[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 143 (Wednesday, September 6, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4213-S4214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Inflation

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we recently passed the first anniversary of 
the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, and despite the White House's 
showy anniversary celebration, this legislation is not aging well, and 
that is not exactly a surprise.
  It was clear from the beginning that this bill had problems. It was 
called the Inflation Reduction Act. Yet before the bill had been signed 
into law, the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model was noting that the 
bill's impact on inflation was ``statistically indistinguishable from 
zero.'' In other words, the Inflation Reduction Act would do nothing to 
reduce inflation. Even President Biden has essentially admitted that 
the bill's name was misleading.
  It was also clear from the outset that the bill's claims of deficit 
reduction were extremely shaky, relying on accounting gimmicks and 
fuzzy math. Then, of course, there were the hundreds of billions of 
dollars in tax hikes on American businesses--rarely, I might add, a 
strategy that produces economic growth or benefits for working 
Americans. There was a massive funding infusion to the IRS focused not 
on improving taxpayer services, interestingly enough, but on increasing 
audits to help fund the Democrats' Green New Deal agenda--and more.
  The best that could be said for the Inflation Reduction Act when it 
passed, which isn't much, was that it was less damaging than the 
staggering multitrillion-dollar spending spree Democrats had originally 
tried to implement, their so-called Build Back Better Act.
  So it is not exactly a surprise that the Inflation Reduction Act 
isn't aging well, but it has become clear over the past year that the 
bill is even worse than it appeared originally. It was already an 
expensive piece of legislation, but the bill's costs have ballooned 
alarmingly.
  The bill's Green New Deal provisions, which were originally projected 
to cost around $400 billion, are now expected to cost somewhere in the 
range of $660 billion to more than $1 trillion. Let me repeat that. The 
bill's Green New Deal provisions, which were originally projected to 
cost around $400 billion, are now expected to cost somewhere in the 
range of $660 billion to more than $1 trillion.
  If Democrats' deficit reduction plans for this bill were shaky 
before, they are really, really shaky now. It is not hard to imagine 
that the steep increase in the bill's costs could mean that it ends up 
adding to the deficit instead of reducing it, and now it has emerged 
that some of the biggest beneficiaries of the bill's green energy 
subsidies are not American companies but foreign companies. Not only 
that, but billion-dollar companies are expected to receive the lion's 
share of the bill's green energy tax subsidies--ironic for a President 
who claims he wants to make big companies ``pay their fair share.'' It 
also turns out that the bill's provisions are actually driving up the 
cost of green energy projects and inflating the cost of project 
materials and labor. It is no wonder that President Biden recently said 
of the Inflation Reduction Act:

       I wish I hadn't called it that.

  And I haven't even mentioned other aspects of this legislation like 
the bill's price controls for prescription drugs, which will curtail 
medical innovation and the development of new medications. When the 
Biden administration originally proposed this policy, research from the 
University of Chicago projected that price controls on prescription 
drugs in Medicare would result in 135 fewer new drugs available to 
patients. Now, we are seeing those projections come to fruition as 
multiple drug companies have indicated that they are halting research 
into new treatments for cancer and other diseases as a result of the 
Inflation Reduction Act.
  President Biden has been spending a lot of time recently talking 
about his economic philosophy, or lack thereof, which he has taken to 
calling Bidenomics. According to the White House, it is a philosophy 
based on ``growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up,'' 
while also spending responsibly. It is a nice-sounding vision, but it 
has little to do with the economic reality in the Biden administration.
  The so-called American Rescue Plan Act--the massive Democrat spending 
spree that helped plunge our economy into a 2-year-plus inflation 
crisis--is proof enough that ``spending responsibly'' is not exactly 
the modus operandi for Democrats and President Biden. And as for 
``growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up,'' well, if 
the President really thinks he is doing that, I have a nice piece of 
oceanfront property in South Dakota to sell him.
  In fact, it is lower and middle-income Americans who have suffered 
the most in the Biden economy. Prices have increased by more than 16 
percent since the President took office, by more than 20 percent for 
groceries, and inflation is costing the average household more than 
$900 per month--$900 per month. Show me a working family who finds that 
affordable.

  Bidenomics, according to the President, is supposed to be about 
lifting up working families, but, in reality, working families in the 
Biden economy are struggling just to get by.
  A grim line in a news story the other day noted:

       With 60% of people in the United States living paycheck to 
     paycheck, households are

[[Page S4214]]

     turning to credit cards and retirement savings as lifelines.
       With 60% of people in the United States living paycheck to 
     paycheck, households are turning to credit cards and 
     retirement savings as lifelines.

  That is the reality of life under Bidenomics. But you only need to 
listen to one of the President's speeches to know that the President 
isn't overly troubled by economic reality. Lately, the President has 
been taking credit for the recent moderation in the inflation rate. 
Well, that takes a lot of gall. It is a little bit like punching a hole 
in a boat and then taking credit for rescuing the occupants from 
drowning--except, in this case, the President isn't even doing the 
rescuing.
  The rate of inflation has slowed in spite of the White House, not 
because of it. In fact, if the President had his way, Congress would 
have passed a lot more reckless spending, and inflation would likely 
have gotten even worse.
  As it is, Americans are having to deal not only with the ongoing 
effects of Democrats' self-inflicted inflation crisis but with the 
steep rate hikes the Federal Reserve has imposed to dig us out of the 
Democrats' inflation mess. These rate hikes have made borrowing more 
expensive, putting the dream of homeownership or necessities like 
replacing an aging car out of reach for many Americans.
  And there may be more economic pain on the way if Democrats have 
their way. The Democratic leader recently promised--or perhaps I should 
say threatened--to pass an even bigger Green New Deal bill than the 
Inflation Reduction Act if Democrats regain full control of Washington 
in the next election. I don't even want to think about how much that 
kind of legislation could cost taxpayers or what damage that kind of 
legislation could do to our economy.
  The President can talk all he wants about Bidenomics as building the 
economy from the bottom up and the middle out. To Americans who have 
lived under the Biden economy, Bidenomics means something very 
different. Perhaps the President should check in with the 58 percent of 
workers who say the economy has gotten worse over the past 2 years 
before he gives his next celebratory speech.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.