c-span.org. the u.s. senate is seo gaveling to consider the nomination of elizabeth wilson hanes to be u.s. district judge for the eastern district of virginia. i confirmation vote on her nomination is expected later this afternoon. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are 37 and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions.

mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: madam president, this is my first day back in the

senate since contracting covid last week. it's good to be back, particularly for an historic week. i'm grateful to the health care professionals and brilliant scientists who developed the covid vaccines and therapies so quickly. and the federal funding that made their work possible. luckily, i'm double-vaccine and double-boosted and i encourage everyone. get your shots. madam president, at 6:18 this past sunday morning in a wealthy neighborhood in kabul, afghanistan, two u.s. hellfire missiles delivered justice at last to an al qaeda leader, ayman al-zawahiri. zawahiri is dead, and the world is better for it. he was a terrible man who brought horrific suffering to countless numbers of people, innocent people throughout the world.

he was second in command to osama bin laden during 9/11. it claimed nearly 3,000 innocent american lives. he was the mastermind behind the bombings of the u.s. embassies in kenya and tanzania in 1998 and the bombing of the u.s.s. coal in the yemeni port in 2000. he claimed to act on behalf of islam, yet his hands were stained with the blood of innocents, including countless muslims. bost since the death of bin laden -- since the death of bin laden 11 years ago, zawahiri has been the leader of al qaeda. he had been rumored to be hiding in the tribal areas of pakistan and afghanistan. he was finally discovered living in with his family in a wealthy neighbored in had the center of kabul. the u.s. intelligence community and the cia deserve great credit for their careful professional work over months to verify zawahiri's location and identity

and president biden deserves credit. at least three u.s. presidents hunted down this man. joe biden's administration finally succeeded in ridding the world of this terrible person. the war in afghanistan was america's longest war by far. 20 bloody years. donald trump, before he left office, set the deadline to end that war, a decision that joe biden inherited and america completed one year ago this month. i supported that decision to withdraw troops from afghanistan at the same time president biden and military leaders warned extremists not to confuse the withdrawal of american boots on the ground with any reduction of our commitment to fight terrorism. the death of zawahiri is proof that those who harm u.s. citizens, u.s. troops, and u.s.

interests will find no safe quarter in this world. madam president, you don't have to go to ground zero in new york or to the pentagon or to the field in shanksville, pennsylvania to see reminders of the terrible suffering that came out of 9/11. you can walk outside of the senate chamber and see iraq and afghanistan veterans and their families who still bear the scars of war. for years they and many others have urged the veterans administration to finally provide health care for the veterans who were exposed to toxins during their service. last thursday many of these veterans traveled to washington. they came here to see a celebration, the passage of the pact act, and president biden's promise to sign it. it's a critical bill designed to provide v.a. health services for 3.45 million toxic-exposed

veterans. instead of a celebration, they witnessed a betrayal. at the last minute, 25 republican senators who had just voted for the pact act six weeks earlier voted against it. they voted against giving toxic-exposed military veterans the v.a. health care they deserved. since then these veterans, their family members, and supporters have been holding a vigil on the steps of the capitol. they remain there through rain and steaming heat to remind us of our deuterto help them. veterans a-- of our duty to help them. veterans across this nation and some out on the steps are sick and dying with cancer and other disorders because they were exposed to burn pits, agent orange, and other chemical poison. these are wounds of war and they should be treated that way. veterans who have risked their

lives for our freedom must not be treated as collateral damage in a political skirmish. jon tester, chairman of the veterans' committee, has shown real leadership on this. jon states it ever so simply and i think we should all remember -- we have to face the real costs of war. we talk about our annual budgets. we talk about the body counts. we talk about all the issues that face us. but we face the reality that those who served in our wars come home many times with visible but often invisible scars that haunt them for a lifetime. those are the real costs of war. this bill, the pact act that jon tester and senator moran of kansas brought to this floor, address those costs. it is time for us to get it right in the united states senate. there is a rumor on the floor that there may be an agreement that even today we're going to vote on this.

none too soon. those veterans waiting on the steps deserve it and the millions at home who are watching this, their families, and others who love them, watching this in the hopes of what we do on the floor the senate will finally give them some comfort in their lives. the senate must hold another vote on the pact act, and i hope it will be today. that's the rumor on the floor. let's get it right this time. let'sresemble the coalition that got it right the first time. on a bipartisan basis, we can stand up for those who stood up and served our nation. on another matter, madam president, the last several days have brought a stream of troubling revelations about the disappearance of secret service and department of homeland security text messages from around the time of the deadly january 6, 2021, insurrection on

this capitol. the missing texts could provide critical evidence about one of the worst crimes and greatest threats to our constitution ever perpetrated in america. the disappearance of this critical information could jeopardize efforts to learn the full truth about january 6 and hold responsible anyone who planned and participated in that attack. i don't know whether the failure to preserve these critical government texts from january 6 is the result of bad faith or stunning incompetence. but i do know that the man who has overseen this fiasco is not the right person to investigate it. this man has lost whatever credibility he may have once had on this matter. that is why i've asked attorney general merrick garland to step in and take control of this investigation into the missing texts. this is what we know so far -- joseph cuffari was nominated to

be inspector general of homeland security by former president donald trump. he remains in that position today. the department of homeland security includes the secret service and many other critical government agencies. inspectors general are supposed to be independent watchdogs for their department and make sure that the people working in that department don't engage in waste, fraud, or abuse. if there is any problem the inspector general is required by law to report it to congress. in recent weeks, we learned belatedly from mr. cuffari, this inspector general, that, number one, his office asked the secret service last february for text messages, e-mails, and other records that a could shed light on january 6. and he was met with months -- months -- of delay and stonewalling. mr. cuffari has known since at least this february, of this

year, that secret service texts from january 6 had been erased and supposedly routine resets of the agency phones. imagine that. agencies entrusted with the security of the united states when there is a handoff of official phones that they are erased at that time? mr. cuffari did not share that information with congress for five months. five months. mr. cuffari also belatedly informed congress that texts from the cell phones from the top two leaders in the department of homeland security during the insurrection, acting secretary chad wolf, acting deputy secretary ken cuccinelli, were apparently lost during another reset after they turned in their government phones. imagine, the fumbling of critical information about an event as historic agency the january 6 -- as historic as the january 6 mob that invaded this

capitol. department staff actually came up with a plan to retrieve the calculated e-mails when they first learned of that. listen to this. mr. cuffari of's office canceled the plan. the department of homeland security has some of the most sophisticated intelligence and investigative capabilities, not just in the united states but in the world. it's hard to believe that this department accidentally deleted texts that could shed light on one of the greatest constitutional events and crimes ever committed in the history of the united states. but it would be just as problematic if they did. either way, we need to get to the bottom of this. this month, after news of the missing texts became public and his office came under criticism, mr. cuffari belatedly opened a criminal investigation into the secret service's missing text

messages. it was the right thing to do. but he's the wrong person to do it. mr. cuffari has lost his credibility. the same law a louse mr. cuffari to conduct this criminal investigation, the inspector general act, gives to the attorney general of the united states the power to take control of it. it's time for attorney general garland to step in and oversee this investigation with impartial professionalism that justice and history demand. madam president, i'd like to ask the next statement i make be placed in a separate pardon in the record. -- separate part in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, it was february when i was watching the super bowl with my family at home. i noticed something that was odd. there was lebron james on tv in a commercial. he tells a younger version of himself, quote, if you want to make history, you've got to call your own shots. he was promoting cryptocom, a

cryptocurrency based in singapore. soon after one of my favorite comedians appeared on-screen -- larry david. he warned viewers not to, quote, miss out on crypto. that ad was sponsored by a different crypto exchange headquartered in the bahamas. i saw these ads and thought to myself, what's going on here? this is a football game. both companies just a few years old. 30-second ads cost millions of dollars -- $7 million, i understand. i can't imagine enlisting lebron james and larry david for that purpose. so how exactly can these exchanges that most americans have never heard of afford to shell out tens of millions of dollars on super bowl ads and, better yet, why? last week national public radio ran a story to help answer my question. these cryptocompanies weren't simply promoting those products.

they were trying to create a veneer of credibility. these super bowl ads were high-stakes attempts to convince hardworking americans into investing in volatile, unwieldy and poorly regulated assets called cryptocurrency. unfortunately, it seeps to be working. let me tell you about michelle murkowski. she watched the same ads i did on the super bowl. she shared her story with national public radio. when she saw celebrities promoting cryptoproducts, she said it convinced her that, quote, it's not just scammers that are using them. i felt safe to put my money there. so how did her investment pan out? well, three months after the super bowl, she is down $8,000. she was another victim of the cryptomarket meltdown that began in may. in the course of 24 hours, more than $200 billion of value in

the crypto industry vanished. just last week the industry lost more than 5% of its value in one day. these rapid losses convinced michelle to cash out. how does she feel about her crypto experience today? she said there's definitely peace that comes with sell something off such a volatile asext i don't have to worry every day, a am i losing another $1,000? michelle was lucky to cut her losses. but for those who can't afford a thousand dollars emergency, losing $8,000 in three months is a disaster. that's the difference between paying your rent and living on the street. if you're a retail investor with money to invest, and you want to try your hand at the crypto casino, grab your chips.

but when we're talking about an industry that has shed hundreds of billions of dollars, it's time for caution. cryptocurrencies are poorly regulated, if they are regulated at all. and bit coin has lost two-thirds of its value since last november. the cost of one bit coin -- they are not only volatile, they are virtually untraceable. compare that to an investment of a share of stock, and, yes, there is risk in the stock market. if you're a retail investor and buy a couple of$00 of a share in a company, you know there is risk, that's the nature of investment. but here's the difference, when you buy a stock under the law, you can find out important information about the company. how many products are they

selling? how much are they paying their executives? what risk does the company foreme? you have significantly -- foresee? you have significantly for ability to see where your investments are going. they are regulated by the securities and exchange commission. with cryptocurrencys there is no transparency. where are the disclosures? where are the consumer protections? in many cases there are none. instead of encouraging working families to risk their hard-earned cash into remarkably unstable investments, let's pump the brakes on the rocket to the moon. i sent a letter last tuesday to fidelity investments, one of the biggest 401(k) providers in the world. in april they made a decision that surprised and concerned me.

fidelity said they will allow 401(k) sponsors to offer planned participants expose tiewr to bit coin. -- exposure to bit coin. a 401(k) is a vehicle that tens of millions of merches rely on so -- americans rely on so they can retire in dignity. during this period of economic uncertain, i can't think of -- any reason to expose retirement savers to new risk. as we all saw on super bowl sunday, whether it's matt damon or lebron james, there is no shortage of people who want to invest in crypto. my hope is that fidelity will live up to its name and reverse that standard. even if you don't invest in a single cryptocurrency, we all have a stake in this industry. why? because the process for

so-called mining of these digital assets consumes jaw-dropping amounts of energy. as of may, according to the public broadcasting system, the world's bit coin mining operations had an annual energy budget equal to the entire country of argentina, or all the tea kettles in england boiling for 70 years. or enough to power every home in houston. that is just bit coin. that doesn't account for the fossil fuels being used to burn other coins. when selects like larry david are hawking an asset that is unstable and pumping untold amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, we should all look

at this trillion dollar industry that is not even old enough to drive a car. i've been in meetings with my colleagues on cryptocurrency. i have tried to learn as much as i can, but it is an extremely complicated operation. i will tell you this. i fear we will do something, but not enough. i fear that just a limited amount of regulation by the federal government may convince people that we really have a grip on what's happening in this industry. there is risk associated with it that is major. i've had some well-known and very successful individuals in my office, and i've asked them, they've made millions of dollars. what about crypto? most of them said i wouldn't touch it. yet, we've got to tell the american people when it's advertised, when it's available, you've got to be careful, particularly when it comes to people with limited assets or with a limited situation when it comes to risk and people putting

literally their savings and their retirement on the line with these investments. that's why i joined my colleagues in writing to fidelity and asked them to rationalize how this could be a part of the 401(k) plan. we need to provide them with this information, it's fundamental, it's fair and it's the only way to guarantee to them they have some grip on making investments in their best interest and might not be as well.

>> i want to focus for a minute on the successful strike against zawahiri. our professionals did a extraordinary job. congratulations to them. but i think it's also important to remember that about a year ago, we pulled out of afghanistan. at the time the taliban was out of power and al-qaeda was not around. so it is noteworthy where zawahiri was. many kabul.

in kabul. so al-qaeda is back as a result of the taliban being back in power. and describing the current situation in afghanistan as a success is utterly absurd. about a month ago, in fact, the administration sent a gitmo record -- terrorist to kabul. we sent a gitmo terrorist to kabul. so after 20 years, in fact, the afghanistan strategy was working, the taliban was out of power, al-qaeda was not around, with we were not losing people many combat. in combat. and that precipitous decision to withdraw a year ago produced the return of the conditions that were there before 9/11.

>> the inflation reduction tax that the democrat -- i should say the inflation reduction act that the democrats are proposin- [laughter] yes, that was a freudian slip there. is a title that would make orwell blush. i mean, if you think about what the democrats are suggesting here, you know, we've had record 40-year-high inflation, and we've got now two consecutive quarters of a negative if economic growth which however the administration wants to define it is a recession. and here they are talking about raising taxes, increasing spending and sticking it to the job creators in this country within when we're trying to deal with some economic challenges for which those are the absolute wrong prescription. and if you look even now at the penn wharton model which some democrats have kind of held out as the gold standard in the

past, have suggested it wouldn't have any positive impact on inflation in the long run. in fact, it would increase it mt. near term. and you look at what the joint economic committee said and their analysis which is that lower income americans -- in other words, those under $100,000 a year -- would bear a significant burden as a result of these tax hikes being imposed or being proposed by the democrats. in fact, next year, 20 the 23 -- 2023 alone, people under that income if category would end up paying an additional $17 billion as a result of the tax hikes being proposed by the democrats. so this is just yet another example of an administration, leadership here in congress, that is totally out of touch with what the american people care about. and the american people have figured this out, and they understand that there is nothing to be gained for them by raising tax as on oil and gas -- taxes on oil and gas -- never news.

the minority leader and i have o o the pact act this evening. there will be three amendment votes, a 60-vote margin on the toomey amendment, on the paul amendment, and a the blackburn amendment and 60 votes for the bill. i'm very optimistic that this bill will pass. so our veterans across america can breathe a sigh of relief. the treatment that they deserve and have needed but have been denied by the v.a. because of all kinds of legal barriers and presumptions will now be gone. veterans who were exposed to the toxic fumes of burn pits will be treated by the v.a. like they should have been from the very beginning. so this is good news. it took us a while to get here, but i'm grateful for the bipartisan cooperation and support that will allow us to move forward today. and a little bit more of good

news. the fact that we can finish pact today gives us a real opportunity to do the treaties that will allow finland and sweden to join nato. and that can happen tomorrow if we can come to a time agreement. i'm very hopeful that that can happen as well. so i ask unanimous consent that at 4:00 p.m. today, the senate proceed to legislative session and resume consideration of the house message to accompany s. 3373 with the time until 5:00 p.m. equally divided. further, that it be in order to consider and vote in relation to a paul motion to concur with amendment numbered 5184, toomey motion to concur with amendment 5186, and a blackburn motion to concur with amendment 5185. that at 5:00 p.m., the senate vote in relation to the motions in the order listed, that following disposition of the motions to concur with

amendments numbered 5184, 5186, and 5185, the motion to refer and the amendments pending thereto and the motion to concur with amendment 5148 and the amendment pending thereto be withdrawn and the senate vote on the motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 3373. that the paul, toomey, and blackburn motions and the motion to concur be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold with two minutes for debate equally divided prior to each vote. and that all votes after the first vote be ten-minute votes, all without intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

>> i want to focus for a minute on the successful strike against zawahiri. our professionals did a

extraordinary job, congratulations to them. but i think it's also important to remember that about a year ago we pulled out of afghanistan. at the time, the taliban was out of power, and al-qaeda was not around. democrats dropped the latest version of their tax-and-spending spree last week. and like every previous version, this bill is a bad deal for the american people. so where should i start, madam president? well, maybe with the bill's title. in true orwellian style, democrats are calling the bill the inflation reduction act, even though the bill would do nothing to reduce inflation. and you don't have to take my word for it. the nonpartisan pen warton budget model analyzed the bill and found that the bill would not reduce inflation. in fact, the analysis found that democrats' bill would contribute

to inflation through 2024 and have no material impact on inflation in the long term. madam president, inflation has hit working americans hard. the grocery bills have ballooned. rents have skyrocketed. filling up their cars costs 75% more per gallon than it did when the president took office. their utility bills have increased and the list goes on. families are having to cut back on purchases and dig into their savings or pull out their credit cards or in some cases visit a food bank to make ends meet. and what does democrats' tax-and-spending spree do to help? nothing. americans are dealing with the worst inflation in more than 40 years and democrats' bill does nothing to help end our current

crisis. so what does the bill do, madam president? well, for one thing it raises taxes. that's right. our economy has shrunk for each of the -- each of the past two quarters. by any common definition, we're in a recession and the democrats' bill raises taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. here's what the democrat leader previously had to say about raising taxes in a recession. i quote. if we're in a recession and we're in a difficult economic time, i don't think senator obama or anyone else is going to raise any taxes. you don't want to take money out of the economy when the economy is shrinking. end quote. that is something the democrat leader has previously said. president obama himself expressed a similar sentiment when he said, and i quote, the last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a

recession. end quote. the last thing. well, madam president, apparently that doesn't apply when democrats have green new deal projects they want to pay for. democrats' bill tammies to offset the cost of the green new deal spending spree by raising taxes on american businesses, particularly manufacturers. the proposed book minimum tax would be a $313 billion tax hike with roughly half of that increase falling on american manufacturers. madam president, i don't think i need to tell anyone the likely outcome of raising taxes on businesses, particularly when the economy is contracting. likely outcome is less growth, lower wages, and fewer jobs. according to analysis from the national association of manufacturers, in 2023 alone,

the bill would reduce real gross domestic product by more than $68 billion and result in 218,108 fewer workers in the overall economy. 218,000 fewer workers. in 2023 alone, that according to the national association of manufacturers if the democrats' bill passes. the democrats' bill also raises taxes on the increase sector, specifically on domestic oil and gas production. it's another face palm move from democrats. currently gas prices are 75% higher than they were when president biden took office. electricity prices are up. the cost of utility gas service is way up. and yet democrats think it's a good idea to raise taxes on domestic oil and gas production. apparently, democrats want our current high energy prices to

stick around for the long term. so what are democrats going to use all that tax hike money for? well, for one thing they're going to use it to fund green new deal project,s -- projects, critical priorities like monitoring gaps in tree canopy coverage and road equity and funding, funding for the post office's purchase of electric delivery vehicles. then there are the multiple slush funds for green new deal projects and the tax credit for the purchase of a new electric car or truck. of course you'll only be able to use the credit if you can afford to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000 which is the average price for a new electric vehicle while we're in

the middle of a recession. so it would almost undoubtedly be americans with higher salaries and according to the bill, up to $300,000 per household. who would be able to make use of this credit? so a tax credit to buy electric vehicles for rich people. but i guess democrats think electric vehicle tax credits for wealthier americans are a good use of taxpayer dollars. what else is in here, madam president? i mentioned the bill's tax hikes, but the democrats' bill also attempts to raise revenue by increasing i.r.s. audits and enforcement. that's right. the democrats' bill would more than double the current number of irs employees making the agency nearly three times larger than the u.s. customs and border protection, the agency, i might

add, that's charged with security at all of our nation's borders and more than 50% larger -- this is the irs under the democrats' plan -- more than 50% larger than the entire u.s. department of agriculture. democrats give the irs a whopping $80 billion in additional funding over the next ten years. of that $80 billion, 57% goes to enforcement, 4% goes to taxpayer services. yeah, that's right. 4%. so, madam president, this is an agency that only succeeded in answering about one out of every 50 phone calls during the 2021 tax season, and yet 4% of the $80 billion is going to taxpayer services, 57% goes to enforcement so that the irs can spend more time harassing

taxpayers around this country. madam president, democrats are focused not on proving the irs's responsiveness to taxpayers but on boosting the number of irs audits. i still haven't mentioned the bill's socialist style price controls which would result in fewer new drugs and treatments. a study from last november found that democrats' price-control plans would result in 135 fewer new drugs through 2039. that's a lot, a potentially lifesaving treatments to lose. and then of course there's democrats' plan to expand obamacare subsidies to higher-earning americans, a move which would drive up the cost of health insurance. well, i could go on. madam president, most americans remember the lead-up to democrats' american rescue plan

spree last march. they were promised at the time that passing that bill would have big benefits for our economy and for american families. we know what actually happened. democrats' reckless spending spree triggered the worst inflation in four decades and american families have suffered as a result. now we're being asked to swallow a similar story about the democrats' latest spending legislation. this bill will help our economy, we're told, even though we know it would make life harder for american businesses and workers at a time when the economy is already contracting. and make no mistake about that. second consecutive quarter where we've had negative g.d.p. growth in our economy. it'll help inflation, democrats claim, even though a nonpartisan

analysis said it would do nothing, nothing to help alleviate our current crisis. it will reduce our deficit, democrats say, relying on some very shady accounting measures to reach their supposed deficit reduction number. it will help lower energy prices, the president claims, even though new energy taxes would further inflate near-term energy bills during a season of already historic prices. well, madam president, you would think democrats might have been chasing -- chasen by their disastrous american rescue plan spending spree, but you would be wrong. apparently, democrats are determined to get in another disastrous spending bill. and once again, it will be the american people that will be left to suffer the consequences. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: the republican leader knows that i am a huge fan of his. every thursday weigh gatherings along with senator gillibrand, gather in a bible study. most people would never think we gather together and read the bible together, read the scripture together. we do that every week. this is one thing where we don't see eye to eye. i want to remind us all of this -- two weeks ago the united kingdom broke its record for the highest recorded temperature multiple times, reaching 105 degrees fahrenheit. how high is that? they don't have air conditioning in most places of england. they don't have air conditioning. 105 degrees. airport runways that were melting in the united kingdom. railways are buckling from the

heat, with riders warned to stay home. 1,100 people that week died in spain and portugal from heat-related causes. wildfires in france forced about 40,000 people to evacuate. organizers planned to pour -- listen to this. tens of thousands of gallons of water on the course of the tour de france bicycle race in order to keep the road from melting. and more than 40 million people in the united states are under extreme heat warnings across in our country, the great plains and california. something like 60 million americans will likely see temperatures at or above 100 degrees -- last week they actually did, as i understand it. nearly 60% of california has been dealing with excessive drought while 20% of texas experiences exceptional drought, the most extreme level on the

drought scale. firefighters continue to battle huge wildfires across the united states, 12 states no less. wildfires as big as my state of delaware. the reason why we have put together legislation that actually addresses these really tales of horribles is because it's getting worse, and scientists and people we look to for advice and stuff like this, say it is not going to get better. in louisiana you know what they lose from sea level rise in they lose the piece of land the size of a football field. i'll say that again. in lose lose, they lose -- in louisiana, they lose a piece of land to the sea the size of a football field. every 100 minutes. something is happening here. i think what it is is exactly clear.

there's way too much carbon in the air. the question is, what are we going to do about it? and is there something that not only addresses the carbon crisis so that these young pages will not only have a planet to live on, but someday they will have children and there will be a planet for them to live on as well. the good thing about the package we'll be voting on later this week, it is paid for. larry summers, foresecretary of treasury, former president of harvard, renowned economist, says this package is not only balanced in terms of its budgetary effect but it's also counterinflationary. the idea, the idea that somehow the -- thize would get more -- the irs would get more known do its job, every year we have the commissioners of the irs come before us. they beg us to provide some

resources so they can do their jobs. you know oh, the people that actually get audited the most are actually poor people, the folks that get audited the least are wealthy people and maybe big corporations. the irs needs resources, people, if we do that they can collect hundreds of billions of dollars, not by raising taxes but by making sure that people are paying their fair share of taxes. that's what we're really trying to do with this legislation. it's paid for, it actually works against inflation, it helps people particularly people who happen to be older and actually need access to pharmaceuticals. the legislation that we have actually says, if you happen to be a senior citizen and you're on medicare part d for the drug program, there's no way you're going to pay over $2,000 in year. no way. now, a way more than that. we put a cap on that.

as a senator from a state where we actual lay have a big interest in pharmaceuticals, our whole area including philadelphia and new jersey and so forth, we don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. we don't want to stifle innovation in the biopharmaceutical world. this legislation does not do that. it does not do that. but it does say that for the drugs which there is no competition, there has to be some cap on the ability to raise the price of those drugs. i think it is common sense. i think it's common sense. some of us have heard the term of unforced error. i've been -- some of my detrackers say i'm guilty of making an unforced error. we all make unforced errors. but my republican friends have made an unforced error. because of their anger and unhappy of senators sinema and

manchin to move forward and address climate change, they were unhappy. and unfortunately they apparently took their anger out on our ability of us to move to legislation that actually helps veterans deal with injuries they've suffered in their lives, from being exposed to toxic substances from these burn pits. i'm the last vietnam veteran serving in the united states senate. the last vietnam veteran. and we had a bite out of this apple in southeast asia. it is called agent orange. and we had thousands -- tens of thousands of -- hundreds of thousands of vietnamese were exposed to agent orange. but a lot of folks, men and some women as well, were exposed and they developed all sorts of maladies. and later on, are we going to do anything about it? are they eligible for care from the v.a. and don't have to pay for all of it out of the their possibility? and we've done that. we've done it in a very

appropriate way, did it decades ago. i was privileged to be a supporter of that, as were many of our colleagues, democrat and republican. we have a different kind of situation, but it is a similar situation in that we've got a bunch of veterans who served in places like afghanistan and other places where they breathed air that was toxic. not their fault. and later on they became sick. the question is, what do we do about? and veteran service organizations, they have been very angry at our republican colleagues. i'm glad that our republican friends have come back, we realize we voted to derail the pact act to help veterans from these burn pit injuries. we realize we maybe shouldn't have done that. we all make mistakes. everybody makes mistakes. i am ape the only democrat in this body who ever quotes richard nixon. nixon used to say, the only people who don't make mistakes are people who don't do anything.

think about that. that's pretty good, huh? the only people who don't make mistakes are people who don't do anything. i think they made an unforced error, they canadian a decision that was not consistent with their interests and the interests of veterans, of which i am one. they have an opportunity here -- i'll say this as a spiritual tone here, they have an opportunity to atone for their sins and my hope is they will do that. but i hope at the time we do that, we'll keep in mind in list of horribles that i just went down, going on on the face of the earth, just a week or two ago. we got to do something about it. it's real. we've got to do something about it. time is not on our side. time is is not on the side of these young people here, like 16, 17 years old. one last point here. one last point here. let me go back to what -- some people say -- i'm privileged to

chair the committee on environmental works. we have jurisdiction over clean air, clean water, climate change, roads, highways, bridges, sanitation, water, a bunch of stuff, good stuff. and we as a result of that -- as a result of that, we have the write legislation that hopefully addresses a real cause, a real problem. and one of the problems we found in climate change is the biggest source of carbon dioxide, the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions comes from the cars, trucks, and vans that we drive, from the vehicles that we drive. that's the biggest source. there used to be, as senator gillibrand -- there used to be a bank robber named willie sutton. he finally got caught, was dragged into court. the judge said, mr. sutton, why do you rob banks? he said, your honor, i rob banks

because that's where the money is. one of the reasons we want to encourage people to buy vehicles that don't spew out a lot of greenhouse gases, that's where most of our emissions are. and as we want to encourage people to buy a new vehicle, consider an electric vehicle. one of the things that i really liked about the bill that we're going to debate later this week, we actually encourage to buy, not just new, expensive vehicles, but to provide used electric vehicles and so the middle- and low-income people may not be able to afford a new electric vehicle, they can buy one, if they want to be kind to the planet, they can buy a used one. we provide a modest tax cut for them. the tax credited, i might add, in that bill that we'll take up later this week, a lot more modest than they were originally h and i think that's a good thing. again, we all make unforced errors. i know i have.

and i believe -- i is a this lovingly -- our republican colleagues made a big one. and i think they regret t they have the opportunity to do something about it and to do the right thing, to do the right thing. let's do that. let's do the right thing by our veterans and then let's move on. later this week, we will take up another challenge, and that is how do we save this planet? thank you so much. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. mr. carper: madam president, i've been asked, i think, to make a committee request by floor staff. let me do that now and get out of your way. madam president, i have four requests for committees to the meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority leader and the minority leader. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. carper: thank you. i yield. the presiding officer: the senate will proceed to legislative session and resume consideration of the house message to accompany s. 3373

which the clerk will report. the clerk: house message to accompany 3373, an act to improve the iraq and afghanistan service grant and the children of fallen heroes grant. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 5:00 p.m. is equally divided. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i rise to discuss helping our servicemembers exposed to toxic burn pits. for days now servicemembers and their families have been camping outside this very building in desperation. they're pleading with us. they are begging with us to pass this bill. they have been out there all weekend in 90-degree heat, sheltering themselves from thunderstorms as well as oppressive humidity. i've been down there to visit them three times now, and i can tell you they are exhausted. they miss their families, they want to go home, but they will

not. they will not go home until the job is done, because the suffering they are enduring now pales in comparison to the suffering they, their fellow veterans or their fellow family members experience every day because of the injuries sustained because of the exposure to the toxins released at these burn pits. last week before it became clear that the pact act would fail, these families came to d.c. ready to celebrate. the mother-in-law of sergeant first class heath robinson who died because of burn pits, came with heath's daughter brielle who was excited to celebrate her father's legacy finally coming to fruition. instead we had to explain to a crying 9-year-old girl why this would not be happening, why the senate had failed them. so i don't want anyone to just

listen to me rattle off a bunch of statistics or facts about burn pits. i want you to listen to these people, the families, people who are literally giving every ounce of their being in service to this country, people with families, meme -- people with kids, people who are willing to upend their lives at the very moment's notice to fight for the values that make us who we are. and instead when their lungs were filled with toxins, the government turned its back on them when they needed us the most. we made a promise to them to care for them when they came home, is and that promise has been broken. failure to pass this bill again is not just some small disappointment, something that can be easily brushed off or disregarded. failure to pass this bill quite literally for many is a death

sentence, because every single day, every hour, every minute they don't get the health care that they need to save their lives is just another minute lost to the diseases that are devouring them. it's another minute that they won't have to be with their loved ones, to hug their children, another minute they don't get to be with their loved ones to kiss them goodbye, another minute that they cannot do the things they love to do. so we don't have time to wait another week, another month. we have to do this now. this is what's at stake in this bill. it's the lives of the men and women who went to combat for this country over the last many decades, and unfortunately have been so riddled with disease because of that exposure that they need our help, they need

the v.a. to cover their health care. that's what this bill does. this is what they deserve. i hope that this chamber can come back together again where it was before last week to do the right thing, to stand by those who stood by us, to stand by those who went into the breach, to stand by those who are now suffering and dying because it is a debt that we owe them. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. later tonight the senate will vote on my amendment number 5185 to the pact act. and as my colleague from new york was just saying, it is time that we deal with the issues of toxic exposure. as a member of the v.a. committee, this is something that i've worked on for the last

few years. tennessee has a large population of veterans, and we have talked a good bit about this issue and how they receive their care. one of the concerns that we had discussed in committee, in our hearings, we have discussed it with our v.s.o.'s. we've discussed this issue as we have talked with veterans who have come to us and to our meetings, is their frustration with having access to the queue but not getting access to the care. and i think that we have to look at this and say those are very different. now i join our veterans in being frustrated with the fact that there's access to the queue, to get on that wait list, but not

getting that care. so the amendment that i am offering is not political, it's not controversial. it is a simple but much-needed improvement to the pact act that will allow toxic-exposed veterans to gain access to community care, to ensure they have a speedy process to care. the amendment is critical to the success of this program, and we all want the program to be successful, but what we know is that the v.a. is not capable of implementing the pact act as it is written. they have neither infrastructure nor personnel to do that. what we have learned is that the v.a. cannot deliver what is promised because it does not

have the capacity to handle the increased cases. secretary mcdonough said as much in testimony submitted to the v.a. committee in march of this year. right now the claims backlog at the v.a. sits at 168,000 cases. the pact act as written will increase that backlog by more than one million cases. now, right now in tennessee this is the practical effect of this, mr. president. in tennessee, veterans who come to me are telling me they're waiting about 100 days for a primary care appointment at the v.a., and for many of our veterans that is just step one. getting that primary care

appointment so they get on the list. so after they call, they're waiting 100 days to get that first appointment, and then they get a referral on to someone else, a specialist. now, our veterans in tn, once they get that referral, it's 39 days to get to mental health care, 44 days to get to a dental appointment, 33 days if they're trying to see a cardiologist, 28 days to see a gynecologist, 30 days to get to someone who can help them with pain. that is the amount of wait. to me, that is unacceptable, completely unacceptable. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know many, if not most of these veterans who have

toxic exposure are deteriorating rapidly. they do not have time to wait while the v.a. decides how they're going to implement this. they deserve access to care as quickly as they can possibly get it. we are so close to getting these veterans the care that they deserve, but if the pact act is going to work for veterans, we need to step up and give them access to community care. my amendment will open up that access. it will make that an option so they don't have to struggle through waiting in the queue. they can go to a physician in their community for that primary care appointment so that they can get this process started.

this will help them to avoid the long wait times, the arbitrary hurdles, and it will let them seek that care in the community if they can get it faster than making that trip to the v.a. as i said, this is not controversial. there's no political scandal on it. it's a simple fix that will ensure that this promise that we are going to make in the pact act will be made to every single veteran that has experienced toxic exposure so that we are certain that the pact act does not end up as a false promise or a false hope. these veterans have given so much. they have served honorably. it is imperative that we provide

them not access to the queue, but access to the care that they have earned. thank you. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment when it comes up for a vote later this evening. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: we absolutely must take care of those who were harmed in service to our country. i've supported several bills to take care of our veterans. in february of this year i supported a bill that passed the senate called the health care for burn pit victims act, which extends the eligibility period for combat veterans who served after 9/11 and were exposed to toxic substances so they're able to receive care at the v.a. i've also supported the v.a. mission act, the doctor kate hendricks thomas service act, the team caregivers act, and the veterans appeal improvement and modernization act, all of which expand care for veterans.

when the war in afghanistan came to a close, i proposed using those funds saved by ending the war to give a $2,500 bonus to the members of the military who served in the global war on terrorism. we must take care of our veterans and keep our country strong. this bill puts our economy, though, at risk by creating presumptions of service connection for the most common ailments. for example, this legislation creates a presumption of service connection for vietnam veterans for hypertension. but according to the cdc, 50% of men and 44% of women in the united states have hypertension. more than 60% of people over the age of 60 have hypertension. in total, the cdc estimates that 116 million americans have hypertension. the legislation also creates a presumption of service connection for global war on

terror veterans for asthma. the cdc estimates that 1 in 12 people have asthma, which is approximately 25 million americans. this bill would cost hundreds of billions of dollars at a time when the national debt is climbing over $30 trillion and inflation is at a 40-year high. but the federal debt was created by congress and not our vets and those who served the armed services should not be the ones to pay the cost for government mismanagement. that's why i propose that we pay for this bill by establishing a ten-year moratorium on foreign aid disbursed by usaid except for israel. it is riddled with waste and those dollars can be better put to use to take care of veterans health care. this year usaid unveiled a $50 million visit tunesia program to encourage more tourism in tunesia although it is already one of the most visited countries in africa.

in 2016, usaid started a program to help the afghan government help farmers as it cut checks to ngo's to fund afghan farmers. the program paid for 72 farmers to receive drip irrigation, pipes, wheelbarrow, 2,000 liter water tank and 5-kilowatt generator for a cost of $87.9 whether the systems are still function and actually built is another question. usaid invested money to get roughly three million filipinos back to school. maybe we should do the same here. they spent -- us aide allocated $150 million to send ten koreans to washington, d.c., for two weeks to learn about climate change activism.

that's a great use of our money. wouldn't congress rather spend the money on our veterans? wouldn't it make more sense to spend taxpayer dollars on veterans who have risked it all on our country than encouraging travel to tunisia. i seek my colleagues' support for my amendment that would help pay for the hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill. our veterans should come first. i ask for your support on my amendment on this paid-for amendment. thank you.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i move to concur in the house message to accompany s. 3373, with amendment number 5184.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, moves to concur in the house amendment to s. 3373, with amendment number 5184. mr. paul: mr. president, i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. toomey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i rise to discuss the pact act for which we will be -- on which we'll be voting on several amendments and then we will have final passage vote later this evening. this could have been resolved months ago, as i suggested it would be, but finally we've gotten to the point where we can resolve this. and i have to say we are witnessing a very old washington trick playing out on what might be an unprecedented scale. and what is that trick? that trick is you take a very sympathetic group of americans, it could be children with rare diseases, it could be victims of crime, it could be veterans who are suffering an illness after having been exposed to toxic

chemicals while serving our country. you take this sympathetic group, craft legislation to address their problems, and then sneak in something that's completely unrelated that could never pass on its own and dare anyone to stand up and say a word about that because we all know if you raise the concern about the unrelated provision, people in this chamber and outside will stand up and make up all kinds of fabrications and falsehoods. they will enlist some psuedoselects, they -- psuedocelebrities and propagate the charge that those republicans don't care about these sympathetic victims. that's been going on here for some time now. it's the pact act, we have a sympathetic, popular group of americans, and rightly so. they're veterans who put on a

uniform, served overseas, took huge risks and along the way were exposed to toxic chemicals that have resulted or could result in their illness. there's overwhelming consensus to provide the resources to at least cover their health care costs and provide them with disability benefits because of their service to our country. in fact, the cause is so popular that the $280 billion of new spending, contemplated by this bill, is completely unoffset, it's mandatory spending, and there's nobody asking, including myself, that is asking it to be offset. and people acknowledge this and we agree on it. that's not where the pact act ends. that's not all there is to the pact act. it also includes the old washington trick, and the form

the trick takes in this bill is a complicated change to budget rules that allows current spending -- by which i mean spending that is going to happen under existing law unrelated to the pact act, that spending that is routine already to be basically shifted off the books so to speak in such a way that is designed to make it easier for future congresses to spend a whole lot more money on completely unrelated programs. congressional budget office estimates that this clever little device could result in up to, maybe even a little more, $400 billion of additional spending over the next ten years. again, totally outside of the veterans' space. totally outside. the chairman of the committee on

veterans' affairs is my friend, john telephone, a guy i know and like, he pretty much essentially acknowledged that, yeah, the legislation could be exploited this way but he said, but you should have faith. you should have confidence and trust. your colleagues, future congresses, that we wouldn't do a thing like that. seriously? i'm supposed to trust this and future congresses not to go on a spending spree? seriously? that's unbelievable. and by the way, if i should have that trust, then why did they design this feature precisely so they could go on a spending spree? this isn't the first time this has happened. a good example, the chips program. that's an acronym for the children's health insurance program. it was created in 1997, a very popular program. it's mandatory spending.

it's completely unoffset. it's a very good cause. that's why. in 2009, congress started providing more funding than was necessary to fund the program. much more than would actually be spent on the kids that qualify for it. congress did this very knowingly and started doing it annually. why you might ask would congress provide more funding than the program requires? because the amount by which this funding exceeds what gets spent can be spent on other programs. it's a trick. it's a budget trick that allows for more spending in unrelated areas. crime victims fund. very similar dynamic. criminal penalties go into a fund. that's supposed to go to victims of crime, but they've set up the rules so that in any given year if we spend less than the amount of money that went into this fund, they can pretend those are

budget savings and then spend the money somewhere else. so my point, mr. president, is we've seen this before. it's being played out again, but i don't think we've ever seen it on this scale. $400 billion over the next ten years. you know, we've got budgets and we have budget rules for rea reasons. they're meant to try to provide some guard rails on spending. congress can always disregard them. any congress can always disregard budget rules for a good reason or bad reason. if there are 60 votes, the budget rules can be waived. by the way, there's five budget points of order against this bill. i'm no the aware that anyone has raised a single one. we're not going to have a vote on any one. that's because people say the new spending for these veterans are so important, we're going to waive the budget rules that this bill breaks. and i think that's the right thing to do.

but to think that the appropriations process is going to be a sufficient check on the abuse this gimmick that's in this bill is very unrealistic. you know, the senate can always vote against a future spending bill that would take advantage of this. this is one of the arguments we've heard. you know, you can always vote against it if congress were to exploit this gimmick and start spending these $400 billion. yeah, but here's the problem. in a given year, that would be about $40 billion, right? 400 over ten years means 400 billion of this extraneous spending annually. except as the presiding officer knows very well, we typically fund the government with one giant bill, an omnibus spending bill that's over a thousand pains long usually. nowadays it's about $1.7 trillion and $40 billion is a lot of money. it's 3% of $1.7 trillion.

so if you object to exploiting this budget gimmick and exploiting this loophole and spending $40 billion that shouldn't be spent on who knows what, you can vote against the whole bill. and that's your only option. vote to shut down the government and not spend any money at all. that's no disciplinary -- that's no mechanism for proper oversight. now, you may hear that my amendment caps spending for veterans. i want to be very clear about this. the chairman of the v.a. said my amendment would place a limit on the amount of funding congress could provide to cover care and benefits to veterans made available by this legislation. could create a scenario where the v.a. runs out of funds. that is completely, 100% factually false. it's very hard to believe that the chairman of the v.a. is not

aware of that. but here's the truth. the fund that's created in the pact act, the fund that the chairman of the v.a. is referring to, the fund where we cap the money that goes into this fund, that fund does not have the meaning that any normal person thinks a fund has. this is not a pool of money. this is not an account at a bank from which doctors are paid. this is nothing more than an accounting device. this is just the mechanism that the federal government uses to classify spending as mandatory instead of discretionary. that's all it is. and there are no limits whatsoever. this is an important point. my amendment has no limits whatsoever on the amount that congress can appropriate in any given year or in the cumulative total of years for veterans' health care or other benefits. my amendment doesn't affect that

in any way whatsoever. they -- congress can appropriate a trillion dollars in a given year. what my amendment would do, it would limit the amount of that appropriation that could be considered mandatory spending as opposed to discretionary spending. that's t. my amendment is -- that's it, my amendment is 100% about how the government designates the spending. it has nothing to do with how much is actually spent. now, what matters to a veteran who's ill because of a toxic exposure, i think what matters to him is that the money is there to cover what he needs. that's what he should be concerned about and that will be there. what i'm trying to limit is the extent to which they can use a budgetary gimmick to reclassify spending so that they can go on an unrelated spending binge. what would happen if the cost actually caring for veterans in a given year is bigger than the

cap we set? simply appropriate the amount that's needed. it has no -- my cap has no bearing on how much appropriators can spend. it only limits how much gets treated as mandatory spending. if my amendment is not adopted, spending on veterans' benefits would not be reduced by one penny. spending on veterans' families would not be reduced by one penny. the $280 billion in new spending as a result of the pact act would not be reduced by a penny, would not be offset. we have no attempt to make any change to any of that. if anyone is suggesting that my amendment would in any way reduce care for veterans or require rationing of care, they're either completely misinformed or they're being dishonest. so why does this matter? why did the authors of the bill

want to create this device that shifts this spending that's going to happen anyway from discretionary spending to mandatory spending? it's because we have a cap on total discretionary spending and any spending that gets pulled out of the discretionary spending category and goes into a different category, that creates a hole under the cap. congress will fill that hole if spending on who knows what. that's the way this is going to play out. that's what's going to happen. now, some people have suggested that my amendment if adopted would kill the bill. think about that. an amendment that does not cut spending on veterans' care or veterans' benefits by one dime but does make it harder for congress to go on an unrelated $400 billion spending spree, that's going to kill the bill. really? well, if that would kill the

bill, then it speaks volumes about what's really important to the people who would vote no as a result. it might be clear that unrelated spending is more important than the spending on the veterans if my amendment would kill the bill. so i don't think passage of my amendment would kill the bill. it would frustrate the efforts of those who want to have the skids greased for a massive spending binge. it would definitely do that. but it wouldn't cut one dime of spending for veterans' care and i think in the end the bill would pass. so i've got this very simple solution. it allows us to fully fund our vets. it eliminates this budgetary gimmick that greases the skids for this unrelated spending. and i would just urge my colleagues that hiding unrelated spending behind the sacrifice of our veterans -- sacrifice our veterans have made is no way to

go. i would urge support for my amendment. mr. president, i move to concur on the house message to accompany s. 3373 with amendment 5186. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from pennsylvania, mr. toomey, moves -- mr. toomey: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the pr.the clerk: house messageh amendment 5186. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: the senator from can sasse. mr. moran: mr. president, -- -- from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you for the recognition. finally in just a few minutes, the senate will vote once again on the sergeant first class heath robinson honoring our promise to address comprehensive toxics act of 2022. known as the pact act. thousands of veterans who answered their call to serve after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, suffered the consequences to their health of exposure to open burn pits. many of these veterans are simultaneously experiencing a

battle with the v.a., a battle with their health conditions and now a battle with the department of veterans affairs to gain access to health care and the benefits that they desperately need and in reality earned and deserve. for more than two years i worked with my colleagues on the senate committee on veterans affairs, its chairman, senator tester, our colleagues in the house and senate multiple vso's veterans across the country and veterans in kansas and their families on how we can provide toxic-exposed veterans to health care benefits that they deserve. chairman tester and i made a commitment to each other to get to this point today. and we've had a couple of procedural hurdles, but despite that, i am pleased that we have still brought this bill to the floor in a bipartisan manner. our veterans have waited long

enough and it is time to pass the heath robinson pact act. not only will this legislation provide long overdue health care and benefits to the post-9/11 veterans who were exposed to burn pits, but this legislation will deliver care for all generations of veterans, including vietnam veterans and those who served in southeast asia suffering from the exposure to agent orange. no legislation is perfect. is this bill the way i would draft it if i was the only person writing the bill? it is not. it's a legislative process that involves the give and take. and we will still have more work to do once the legislation is signed into law. i remain committed to working with the department of veterans affairs, with our veterans services organizations, with individual veterans and their families, with my colleagues here in the senate, both republican and democratic, to make certain that this legislation is effective for veterans and that the unintended consequences from this

legislation are addressed. once we pass legislation, the work continues because it then has to be implemented by the department of veterans affairs and i know from experience that that is a challenge and this bill in particular, the magnitude, the number of veterans affected, the amount of resources necessary, the demand for care that will arise under this legislation, the demand for benefits that arises under this legislation, all will make its implementation significantly -- a significant challenge but we are ready and able to make certain that the intended results. while there's been lots of demand that we pass legislation, really what we're after is the intended results. the intended results is that the veterans receive the care and benefit that they deserve. there is no doubt that the cost of caring for our veterans is

high, and the truth is, freedom is not free. there's always a cost to war. and we need to remind ourselves that that cost is not fully paid when the war ends. we are now on the verge of honoring that commitment to america's veterans and their families. i support this legislation. i support moving forward with a vote in favor of cloture. i am pleased something that we thought might have happened earlier, i'm pleased that there will be amendment votes before we get to that final passage. but i expect and urge my colleagues, regardless of the outcome of the amendment votes, to continue to move this bill forward by adopting this opportunity to pass the bill, by taking advantage of the circumstance we have now worked our way to get to. and now that we are at this point, i hope that today it

passes, the sergeant first class heath robinson pact act and the president signs it and it becomes law. i appreciate the opportunity that i have to be in leadership in the committee and to work every day on behalf of those who served our nation. let's pass this legislation. let's deliver the most comprehensive toxic exposure package to veterans in our country's history. and with that plea and suggestion, mr. president, i yield back. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. tester: i stand before this body yet again to urge the

passage of the pact act. before i get into my remarks, senator moran is on the floor. i listened to a good portion of what he had to say, and i just want to say, thank you, senator moran. as a team member on the veterans' affairs committee, for the last year and a half we've been working in good faith to get a bill that addresses the challenges of toxic exposure that our veterans quite honestly have endured since world war i. and with the burn pits and the agent orange and the radiation exposure that this bill addresses, i would just say that we would not be here today if we hadn't both committed to work together to get to a result that hopefully -- i was a little more sure this last week than i am

today -- but hopefully to get to a point where this bill passes. we've talked about this bill a lot. we've talked about what it does, and basically what it does is make sure that veterans who have been exposed to toxins -- in this case, burn pits but will as i said before, agent orange and radiation -- are made whole again. so we get these folks, we train them to be warriors, we send these men and women off to war, we tell them to go off and protect our freedoms and protect this country. they do it, and often be times things happen -- and oftentimes things happen that changes their lives. sometimes we can see the injuries. sometimes we can't see them. in this particular case with toxic burn pits, they come home and they have developed disorders because they breathed these toxins in the and if anybody has ever been around a

burning barrel that had plastics in it, you know exactly what i'm talking about. and you breathe these toxins in, it causes cancer and it causes lung issues. the problem is, these folks couldn't get away. these burn pits were right next to the camps, the beds they sleep in, and they had to breathe this garbage, sometimes day and night. it resulted in some pretty serious injury that has resulted oftentimes in death. now, the reason i say that is because over the last year and a half, the senate veterans' affairs committee had several hearings and we have had witnesses come forth that have been impacted by burn pits and toxic exposure. and i can tell you, some of those folks aren't with us today. the toxins got them. so not only was the veteran's life ended, which is unfortunate

in itself, but also the family that was dependent on that veteran had their lives turned upside down. so it is time that we set that record straight and make sure that those folks that have been impacted by war are taken care. and i hope that there's nobody in this body that thinks that's unreasonable. because the truth is, as i think most of the folks in this body have been to the middle east and they've seen what a different world that is and how it makes me damn glad to be a montanan and to be an american. we've got an ability today to step up and do the right thing. there have been a lot of claims made over the last week or two.

i would go into those claims and refute those claims, but quite frankly i don't see the sense in it. if the folks here haven't read this bill, if they haven't he had are the letter that i sent out to every senator in this body earlier today, i would ask that you would. if you have any questions, come run me down. and i will answer any of them. the fact is, as we've done this whole process in a very transparent manner. no surprises. no last-minute stuff put into this bill. no slush funds. this is a bill that will work for this country, it will work for the taxpayers of this country, and it will work, most importantly, for the veterans and their families. we have an opportunity, as i said last week, to do the right thing to today. we have an opportunity to make the senate -- have the american

people be proud of the senate and the work they do. i would hope we get a resounding vote on this bill, and i would hope that we don't amend it, to have to go back to the house, because that, once again, would delay benefits and do real damage to this bill. so i'd ask my fellow senators when they come to the floor and vote, think about the veterans that are standing outside the capitol out here. think about the veterans in your home state. think about the veterans that you met while they were in active duty on your codels. and remember them and do the right thing. vote to pass the sergeant first class heath robinson pact act a mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: all time has been yielded back. under the previous order, the question occurs on the paul motion to concur with an amendment. a senator: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 7, the nays are 90. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this motion to concur with amendment, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, the question occurs on the toomey motion to concur with amendment. mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, a lot has been said about my amendment that's completely false, mostly outside of this chamber. so let me say very simply what it does. my amendment does only one thing

-- would maintain the current policy of classifying currently authorized v.a. health care spending as discretionary spending rather than change that classification going forward to mandatory spending, as the pact act would allow. my amendment does not cap any spending. it does not reduce veterans spending. it does not change the classification of pact act spending. but by preventing this change in classification, we prevent a budget gimmick that's designed to grease the skids for up to $400 billion in totally unrelated spending. so let's pass the pact act, but let's pass it without enabling an unrelated $400 billion spending spree. support my amendment. mr. tester: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: mr. president, the toomey amendment does place an arbitrary amendment on the amount of funding that congress could spend on veterans. don't take my word for it. it comes from the appropriations

committee and the budget committee. when you place caps, that results in rationing of care. look, just like every other mandatory account the v.a. has, you come forth as part of the president's budget. the v.a. has to justify it. congress, congress, congress details the estimates and needs for the funds, for the purpose, whether it is toxic exposure for anything else. it will be reviewed as part of the standard process. if you don't trust your appropriators, put somebody else on the committee. because that's what this all comes down is the appropriators. i would ask you to vote no on this amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to concur with amendment. mr. toomey: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania requests the yeas and nays. is there a second? there is a second. the clerk will call the roll.

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 48. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this motion, to concur with the amendment, the motion is not agreed to. the senator from tennessee. the senate will be in order. the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. i move to concur in the house message to accompany s. 3373 with amendment number 5185. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from

tennessee, mrs. blackburn, moves to concur in the house amendment to s. 3373 with amendment numbered 5185. mrs. blackburn: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. this is the amendment that will allow our veterans to immediately move into community care. our veterans need to be able to have access to the care, not just access to the queue. the v.a. will have a problem getting this implemented because the current wait time to see a primary care doctor is 100 days. so let's not make them wait. let's give them access to community care so that they have the care they have earned and

they deserve. mr. tester: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: the blackburn amendment would provide automatic eligibility for community care for any toxic-exposed veteran for any condition. if the v.a. cannot provide care, they're automatically eligible. we can talk about the cost, the eligibility, the timeline. unfortunately, we don't have those times or metrics. we do know this, the v.a. is a leader in health care in treating our veterans for diseases and conditions as a result of military service, and more than that, time after time after time again, we've heard that veterans prefer getting care from the v.a. we should not privatize the v.a. that's what this amendment is about. i would appreciate a no vote. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the blackburn motion to concur with the amendment.

mrs. blackburn: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 48. the nays are 47. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this motion to concur with amendment, the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to refer and the amendments pending thereto the motion to concur with amendment number 5148 and the amendment pending, the veto are withdrawn.

thereto are withdrawn. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, thank you. we are poised once again for the opportunity to pass a piece of legislation of historic significance, something that demonstrates the united states senate can come together and take care of americans, particularly those who served our nation. while it's historic, it's more important to many individuals. historic for the country, historic for veterans, but important lifesaving, supportive of those who encountered toxic exposure from vietnam and southeast asia through agent orange and through burn pits in iraq and afghanistan. mr. president, i thank the heath robinson family and all the advocates would got us to this point today. and i ask my colleagues to pass this legislation and i ask the president to sign it as quickly

as possible. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: 15 years ago when i was appointed to the veterans affairs committee, i had a vietnam veteran come up to me and say our he not going to treat this generation of veterans like you treated us. this bill rights that and makes that veteran's request come true. why? because we're dealing with toxic exposure. in fact, we're even dealing with it with agent orange and the burn pits. this fully pays the cost of war and i would encourage everybody in this body to vote for this motion. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. this long-awaited moment for our nation's veterans is occurring now. the senate is finally, finally going to pass the most significant expansion of veterans -- could we have order, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senate will be in order.

mr. schumer: finally, this senate is going to pass the most significant expansion of veteran health care benefits in generations. this is a very good day, a long-awaited day, a day that should have happened long ago. for decades many of our nation's veterans have endured a shameful reality. they went abroad to search our country bravely, got sick from toxic exposure in the line of duty, but came home and learned they didn't qualify for the benefits they needed to treat their illnesses. it is shameful. it is infuriating. today we tell our veterans suffering from cancers, lung diseases, other ailments from burn pits the wait is over for the benefits you deserve. no more pointless delays on getting the health care you need. no more jumping through hoops and even hiring lawyers just to get an answer from the v.a. and today if you are a veteran from vietnam to iraq to

afghanistan to everywhere in between and you get sick from burn pit exposure or agent orange, you will finally be able to get your earned benefits guaranteed. i want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for working together to pass the -- to push the pact act over the line, especially senators tester and moran who are the original leaders of the bill. my colleague senator gillibrand from new york and thank in advance all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who will vote for this much-needed legislation. importantly, i want to thank the many veterans, veteran service organization, and advocates like jon stewart and jon field who let a righteous, mighty movement to get this bill done. it wouldn't have happened without you. and especially want to thank the veterans who camped at the foot of capitol hill for the past few days enduring scorching heat, dreferlging rain -- drenching rain just to get to this point.

they said they would never go home until they got this bill done. they're here. well, very good news. in a few minutes after this bill passes, you can go home knowing the good and great thing you have done and accomplished for the united states of america. because of them, veterans everywhere will finally get the dignity and care they deserve. the pact act is now going to the president's desk. i thank my colleague for their work. and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to concur. is there a sufficient second? there seems to be a second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 86. the nays are 11. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this motion to concur, the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: this is a wonderful

moment, especially for all the people who have made this happen who are observing it. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. now i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business for debate only and with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, now i'm about to lock in an agreement that local allow the senate to pass the resolution of ratification for the finish and -- finnish and swedish applications to join nato. our nato alliance is the bedrock that has guaranteed democracy in the western world since world war ii. this strengthens nato even further and is particularly needed in the light of recent russian aggression. when leader mcconnell and i met with the finnish president and swedish prime minister in may, we committed to do this as fast as we could and certainly

before we go home for the august recess. with the help of chairman menendez, ranking member risch, senator shaheen, senator tillis, we were able to get to this point. i appreciate their hard work and bipartisan work. i know leader mcconnell does, too. for the awareness of my colleagues, i invited the ambassadors from finland and sweden to join us in the gallery during our debate and votes tomorrow. and so now i ask unanimous consent that on wednesday, august 3, at 12:22 at 1:30 p.m. the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 5 treaty document 117-3, that the treaties be considered as having advanced through the various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of advice and consent to ratification, that there be three hours for debate equally

divided between the two leaders or their designees on the treaties and resolution of advice and consent to ratification, that the only amendments in order be the resolution of advise and consent to ratification, that the only amendments in order to the resolution of advise and consent to ratification be the following, sullivan 5191, paul 5192. that following the debate, the senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, and that upon disposition of the amendments, any committee, conditions, declarations or reservations be agreed to as applicable and the senate vote on the resolution of advise and consent to ratification as amended if amended with no intervening action or debate, that if the resolution of advise and consent to ratification is agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i yield the floor.

i yield the floor to the great senator from the state of montana. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. a senator: thank you, madam president. mr. tester: 86-11, 86-11. we've been fighting for this for decades, for decades. and i will tell you that the last few days have not been particularly easy for me and they have been even more difficult for the veterans around this nation who thought they had a benefit on july -- on june 16 and then found out that it wasn't there. but today the senate took the historic step of delivering health care and benefits to all veterans by the passage of the sergeant first class heath robinson honoring our promise to address comprehensive toxic act otherwise known as the pact act.

for hundreds of thousands of veterans of all generations, for all-volunteer military, this bill put us on a path to finally paying the cost of war. look, i take my cues from veterans as chairman of the senate veterans affairs committee. when i first introduced this bill last year, we set out with a clear goal to right the wrongs of decades of inaction and failure by us, the united states government, to provide all areas of toxic-exposed veterans of v.a. care and benefits that they have earned. we knew the only way to do this was to put forth the comprehensive package that took care of our past, present, and future veterans. i am grateful and i mean this. this wouldn't have happened without my good friends, ranking

member jerry moran, john boo boozman, and martin heinrich. we all worked together to make sure that this toxic exposure package came together so we could have the vote we had today. with help from both sides of the aisle. i am thankful for the leadership of president joe biden who addressed this issue in his state of the union speech and got the ball rolling. to v.a. secretary denis mcdonough for his leadership as secretary of the v.a. and house veterans affairs committee chairman mark deconnell and so many others that i can't even list them all so i'm not going to start down this line. this bill is legislation we envisioned when we set out to right wrongs of our

toxic-exposed veterans. the pact act recognizes that responsibility and it recognizes the cost of war. veterans service organizations across this country and the veterans they represent and the advocates have understood this for a long time. that is why not only have they been incredible partners in this but that is why this has been the number one issue for veterans service organizations in this country, the number one issue. and in fact so important to them and the folks that pretty much left here, the chamber, but so important to them, they're willing to sleep on the steps of the capitol the last five days. you might not think that's a big deal but it isn't exactly nice in washington, d.c. the first of august or the end of july. and last night we had one heck of a thunderstorm. rolled me right out of bed. those folks were out there. they were making their names be heard. they were making the policies be

heard that they fought for. i'm just going to say one more thing. if you take a look at our military, the finest in the world, there's a reason for that. there's a reason for that. and that reason is these folks are willing to get the job done and they did. and that's why we've got to -- we got a vote of 86-11. that's why folks said enough is enough. we're not doing any more games. we're going to vote on this bill. that's what the folks sent us to washington, d.c. to do and we did it. and i couldn't be prouder of the united states senate, but i'm also more proud of the folks who serve this country in the military and their families. when i got on this floor earlier today and said the longer we delay, the longer we're going to deny health care for our veterans and veterans are going to continue to be in crisis and they're going to continue to d

die. now we've passed a bill that rights that wrong, that's going to help these veterans across the board, and i think we're going to see improvement in all sorts of things, not only the diseases caused by toxic exposure, but the mental health that's also associated with service to this country. we put politics aside. we delivered results through action, through real action, and we said thank you to the men and women who have served in our military. thank you for what you've done for this country. thank you for protecting our freedoms. thank you for keeping us safe. and most importantly, we told them you held up your end of the bargain. we held up ours. i yield the floor.

mr. tester: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. sanders: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont.

mr. sanders: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: madam president, i wanted to come down to the floor toll say a few words about the so-called inflation reduction act which may be coming to the floor this week. but before i do, i want to put this reconciliation bill into the context of where we are as a nation from a political perspective. and where we are is not a good place to be. according to the most recent gallup poll, the approval rate for congress is at 16% with massive numbers of people disapproving of the work we are doing here. further, according to a recent university of chicago poll, a strong majority of americans believe that the government is,

quote, corrupt and rigged against me. end quote. that is how people perceive the government. further, according to a recent "usa today" poll, a very strong majority no longer believe that the democratic or republican parties are responding to their needs, and we have to move away from a two-party system to a multi-party system. and most frighteningly there is a growing number of americans who actually believe that they have to take up arms, literally become violent against their own government, in order to accomplish what they think needs to be done. and of course, we saw an example of that on january 6 of last year, with the terrible violence and deaths that occurred. madam president, all of this

speaks to a very dangerous moment for american democracy, and in some ways resembles the conditions that existed in europe in the late 1920's and early 1930's, which eventually led to fash irk and -- to fascism and toe tal iranism -- totalarianism. i should mention, right now, as working class and middle class are falling further and further behind economically, the billionaires in this country, through their super pacs are doing everything they can to elect members of congress who will support the wealthy and powerful against the needs of average americans in both parties. huge amounts of money from billionaires are coming into campaigns to elect the candidates who will represent the 1%. the people of this country

believe, in my view correctly, that we have a corrupt political system dominated by the wealthy and powerful, and we have a rigged economy in which large corporations are seeing massive increases in their profits, while the middle class and working families of the country continue to see a decline in their standard of living. we don't talk about it much here in the senate or in the corporate media, but at this moment in american history we have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in the last hundred years. i know we're not allowed to talk about it. it's not fashionable. we might offend some wealthy campaign contributors. but today, obscenely, you've got three people who own more wealth than the bottom half of american society. you have the top 1% only more

wealth than the bottom 92%. you have 45% of all new income going to the 1%, and you got ceo's of major corporations making 350 times more than average workers. in other words, the people in the middle, working people, struggling. people on top doing phenomenally well. and the people on the top have enough money to elect candidates who represent their interests. and that is the overall context, in my view, in which this reconciliation bill is coming to the floor. now, i have heard from some of my colleagues that the build back better legislation passed by the u.s. house of representatives and supported by some 48 out of 50 members of the

senate democratic caucus and by the president of the united states is dead, not going anywhere, can't get the 50 votes that is needed. now, i don't know if that is absolutely true or not, but i do know that if it is true it would be a disaster for the working families of our country who today are desperately trying to survive economically. so, let me briefly review what was in the original build back better plan and contrast it with what is in the so-called inflation reduction act. and i should mention that every one of the provisions that i will briefly be discussing has overwhelming support from the american people, according to poll after poll after poll.

in other words, that is what the american people want. madam president, at a time when the united states has the highest rate of childhood poverty, shamefully, of almost any major nation on earth, this reconciliation bill that will soon be coming to the floor does not extend the $300 a month per child tax credit that working parents of this country had last year. that's gone. that is not in this bill. if you are a parent today, paying $15,000 a year for child care, which is what it costs in vermont and is about the average cost all over america, $15,000 a year to have a kid in child care, this bill completely ignores that crisis and does

absolutely nothing for you. and of course, unlike the original build back better plan, this bill does not provide free and universal pre-k. if you're a working parent right now, struggling to pay for child care, this bill turns its back on you. madam president works at a time when 45 million americans are struggling to pay student debt, and when hundreds of thousands of bright young people every year are unable to afford to go to college and get a higher education, this big ignores that reality and does nothing for these young people. the original build back better plan did not go as far as i wanted it to, but it would have provided two years of free

education at a community college. that's a big deal for millions of young people, but that is no longer going to happen. if you are an elderly american, one of the millions of elderly people trying to survive on your social security benefits, and you cannot afford to go to a dentist, and your teeth are rotting in your mouth or you have no teeth, so that you can digest your food, or you can't afford to get a hearing aid to communicate with your kids or grandchildren, or you can't afford the eyeglasses that you need, this bill does nothing, zero, to expand medicare to cover these very basic health care needs that the american people want to see covered. as a result, millions of seniors will continue to have rotten

teeth and lack of dentures, lack of hearing aids or eyeglasses that they deserve. further, at a time when millions of elderly and disabled american would prefer to stay in their homes rather than be forced to go into a nursing home, this bill does absolutely nothing to address the very, very serious home health care crisis in our country. we will continue to lack the decent paid, decent trained staffing that we need to address the home health care crisis. this bill ignores that issue completely. madam president, i think there is no disagreement on the part of anybody that we have a major housing crisis in this country.

some 600,000 people are homeless in america, sleeping out on the streets all across this country, including a few blocks away from the capitol. and in addition to that, some 18 million households in our country are spending an incredible 50% of their incomes for housing. yep, you guessed it, this bill does nothing to address the major housing crisis that exists in state after state after state, all across the country. we're ignoring that major issue as well. madam president, one of the criticisms made against the original build back better plan is that it would be inflationary

because it would increase federal spending. that criticism is untrue. every nickel spent on that bill would have been fully paid for by increased taxes on the wealthy and large corporations. unlike the recently passed microchip corporate welfare bill that adds $79 billion to the federal deficit, unlike the proposed military budget that came out of the senate armed forces committee recently, which would increase defense spending by $45 billion more than the pentagon even requested, the build back better plan would not have increased the deficit at all. now, madam president, let me say a few words about what is in this legislation, a bill which in my view has some good features but also has some very

bad features. one of the issues that it deals with is prescription drugs. and the good news, madam president, is that the reconciliation bill finally begins to lower the outrageous price of some of the most expensive prescription drugs under medicare. according to the most recent data, if we do nothing medicare will spend about $1.8 trillion over the next decade on prescription drugs, and our nation as a whole will spend $5 trillion, and that is not only outrageous but it is unsustainable. but madam president, here is the bad news, the prescription drug provisions in this bill are extremely weak, and it's hard to deny that. they are extremely complex. they take too long to go into

effect. and they go where no -- they go nowhere near as far as they should to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry, whose actions are literally killing americans. one out of five americans today cannot afford the prescription drugs their doctors prescribed, and some of them will die. under this legislation, medicare for the first time in history would be able to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry to lower drug prices, and that is the good news. the bad news is that the negotiated prices would not go into effect until 2026, four years from now. so you're not going to see any changes over the next four years. further, in 2026 only ten drugs,

ten drugs, would be negotiated, with more to come in later years. moreover, with the possible exception of insulin, this bill does nothing to lower prescription drug prices for anyone who is not on medicare. under this bill, at a time when the pharmaceutical companies are making outrageous profits, the drug companies will still be allowed to charge the american people by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. i recently -- not recently, a couple years ago took a trip with some midwesterners over the border into canada, where they purchased insulin for one-tenth of the price being charged in the united states, because in canada, like virtually every other country on earth, they negotiated prices with the

industry. is madam president, if we are really serious about reducing the price of plea description drugs -- prescription drugs, something that the american people desperately want us to do, it is no secret as to how we can achieve that goal. for over 30 years the veterans administration, and i'm very proud of the legislation that we just passed a moment ago for the v.a., but the v.a. has been negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to lower the price of prescription drugs. they've been doing it for 30 years. not a new idea. moreover, for decades virtually every other major country on earth has been doing exactly the same thing, which is why the price of prescription drugs in canada, mexico, all over europe is far less expensive than in the united states. the result of where we are today

is that medicare pays twice as much for the exact same prescription drugs as the v.a., and americans in some cases may pay ten times more for a particular drug as the people of any major country. so you have the absurd situation of one government agency, the v.a., because they've been negotiating all drugs seriously for 30 years, pays half of what medicare is paying today. in other words, if we are going to solve this problem, when it comes to reducing the price of prescription drugs under medicare, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. we can require medicare to pay no more for prescription drugs than the v.a. and, madam president, if we did that, we could literally cut the price of prescription drugs under medicare in half.

we could cut the price in half in a matter of months, not years. in february, i introduced legislation with senator klobuchar that would do exactly that. under that legislation, we could save medicare $900 billion over the next decade. that is nine times more savings than the rather weak negotiation provisions in this bill. and, by the way, with those enormous savings, we could expand medicare to provide comprehensive dental, vision, and hearing benefits to every senior in america. it could be used, furthermore, to lower the medicare eligibility age to at least 60, and it could be used to extend

the solvency of medicare. that's what we could do with those savings that we're not achieving under this proposed bill. one of the other prescription drug provisions in the reconciliation bill? well, under this legislation, pharmaceutical companies would essentially be prohibited from increasing prescription drugs above inflation to the year 2021. should we make sure that pharmaceutical companies should not increase prices above general inflation? yes. but let us be clear, this provision would lock in all of the extraordinary price increases the pharmaceutical industry has made in recent years and would do nothing to lower those outrageously high prices. it would control costs in the future limiting what the industry would charge, but it would not lower prices.

under this legislation, out of pocket prescription drugs costs for seniors would be capped at $2,000 a year, and that is a good benefit which will benefit up to two million seniors who currently pay over $2,000 a year for prescription drugs, often people who are dealing with cancer and other very serious illnesses that require expensive drugs. but the $25 billion cost of that provision will not be paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, which is making record breaking profits. we're going to cap the price, guess who's paying for it. you got it. it will be paid for by increased premiums on virtually every senior citizen in america, but there is a provision to smooth that out. the current reconciliation bill that we are looking at would also provide free vaccines for

seniors, the only population for which vaccines are not already free, and this is a good thing. something that we should have done a long time ago. finally, madam president, in terms of prescription drugs, it looks like the reconciliation bill will cap copays for insulin at $35 a month, which is a good step forward for people with health insurance, but would do nothing to lower the cost of insulin for the 1.6 million diabetics who are uninsured and need our help the most. so this bill does something in terms of prescription drugs, but nowhere enough given the crisis that we face. in terms of the affordable care act, madam president, this legislation will extend subsidies for 13 million americans who have private insurance plans as a result of

the affordable care act, and they will be extended over the next three years. without this provision, millions of americans would see their premiums skyrocket and some three million americans could lose their health care all together. so this is a good provision, but let us not fool ourselves. the $64 billion cost of this provision will go directly into the pockets of private health insurance companies that made over $60 billion in profits last year and paid their executives exorbitant compensation packages. it would also do nothing to help the more than # 0 million americans today -- 70 million americans today who are uninsured and under insured, there are estimates that some 60,000 people die every year because they don't get to a

doctor when they should because they're uninsured or underinsured. so this bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, to reform a dysfunctional, broken health care system which is based on the greed of the insurance industry. it does nothing to address the fundamental crisis of the united states paying by far the highest prices in the world for health care while over 70 million of us are uninsured or underinsured. it doesn't even touch that. now, madam president, let me say a word about climate change and what this bill does and does not do. this legislation provides $370 billion over the next decade to combat climate change and to invest in so-called energy security programs. the good news is that if this

legislation were to be signed into law, it would provide far more funding for energy efficiency and sustainable energy than has ever been invested by the government before. that's the good news. this is, however, substantially lower than the $555 billion in the original build back better plan, which understood that climate change is an existential threat to this planet, and it must be addressed in an extremely bold way if we're going to leave a country and world in which our kids and grandchildren can thrive. but this legislation does provide serious funding for wind, solar, batteries, heat pumps, electric vehicles and appliances in lower income

communities. that is good news. but, madam president, the very bad news that very few people in the media or in congress want to talk about is that this proposed legislation includes a huge giveaway to the fossil fuel industry. both in the reconciliation bill itself and in a side deal that was just made public yesterday. under this legislation the fossil fuel industry will receive billions of dollars in new tax breaks and subsidies over the next ten years on top of the $15 billion in tax breaks and corporate welfare that they are already receiving. in my view, if we are going to make our planet healthy and inhabitable for future generations, we cannot provide billions of dollars in new tax

breaks to the very same fossil fuel companies that are currently destroying the planet. think about it. at a time when the scientists all over the world tell us we have got to break our dependence on fossil fuel, this legislation provides billions in new tax breaks in fossil fuel companies. in my view, instead of giving them more tax breaks, we should end all of the massive corporate welfare that the fossil fuel industry already enjoys. madam president, under this legislation, up to 60 million acres of public waters must be offered up for sale each and every year to the oil and gas industry before the federal government could approve any new offshore wind

development. to put that into perspective, 60 million acres is the size of the state of michigan. that is a lot of territory. madam president, let me read to you the headline that appeared in a july 29th article in bloomberg, quote, exxon loves what manchin did for big oil in $370 billion deal. end quote. according to bloomberg, the c.e.o. of exxonmobil called the reconciliation bill, quote, a step in the right direction, end of quote, and was, quote, pleased, end quote, with the comprehensive set of solutions included in this proposed legislation. barons recently reported that exxonmobil, chevron and ox

dental petroleum are a few of the fossil fuel companies that could benefit the most under this bill. now, madam president, if the c.e.o. of exxonmobil, a company that has done as much as any entity to destroy this planet, if he is pleased with this bill, then i think all of us should have some very deep concerns about what is in this legislation. further, under this bill, up to two million acres of public lands must be offered up for sale each and every year to the oil and gas industry before leases can move forward for any renewable energy development on public lands. in total, this bill would offer the fossil fuel industry up to 700 million acres of public lands and waters going to oil

and gas drilling over the next decade, far more than the oil and gas industry could possibly use. and, madam president, that is not all. the fossil fuel industry will not just benefit from the provisions in the reconciliation bill. a deal has also been reached to make it easier for the fossil fuel industry to receive permits for their oil and gas projects. this deal would approve a $6.6 billion mountain valley pipeline, a frac pipeline that would expend from swes -- expand from virginia to west virginia. this pipeline would generate emissions equivalent to that released by 37 coal plants or by over 27 million cars each and every year. it seems to be a very strange

way to combat climate change. madam president, let me quote a statement from 350 organization, which is a leading company on this, they say this bill has a few good pieces, lengthing tax increases to extend expansion in the wind and solar industry, incentives to buy electric vehicles. howf the amount -- however, the amounts of giveaways is so wide in scope that it puts all of the gains a mute point. here is what another company had to say on the bill.

quote, this is a climate suicide act, it is self-defeating. the new leasing required in this bill will fan the flames of the climate disasters torching our company and it is a slap in the face to communities fighting to protect themselves from fossil fuels. that is the center for biological diversity. madam president, in my view we have to do everything possible to take on the greed of the fossil fuel industry, not give billions of dollars in corporate welfare to an industry whose emissions are causing massive damage today and will only make this situation worse in the future. madam president, in the reconciliation bill, there is a provision regarding tax reform. let me say a word on that. at a time of massive income and

wealth inequality, at a time of soaring corporate profits, at a time in which we have a broken tax system riddled with all kinds of loopholes for the rich and the powerful, this bill makes a few modest changes to reform the tax code. under this bill corporations will be required to pay a minimum tax of 15%. that is the good news. the american people are sick and tired of companies like at&t, federal express and nike making billions of dollars in profit in a given year and paying nothing, zero in federal income tax. this provision has been estimated to raise over $300 billion over the next decade. further, under this bill the irs will finally begin to receive the funding that it needs to audit wealthy tax cheats. each and every year the top 1% are able to avoid paying more

than $160 billion in taxes that they legally owe because the irs does not have the resources and the staffing they need to conduct awld dits of the -- audits of the extremely wealthy. this bill begins to change that. this bill would also make a very modest change to the so-called carried interest loophole that has allowed billionaire, hedge fund managers on wall street to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse, teacher, or firefighter. but the bad news is that while there are some positive aspects to the tax provisions in this bill, this bill does nothing to repeal the trump tax breaks that went to the very wealthy and large corporations. trump's 2017 tax bill provided over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1% and large

corporations. in fact, 83% of the benefits of the trump tax law are going to the top 1%. 83% of the benefits. and this bill repeals none of those benefits. they remain in existence. madam president, let us not forget it is very likely that congress will be doing a so-called tax-and-spend bill at the end of the year that could provide corporations with up to $400 billion over the next decade in new tax breaks. if that occurs, that would more than offset the $313 billion of corporate revenue included in this bill. so that, madam president, is where we are today. we have legislation which unlike the original build back better plan ignores the needs of the working families of our country and child care, pre-k, the expansion of medicare,

affordable housing, home health care, higher education, and many, many other desperate needs that families all across this country are facing. this is legislation which at a time of massive profits for the pharmaceutical industry and we pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs takes some very modest steps to lower or control the price of medicine. this is legislation which has some good and important provisions pertaining to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, but at the same time provides massive giveaways that the fossil fuel industry whose emissions are destroying the planet. this is legislation which appropriately ends the absurdity of large profitable corporations paying nothing in federal income tax but at the same time leaves intact virtually all of trump's tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations.

madam president, this more than 700-page bill after months of secret negotiations became public late last week. 700-page bill, months of secret negotiations was made public last week. in my view now is the time for every member of the senate to study this bill thoroughly and to come up with amendments and suggestions as to how we can improve it. i look forward to being part of that process and working with my colleagues to make that happen. thank you, madam president. and with that i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: every once in a while life gives you a wonderful coincidence. a wonderful coincidence this evening is i've had the pleasure

of listening to senator sanders describe what happens to a country when billionaires are able to secretly exert immense political power and drive democracy away from its foundations and into the service of the billionaires. and the remarks i'm here to give are about how they do it, the technique for infiltration and influence of our democracy by the billionaires n. is part of my scheme speeches about how they've taken over the supreme court, captured it in the same way that in the 1800's big railroads captured the railroad commissions that were supposed to set their rates. they just had their people set the rules for them. it worked great. and we're seeing this with the supreme court right now. this is not a conservative

supreme court. this is a captive supreme court, capitallive to special interests. -- captive to special interests. and the technique that they used for getting there is to hide who they are through a array of front groups -- through an array of front groups. there are dozens of front groups that were involved in the court capture scheme. and "the washington post" did a very good review of them several years ago and calculated based on what information they could get at the time, that this was a quarter billion dollar project. $250 million. well, the research continued and folks kept digging, and when i held the hearing about this in my judiciary court subcommittee,

the number had climbed to $400 million spent on the court capture enterprise, and they've kept digging and kept digging. and now it turns out that the number is over $580 million. over half a billion dollars was spent in this effort to capture and control the united states supreme court. i don't think you spend over $580 million unless you have a purpose. very often the purpose is to make that much money back and more. and there's a web of front groups that are used to deploy all that money. and this is just a part of that web. this is just one sort of combined creature in that web. so let me take a few minutes and

just go through the different organs and limbs of this creature. the center of it is a pair of organizations. the 85 fund and the concord f fund. the way that extremely wealthy people play in politics these days is to put two organizations together, that they establish under the tax code. one is called a 501(c)(3) which is named after the section of the tax code under which it's established. and the 501(c)(3) gives you two wonderful things if you're fiddling in politics. one it gives you anonymity. you don't have to disclose your donors. and two it gives you a tax deduction. you get to write off the money that you give to manipulate the

american public. but you can't do something very important with a 501(c)(3). you can't go out and manipulate public opinion. you can't participate in elections. so when you do that, you need to have something else called a 501(c)(4), the very next provision in the irs code. so you take your 501(c)(3) and you take your 501(c)(4) and you set them both up. in my view there is usually no real distinction between the two. there's a doctrine in law called piercing the corporate veil that separates corporate entities that allows people to pursue usually damages to show that this is a fake corporate division. you pierce the corporate veil. the 501(c)(3)'s and 501(c)(4)'s are a a corporate veil that you could probably pierce with a banana. they have the same locations.

they have the same mailing address. they have the same staff. they have the same board members. they have the same funders. it's essentially the same organization but it just operates under two legal structures. so that's what you have for starters. you've got your twinned front groups, the 85 fund, your 501(c)(3). and the concord fund is your 501(c)(4). and they're essentially the same creature. but in this case, this organism has other limbs so what you can do under virginia corporate law is if you're the 85 fund or the concord fund, you can file with the corporate registry of the state of virginia permission to operate under what is called a fictitious name.

so you can operate under your own name, 85 fund, or you can file with permission a fictitious name. i'm not making that up. that is actually the word in virginia law, a fictitious name. well, the 85 fund filed for permission to operate under the fictitious name of the judicial education project. the 501(c)(3) that takes in money and tax deductably to work on the capture of the court. on the other side over here, the concord fund, your twinned 501(c)(4) has its own twinned fictitious name. so the judicial education project has its own little twin in the judicial crisis network. well what do we know about the judicial crisis network? we know that it took checks for as much as 15 million, $17

million from secret donors and it used that money -- imagine writing a $15 million check to an organization like this. it took that money and it first ran campaigns to attack merit -- to attack merrick garland to round up republican support for opposing him as a supreme court justice. and then when that was successful and they brought on judge gorsuch, in came other big checks. and then when gorsuch was on the court, it was time for kava kavanaugh, other big checks. and then when it is time for amy coney barrett, other big checks. we've counted four checks over $15 million which means probably someone, could be four separate individuals, but it was

happening so regularly, you think you'd probably go back to the same source. probably spent -- somebody spent probably $60 million to control who got on to the united states supreme court. and we don't know what business that $60 million donor had before the court. but it's not usual for cases before the court to have outcomes that will shift way more than $60 million. just the climate change cases moved hundreds of billions of dollars around protecting fossil fuels, an enormous subsidy. you have your 85 fund and concord fund pierce the corporate veil with a banana pear and then you have their fictitious twins judicial education project and judicial crisis network.

you don't only want to pack the court, you want to make sure you're suppressing voters. voter suppression is a big deal. you set up your honest elections project to do voter suppression because in this weird billionaire-funded parallel universe erks everything has the opposite name of what it is. and over here you have on the 501(c)(4) side your honest elections project action because there you can spend some of the money politically. so you've got a whole separate set of continues. this time completely fictitious twins, fictitious names. no different from 85 fund and concord fund designed to go out in the world and suppress voting. bring lawsuits, write challenge letters, argue for new laws. and then as we saw in virginia recently, you can really whip people up about what's going on in schools, critical race

theory. so you set up your free to learn fictitious name with its little twin free to learn action to do the 501(c)(4) political work. so now what you have is a total of eight organizations that are really the same. who does this? who in real life does this? sets up eight organizations, six of which are mere fictitious names, to run the same money from the same donors out in the world, to make it look as if something real is happening? when in fact, the whole thing is a phony front. and then you have up at the head of the critter, you've got how

the people behind it get themselves paid. so you have advisers who advise these various entities. you've got this crc advisors is the name of the group. it's got its public relations antenna here. and it's got its strategic advice antenna here, and the money flows, usually this way, so that the people who run this scheme for the big donors can take their cut. they get paid here. these are all for-profit. these are all the not-for-profits that are set up because they allow you to hide who your donors are. so, that's the rig that was set up, and this is not the entire at this of the front -- not the entirety of the front group

scheme that was funded by the $580 million. this is just one coordinated corporate critter that was set up in order to perform all of these different several functions. think back to the founding fathers and their desire to set up a democracy where people made choices about their governments. where popular democracy would be the way in which society went forward. you think they had in mind something as creepy and complex as this? and do you think all that effort to build all this scheming, all the lawyers to file all the papers, to cook up all the funny fictitious names, to create all

these bogus organizations, what's the point of all that? could there be a legitimate point to that? why all the shells? why all the hiding? if you're not up to no good. well, the bottom line is they're up to no good, and the no good is to capture the united states supreme court and turn it from a proper court into a captive political entity that will do what the people who are behind all this money tell it to do. and there are many ways they do it, and i'll go into those many ways on other occasions. but on this one occasion, i wanted just to focus on this multifaced corporate creature that hides its donors, that does all of this different work through fake, fictitious named

organizations, and through which money gets extracted by those who run it so that they can pay themselves for this vast disservice to democracy. to be continued. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 5376, an act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title 2 of s. con rez 14. mr. whitehouse: i ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar

under provisions of rule 14 i object to my own request. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next ledges lative day. mr. whitehouse: i ask the senate proceed to consider the following nominations en bloc, calendar numbers 1098, 1099, that the senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening actions or debate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified on the senate's actions, and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. the question occurs on the nominations en bloc. all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed en bloc. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 5313, received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: h.r. 5313, an act to protect children and other consumers against hazards associated with the accidental ingestion of button cell or coin batteries, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. whitehouse: i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no interviepg action or debate -- intervening action or don't. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the help committee be dischargedded a the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 374. the clerk: a bill to amend the child abuse prevention and treatment act and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. and the senate will proceed. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the hassen for cornyn amendment be considered and agreed to and that the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i know of no

further debate on the bill as amended. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on the bill as amended. all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the mentions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of senate resolution 738, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 738 recognizing the importance of trademarks in the economy and the role of trademarks in protecting consumer safety and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. whitehouse: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is agreed to.

mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervention action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i now i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 739, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 739, authorizing the printing with illustrations of a document entitled committee on appropriations united states senate 1867 to 2022. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. whitehouse: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervention action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:00 p.m. on wednesday, august 3, and following the prayer and pledge the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings approved to date,

the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume consideration of -- that 1173 be modified to consider the following, sullivan amendment number 5192, and paul amendment number 5191. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: for the information of the senate, there will be up to three roll call votes at approximately 4:30 p.m. in reels to the nato treaty. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator portman. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i come to the floor this evening to talk about the democratics' latest reconciliation proposal. this is the tax-and-spend legislation you've probably heard about. it's called the inflation reduction act, but don't be fooled by the name. it doesn't actually decrease the inflationary pressure we all feel at the gas pump, at the grocery store, clothes shopping. it actually makes it worse. sad that we've been down this road before. early last year the democrats passed a massive $1.9 trillion package of supposedly focused on covid, but most of it had nothing to do with covid, but provided a lot of stimulus. it was the largest spending package ever in the history of congress, and at the time it passed a lot of us said, wow,

the economy coming out of that first stage of covid is already picking up steam. in fact, the nonpartisan congressional budget office was telling us that by mid-year last year we'd be back to where we were pre-pandemic, pretty strong economic growth. yet, the democrat are insisting on another $1.9 trillion, almost $2 trillion of spending. remember, we had just passed a $900 billion spending bill to help with covid, which was bipartisan, by the way. i was part of putting that together. so when it came to this new one, we said whoa, don't do this. it's going to overheat the economy, overstimulate the economy, particularly because inflation is about demand mismatching supply, and this is exactly what was happening, is you had demand growing and supply constricted, partly because of covid, partly because of policy decisions being made. so we warned that this much stimulus in the economy was going to lead to inflation, and very sadly we were right. it wasn't just republicans who

said that. some prominent democrat officials said that, including some who had been senior economic advisers in the obama administration in the clinton administration, including larry summers, who was quite prescient when he said gosh, we shun do this because -- shouldn't do this because it will heat up the economy and cause a lot of inflation. democrats didn't pay any attention to those concerns then. they passed that legislation. remember today, we're looking at inflation that is the highest it's been in 40 years. here we are today, about to do some of the same exact things, more spending and more taxing. it's $700 billion more in spending and about $326 billion taxes, new taxes on the economy. it will not reduce inflation. in fact, the nonpartisan penn wharton budget model predicts it will increase inflation over the

next two years, and over time it will be about even, but it won't decrease inflation. in fact, over the first couple years they say it will increase it. the burden of the $326 billion in the tax increases is not just going to companies. it never does. it gets passed along. in this case, it falls, of course, to workers and to consumers. according to the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation that we have to rely on up here, it's a nonpartisan group that it's us the nals of these tax bills, it will hurt americans in nearly every income bracket. they say more than half of the $300 billion in new taxes will fall on folks making less than $400,000 a year. why? because again, you're taxing a company, but the company passes that along to its workers and to its customers. and they're saying that more than half of that burden will fall on taxpayers who make less than $400,000 a year.

why do i say that? because that's the cutoff president biden has alwaysity in place, saying no tax increases will affect anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year. this one does. again, based on the joint commission on taxation. as part of these tax hikes, manufacturing is hit hard. about had 50% of the impact of the tax increase will be on businesses. we just passed a big bill, some call it the chips bill, some call it the china bill, some call it the competition bill, but it is to focus on making our american companies more competitive, particularly our manufacturing companies an we're spending a lot of money, hundreds of billions of dollars to do that and here we're saying, no we're going to increase taxes on those manufacturing businesses. this proposed tax is very different from the existing corporate income tax which is based on income that these businesses actually report to the internal revenue service when they file their taxes.

that income has been defined by congress over the years. it doesn't use that as the measure of income. instead it looks at a company's financial statements an comes up with a new definition, called the adjusted financial statement income. this type of financial reporting is far broader, because these statements were designed for very different reasons. taxable incomes that the i.r.s. is in charge of as opposed toll financial statement income is meant to raise revenue and provides in our tax code all kinds of tax preferences, incentives, disincentives for certain activity like being able to deduct the cost of equipment. that's something we encourage, so we allow companies to do that. like being able to take a tax credit for energy efficiency. that's in the tax part rather than the book income part. the financial statement income is not determined by elected

representatives. congress doesn't determine how you calculate that tax. the financial statement income is actually determined by something called the financial accounting standards board which is a private nonprofit recognized by the u.s. security and exchange commission as the accounting standard setter for public companies. that works fine for determining accounting standards, but this change effectively puts these people in charge of what the corporate tax base is even though they're not elected representatives, they're not working for the government. they're nonprofit. because the corporate taxes are calculated using this different type of information, the 15% minimum tax which is a book tax minimum tax can be larger for companies than the 21% income tax because it calculates it differently. it's an example of congress avoiding its responsibilities, frankly. if we think we should charge

companies more taxation, let's look at the tax code and let's get rid of some of the tax preferences if they think they don't work. let's change the tax code. let's come up with another way to calculate what the tax ought to be to determined by standards by this nonprofit group called the financial accounting standards board. instead of examining the tax code and the reduction in credits that exist, it hands the reigns over to the board. most accountants recognize this is a dangerous path. we were warned not to do it. they warned of the dangers of politicizing this accounting board, they warned this would change company decision making it to make companies less efficient because companies are now going to manage toward the financial statement not toward the income tax. they also warned that it would add needless and significant

complexity to the tax code. well, of course, you've got to calculate now income on two bases very, very different measurement and factors considered. the american institute of certified public accountants who stand to benefit from the complexity wrote us recently a letter saying, please don't do this. this is the c.p.a. organization in the whole country, again, people who benefit from complexity, but they're saying this is just bad policy. why would you determine a company's taxation based on the book income. that's not what that is for. we should listen to these warnings and learn from history. we tried this type of tax in the form of the 1986 tax reform. we actually tried this as a country. and you know what? it lasted two or three years and then it was repealed. why? it didn't work. the exact warnings that we just talked about ended up being true. the assistant secretary for

policy told the house, ways and means committee when it was appealed said it was having a detrimental effect on the reporting of financial quality. the fact that this was not fair, not an appropriate way to measure a company's income. now more than 30 years later democrats seem to have forgotten history and are about to repeat the same mistake. the line you will likely hear from colleagues on this side of the aisle is that this tax is designed to make big companies pay their fair share of taxes because it applies to companies that have more than a billion dollars in net income. that's fine. but guess who pays the tax. it's not corporations who bear the brunt. in reality, the tax falls on workers and it falls on consumers. there are lots of workers and consumers who are connected with these companies. last year there were over 200

companies on the fortune 500 having over a billion dollars or more and they employ over 18 million americans, you're talking about 18 million people who will be affected by this and these big companies have a lot of consumers well beyond those 18 million so it is the millions of people who are employees and who are customers-these businesses who bear the brunt of these tax increases as it is passed down to them in the form of lower wages, lower benefits and higher prices in goods and services, exactly the wrong thing in this inflationary spiral, everything costs more, why would we want to add official costs by -- additional costs by passing this along to consumers. it doesn't matter whether it is income or income on financial statements, corporate income tax falls on these workers. don't take my word for it, the joint commission on taxation said last year they expect 25% of corporate taxes to fall on workers, this means lower wages

again as this recession looms and as inflation hits the highest level since 1981, 40 years plus. by the way, we went through our second quarter of negative economic growth. traditionally that means a recession. that's how we define one. the administration refuses to call it a recession. for people who live in my home state of ohio, particularly people on fixed income, lower-middle-income workers, they feel it. in addition to the joint committee saying that the corporate taxes fall on woarks, the congressi congressional bud, a nonpartisan group said that employees and workers bear 70% of the burden of corporate income taxes. there's a long list of analyses. the organization for economic cooperation and development reviewed many of the available economic studies and the world that have been done and found

the best fall within the range of 30% to 40%. economic studies shows that workers bear 30% to 40% of the corporate tax hikes. going after workers' wages is one heck of a strategy to bring down inflation. wages are here, inflation is here so wages have not kept up with inflation. this will make it worse. germany did an analysis of corporate taxes recently and found that the burden fell hardest on low-skilled, young, and female employees, not the highest earners. the most important of these tax law changes is limiting what's called bonus depreciation. that is something that you would get as a company if you were in the regular income tax system but not under this new book tax calculation. what is bonus depreciation. it allows companies to deduct the cost of investments of new equipment in the year they are

made. under the book tax, they spread that deduction over the lifetime of the investment. in both case they are deducting the cost of it, but whether they can do it immediately under bonus depreciation, whether they have to do it over the course of many years, matters a lot for investment decisions. being able to deduct the costs of these investments immediately provides a big incentive for people to invest and that's what happened. this is not a loophole. i've heard this word, it's a loophole. we're closing loopholes. this is not a loophole, this is a deliberate tax policy that we put in place to encourage companies to invest more in plants and therefore make america more productive and increase the revenue coming into our coffers. it is really important to encourage investment and economic growth, but particularly important for manufacturers, that's why the joint commission on taxation found that half of the burden

will fall on manufacturers because bonus depreciation is important to them it this isn't unique to us. every single developed country in the world offers a policy like bonus depreciation. why? because it works. if they don't and other countries do, they can't compete. the united kingdom is far more generous than ours for the purchase of equipment. across the assets that use this sort of cost recovery, we're well blow the average in the oecd which is a group of about 40 highly developed countries like ours many we rank 21st now out of 38 for these types of incentives. this will make us less competitive. meaning it's going to be better for manufacturers to invest in other countries that have better incentives rather than here in the united states of america. we want them to invest here. we passed legislation to provide more incentives to invest here and now we're doing the opposite

through the book tax increase. bonus depreciation traditionally had bipartisan support and this sudden shift to call bonus depreciation. we expanded it the in 2017 tax cut and jobs act and then in 2018, the next year, in 2019, the next year after that, we had two of the best years ever for manufacturing investment, growing by 4.5% and 5.7% respectively. a lot of that growth was going on overseas, particularly in china. and we brought investment back in the united states. this is why, according to the joint commission on taxation, the manufacturing industry is so hard hit by this. according to the national association of manufacturers, in 2023, this tax increase would shrink gdp, that's our economic

growth, by about $68 billion, would result in 218,000 fewer jobs and would have a labor decrease of about $17 billion. this is the national association of manufacturers telling us this week, please don't do this. this is going to result in a job loss of over 200,000 jobs. we want to have more manufacturing jobs, not less. the workers hit hardest are those who work in manufacturing because this tax hike on physical assets will disproportionately hit manufacturing jobs. my home state of ohio have a lot of manufacturing jobs, we have a lot of manufacturers, we like to make things so it particularly hits states like mine. it's not just wages. workers get hit as wages an benefits and as consumers. families facing record inflation

will face higher prices as the cost gets passed down to the consumer. again, i'm not going on gut feeling, although it makes sense, doesn't it? if you tax an entity, it gets passed along in terms of the cost of the goods. i'm talking about though what economists are saying is going to happen when we increase taxes on american businesses, in a key study at the business school in chicago and northwestern, found that 31% of taxes fall on consumers, and they warn that policymakers have underestimated how much of these taxes fall on consumers, on the people that buy the products that these companies make. democrats are ignoring this evidence. pushing ahead with partisan legislation without any republican support that will make inflation worse, that will hurt workers, that will raise prices. and, again, it doesn't stop there. i can talk about how corporate taxes discourage investment,

both domestic and foreign in the united states, according to economists from the world bank and from harvard. i can talk about how contrary to everything democrats claim, corporate taxes make income and equality worse, increasing the income of the top earners and lowering the income of low and middle income workers, this is based on a 2020 study by the economists at the university of michigan, i can talk about how lowering taxes for businesses of all sizes supports economic growth. going into the pandemic, we had 19 straight months of wage gains of 3% or more, most of that wage gain was going to lower and middle-income workers, we had the lowest poverty rate in the history of the country. we had good things going on because you had economic growth, you had companies paying higher wages. in the years between the tax cuts and jobs act and the coronavirus pandemic, again, we not only saw just an end to the corporate inversions where companies were going overseas,

we saw jobs an investments -- and investments coming back to the united states and inflation low. that is a far cry from the national association of manufacturers which predicts this will result in a $68 billion hit to our economy with over 20,000 fewer jobs. prior to the pandemic progrowth policies led to a steady growth economy. real wage increases of 3% or higher. instead of spending in tax hikes that are only going to add to this inflation, let's have a true inflation reduction act that lowers costs to consumers by increasing supply through regulatory relief, through other pro-growth policies that were working so well before the pandemic. let's do what we know we have to do to get inflation down. it's a miss match -- mismatch between demand and sup pliep. we can through positive pro-growth policies increase that supply and get inflation down and ensure that american

families have a better shot at their american dream. instead here we go again with the inflation reduction act that will actually be the inflation increase act. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 12:00 noon tomorrow. governor 'm

going to rip the band-aid off 'm and get right to some of the topics. you may not want to discuss or may not want to discuss all the time. and then we're gonna get right into not my first rodeo lessons from the heartland. heartland. you're brand new book. have you ever thought generally speaking about running for president? well people ask me about it quite a bit. so then of course you you have to but i'm really focused on staying in south dakota. i'm running for