying
out.
``The species that are most abundant there are much more
vulnerable to climate change than I and other scientists had
thought,'' said Peter Reich, a lead author of the study also
published in Nature and a longtime forest ecology professor
at the University of Minnesota.
If current trends continue, Reich said, swaths of boreal
forests ``will be impoverished, and they might even fall
apart or collapse'' over the next half-century unless warming
slows. ``The take-home message for me is that a large part of
boreal forests, one of the largest carbon sinks in the world,
is probably going to take a pretty good hit in the next 40,
50 years, even in a best-case scenario,'' he said.
That's disturbing news, because Earth needs to gain
forests, not lose them, as people try to employ every trick
in the book to get carbon that is in the atmosphere back into
plants, soils, rocks and even underground storage caverns.
Reich sees his most recent findings in a broader context:
While the climate-focused legislation expected to pass in
Congress this week is a positive, the impacts of climate
change will continue to accelerate, and they will require
more far-reaching action.
Reich called the Inflation Reduction Act a ``good first
step'' but added that ``even in the most optimistic scenario,
there's going to be a lot of pain and suffering.''
``It's going to take an economic toll on poor and rich
alike in the future,'' he said. ``We shouldn't pat ourselves
on the back and say, `Mission accomplished.' ''
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of great things in
this legislation. I want to focus on one thing that is important for
San Antonio.
In 2019, my county, Bexar County, had the second-highest death toll
from diabetes. My grandmother died from diabetes. My mom is diabetic. I
remember going with my grandmother, and she would inject insulin into
herself. Sometimes she had trouble paying for it and spent days,
sometimes several days, at the hospital.
There are so many people--senior citizens--in this country who will
benefit from the fact that we are capping insulin costs at $35 a month
and prescription drug costs, humble, hardworking people who don't ask a
lot from us or their government but will benefit incredibly from this
legislation.
I say thank you to everybody who supported it and who is getting it
across the finish line. It is going to be great for the country.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I don't see any other speakers on our
side, so I yield to the gentleman for his closing, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as we close out this debate, once again, I acknowledge
that I have been aided on the floor during rule debate by the able
services of Rachel Huggins, who, unfortunately, is leaving my office at
the end of this month to join the Foreign Service. Our loss is the
Foreign Service's gain, but she will continue to serve her country and
serve her country well. We are so grateful for her service that she has
provided in both my office and at the Rules Committee.
Now, despite the name, this bill will do very little to reduce
inflation. According to an analysis by the University of Pennsylvania
Wharton School, the bill increases inflation through 2024 while having
an overall negligible effect.
You would almost need to be an atomic physicist to be able to measure
on a molecular level how much this is going to reduce inflation, but it
is going to increase Federal spending. We know already the increase in
Federal spending is what lit the fire of inflation in the first place.
This is a bad bill. Reject the previous question so we can take up
Mr. Smith's amendment. Reject the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The decision before us is simple. I don't know what my friends across
the aisle find so off-putting about making historic investments in
healthcare, cutting costs at pharmacy counters, combating climate
change, slashing energy prices, and reducing the Federal deficit. Maybe
they are just angry that we want to lower costs for the American people
by making the wealthy pay their fair share. Or maybe it is because they
know that this bill will put their Big Pharma and Big Oil buddies on
notice.
Do you know what? I am proud of what we are finally doing here. I am
proud that we are finally allowing drug prices to be negotiated to
lower those costs. I am proud that we are extending the biggest
expansion in healthcare coverage in a decade. I am proud that we are
reducing future energy costs for thousands of families. I am proud that
we are making the biggest investment to combat climate change ever.
Today, we are putting people over politics. People over politics,
that is what Democrats are about. Today, we are delivering.
I know it took a while to get us to this point. It is a testament to
the President and the Vice President. It is a testament to the Speaker
of the House and to the Democrats on both sides of the Capitol that we
are finally pushing this across the finish line. It is a testament to
the climate activists,
[[Page H7575]]
especially the young people who have been fighting for action. It is a
testament to the senior activists, groups like AARP, that have been
fighting tirelessly to get prescription drug costs down lower so
seniors don't have to choose between their prescription drugs and
paying their rent or their utility bills.
We have done it. We have moved the ball.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to seize this opportunity
before us. Vote for this rule and the underlying legislation so that
the American people can truly have a fair shot in the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 1316
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:
That immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the Senate
amendment to the bill {H.R. 5376) to provide for
reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14. The
first reading of the Senate amendment shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the Senate
amendment are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
Senate amendment and shall not exceed three hours equally
divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and
ranking minority members of the Committees on the Budget,
Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, or their respective
designees. After general debate the Senate amendment shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. No
amendment to the Senate amendment shall be in order except
the amendment specified in section 4 of this resolution. That
amendment may be offered only by Representative Smith of
Nebraska or his designee, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question. All points of order against that amendment
are waived.
Sec. 2. Upon disposition of the proposed House amendment
made in order in the first section of this resolution, the
Committee of the Whole shall rise and report the Senate
amendment to the House with such amendment as may have been
adopted.
Sec. 3. (a) If the Committee of the Whole reports the
Senate amendment back to the House with an amendment, the
pending question shall be a motion that the House concur in
the Senate amendment with such amendment. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its
adoption without intervening motion.
(b) If the Committee of the Whole reports the Senate
amendment back to the House without amendment or the question
of adoption referred to in subsection (a) fails, the pending
question shall be a motion that the House concur in the
Senate amendment. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening
motion.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in the first section of
this resolution is as follows:
In section 10301(1)(A) of the Senate amendment, strike
clauses (ii) and (iii).
In section 10301 of the Senate amendment, strike paragraphs
(2), (3), (4), and (5).
Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5376.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 208, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 418]
YEAS--219
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--208
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--3
Gallagher
Kinzinger
Pence
{time} 1121
Mr. GAETZ changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Amodei (Keller)
Axne (Wexton)
Bacon (Stauber)
Baird (Mooney)
Barr (Guthrie)
Barragan (Blunt Rochester)
Bass (Kuster)
Bentz (Fitzgerald)
Bera (Beyer)
Bonamici (Beyer)
[[Page H7576]]
Bost (Miller-Meeks)
Brownley (Kuster)
Buchanan (Franklin, C. Scott)
Bucshon (Banks)
Budd (Donalds)
Bush (Bowman)
Calvert (Valadao)
Cardenas (Correa)
Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
Cawthorn (Boebert)
Cherfilus-McCormick (Takano)
Cicilline (Foster)
Cohen (Beyer)
Comer (Guthrie)
Connolly (Beyer)
Cooper (Blunt Rochester)
Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
Curtis (Stewart)
DeFazio (Pallone)
DeGette (Perlmutter)
DeLauro (Courtney)
DeSaulnier (Perlmutter)
DesJarlais (Fleischmann)
Deutch (Rice (NY))
Diaz-Balart (Salazar)
Doggett (Takano)
Doyle, Michael F. (Bowman)
Dunn (Cammack)
Escobar (Garcia (TX))
Fallon (Gohmert)
Flores (Pfluger)
Frankel, Lois (Kuster)
Garbarino (Fleischmann)
Gibbs (Balderson)
Gomez (Correa)
Gonzales, Tony (Gimenez)
Gosar
(Reschenthaler)
Gottheimer (Neguse)
Granger (Weber (TX))
Graves (MO) (Guthrie)
Green (TN) (Fleischmann)
Guest (Fleischmann)
Harder (CA) (Beyer)
Hartzler (Tenney)
Herrell (Norman)
Herrera Beutler (Stewart)
Huffman (Beyer)
Jackson (Burgess)
Jacobs (NY) (Fleischmann)
Johnson (GA) (Pallone)
Johnson (SD)
(Reschenthaler)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Joyce (PA) (Keller)
Kahele (Correa)
Keating (Pappas)
Kelly (IL) (Blunt Rochester)
Khanna (Pappas)
Kilmer (Strickland)
Kim (CA) (Miller-Meeks)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Krishnamoorthi (Neguse)
LaHood
(Reschenthaler)
LaMalfa (Fleischmann)
Lamborn (Fleischmann)
Langevin (Lynch)
Lawrence (Stevens)
Lawson (FL) (Soto)
Leger Fernandez (Correa)
Lesko (Fleischmann)
Letlow (Tenney)
Levin (MI) (Correa)
Lieu (Takano)
Lucas (Bice (OK))
Luetkemeyer (Meuser)
Manning (Wexton)
Matsui (Eshoo)
McBath (Blunt Rochester)
McEachin (Beyer)
McHenry (Cammack)
McNerney (Correa)
Meng (Kuster)
Miller (WV) (Mooney)
Moore (UT) (Stewart)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (Correa)
Napolitano (Correa)
Nehls
(Reschenthaler)
Ocasio-Cortez (Bowman)
Omar (Bowman)
Owens (Donalds)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Panetta (Correa)
Payne (Pallone)
Phillips (Pappas)
Pingree (Kuster)
Porter (Wexton)
Pressley (Bowman)
Price (NC) (Butterfield)
Rice (SC) (Gonzalez (OH))
Rodgers (WA) (Bilirakis)
Rogers (KY)
(Reschenthaler)
Roybal-Allard (Correa)
Rush (Blunt Rochester)
Sanchez (Perlmutter)
Sarbanes
(Ruppersberger)
Schakowsky (Bowman)
Sherman (Beyer)
Sires (Pallone)
Smith (NJ) (Kelly (PA))
Smith (WA) (Courtney)
Steel (Miller-Meeks)
Steube (Franklin, C. Scott)
Suozzi (Perlmutter)
Swalwell (Stevens)
Taylor (Burgess)
Thompson (CA) (Eshoo)
Thompson (PA) (Keller)
Timmons (Donalds)
Titus (Pallone)
Tlaib (Dingell)
Tonko (Pallone)
Torres (NY) (Strickland)
Trahan (Lynch)
Trone (Beyer)
Van Drew (Tenney)
Van Duyne (Babin)
Vargas (Takano)
Wagner (Guthrie)
Walberg (Bergman)
Watson Coleman (Bowman)
Welch (Pallone)
Wenstrup (Guthrie)
Wilson (FL) (Soto)
Wilson (SC) (Duncan)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________