[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.

                          ____________________