and by the way, given the incredible power of the pharmaceutical industry, i would suspect even money that they will figure out a way to get around this provision if it takes four years to implement. so this provision will have no impact on the prices for those americans -- furthermore, this provision will have no impact on the prices for those americans who are not on medicare. so if if you're under 65, this bill will not impact you at all, and the drug companies will be able to continue to go on their merry way and raise prices to whatever level they want. madam president, under this bill, at a time when the drug companies are enjoying huge profits, the pharmaceutical industry will still be allowed to charge the american people by far the highest prices in the

world for prescription drugs. so that is the reality of this bill. what do we do? well, if we are serious about responding to what the american people want and the polling that i have seen, it's like 70% to 80% of the people understand that prescription drugs are much too high. they want us to act. this bill, unfortunately, does not do that. if we are serious about reducing the price of prescription drugs, we know exactly how we can do it. for over 30 years, the veterans administration has been negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to lower the cost of prescription drugs. moreover, for decades virtually every other country on earth has been doing the same thing. 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 people all over this country. in some cases, as i mentioned earlier, we may pay up to ten times as much for a particular drug. in other words, when it comes to reducing the price of prescription drugs under medicare, we do not have to reinvent the wheel. we can simply require medicare to pay no more for prescription drugs than the v.a. that is not a radical idea. that is a simple idea. you got one government agency doing what they're doing for 30 years. all we have to do is have medicare do the same. and if we did that, if we did that, we could literally cut the price of prescription drugs under medicare in half in a matter of months, not years. and that is why i am introducing

an amendment today to do just that. under this amendment, we could save medicare $900 billion over the next decade. this is nine times -- nine times -- more savings than the rather weak negotiation provisions currently in the bill. we can save $900 billion by negotiating rather than $100 billion. the reason that we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs is not hard to understand. during the past 20 years, the pharmaceutical industry has spent over $5 billion on lobbying and over half a billion dollars in campaign contributions.

further, the pharmaceutical industry has over the years mounted an unprecedented lobbying effort in washington and in states all across this country. now, what is unbelievable -- if you want to know what a corrupt political system is about, if you want to know what money in politics is about, if you want to know what corporate greed is about, if you want to know why we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, please understand that right now at this moment, the pharmaceutical industry has more than 1,700 well-paid lobbyists on capitol hill to protect their interests, including former congressional leaders of both major political parties. they buy democratic leaders, they buy republican leaders, they buy former members of congress. 1,700 well-paid lobbyists to

make sure they continue to rip off the american people and charge us the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. that is over three lobbyists for every one member of congress. 535 members of congress, 1,700 lobbyists. mr. president, just yesterday -- and this is really interesting. it brings it all out. the c.e.o. of pharma, his name is steve ugal, i think -- basically said, and i appreciate his honesty and straight affordness, he says, anybody who votes for this incredibly tepid bill, we are going to go after you. he stated -- and i love this kind of modesty -- he said fewer organizations have all the tools

at the disposal as pharma does, end of quote. if you dare to vote in any way to lower the cost of prescription drugs, we're going to spend all of the money we have and we have endless, unlimited amounts of money against you. that is what a corrupt political system is about. that's what corporate greed is about. basically, the c.e.o. of pharma says, you vote for this bill, you can expect millions and millions of dollars of 30-second ads against you. that's where we are in the state of our democracy today. madam president -- mr. president, prescription drugs is a huge issue, but it's not the only issue that is dealt with inadequately in this legislation. it is my view -- i think it is the view of the majority of the

american people. it is certainly the view of the scientific community that climate change is an existential threat to the planet. now, that sounds like a big word, existential. what that means, if we don't get our act today, there may not be a planet that is healthy and habitable for our children and grandchildren. it is essential to protecting future generations. mr. president, this legislation provides $370 billion over the next decade to combat climate change and to invest in so-called energy security programs. you know, the good news -- and it is good news -- is that this legislation, as currently written, would provide more funding for energy efficiency and sustainable energy than has ever been invested before. that is the good news. but, mr. president, the bad news is that this bill, as currently

written, includes a huge giveaway to the fossil fuel industry both in the reconciliation bill that we are considering and in a size deal that was just made public a few days ago. mr. president, 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 already receive every year. and, interestingly enough, mr. president, that may well be the reason why b.p., one of the largest oil companies in the world, supports this bill. it may be the reason why shell, another huge oil company, supports this bill. and it is the reason, i suspect, why the c.e.o. of exxonmobil is pleased by many of the provisions included in this deal. so we've got to think a little bit about what it means when

major oil companies who are in the process of destroying the planet support this legislation. under this bill, 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 -- before -- the federal government could approve any new offshore wind development. to put that in perspective, 60 million acres is the size of the state of michigan. 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 will offer the fossil fuel industry up to 700 million acres of public lands and waters to oil and gas drilling over the next decade. far more than the oil and gas

industry could possibly use. and, mr. president, that is not all. the fossil fuel industry will not just benefit from the provisions in the reconciliation bill, as currently written; 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 the $.6 billion mountain valley pipeline, a fracked gas pipeline that would span over 300 miles from west virginia to virginia and potentially on to north carolina. this is a pipeline that would generate emissions equiv willent to that released by 37 coal plants or by over 27 million cars each and every year. mr. president, let me quote from the a july 29 letter from over 350 environmental organizations, including friends of the earn,

food and water watch, and the climate justice alliance expressing concerns about this bill. and i quote -- any approval of new fossil fuel projects or fast-tracking of fossil fuel permitting is incompatible with climate leadership. oil, gas, and coal production are the core drivers of the climate and extinction crises. there can be no new fossil fuel leases if we have any hope of preventing ever-worsening climate crises, catastrophic floods, deadly wildfires and more, all of which are ripping across the country as we speak. we are out of time. therefore, we -- these 350 organizations -- are calling on you -- in other words, the president, leadership of congress -- to fulfill your promise to lead starting with the nine approvals for the

mountain valuely is pipeline, rejecting all new federal fossil fuel leases on-shore, in the gulf of mexico, alaska, and everywhere else and preventing any fast-track permits for fossil fuel projects. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent to insert the full letter into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: thank you. and here is what the center for biological diversity had to say on this bill. quote -- this is a climate suicide pact. it is self-defeating to handcuff renewable energy development to massive new oil and gas extraction. the new leasing required in this bill will fan the flames. climate disasters torching our country and it's a slap in the face to the communities fighting to protect themselves from filthy fossil fuels, end quote. now, mr. president, in my view, we have got to do everything we can to take on the greed, the irresponsibility, the destructiveness of the fossil

fuel industry, not give billions of dollars in corporate welfare to an industry that has been destroying our planet. and that is why i will be introducing an amendment today to strike all of the benefits to the fossil fuel industry that are in this bill and i will be asking for a roll call vote on it. and, mr. president, let me say a word about some of the other amendments that i'll be introducing. i will be introducing an amendment that is widely popular -- the concept is widely popular -- and that is to expand medicare to provide dental, vision, and hearing benefits. this amendment is fully paid for by demanding that at wealthiest people start paying their fair share of taxes. further, i will be introducing an amendment to provide $30 billion to establish the civilian conservation corps, which would create 400,000 jobs for young people to combat

climate change. the entire younger generation wants to roll up their sleeves and get involved in the effort to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. and this amendment and the establishment of a civilian conservation corps would allow them to do that. and, further, mr. president, i will be introducing an amendment to expand the $300-a-month child tax credit for the next five years by restoring the top corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. as you know, we made significant progress in lowering childhood poverty in america. we reduced it by 40% with the establishment of a child tax credit. but, unfortunately, that was not continued in this year. and i this i it needs to do so. so, bottom, this is where we are

at. the american people are hurting. tens of millions of workers are falling further and further behind. the elderly are hurting. the kids are hurting. and people are looking to their elected representatives in washington to finally address the crises that they are facing. and in a reconciliation bill, where we only need 50 votes and the vice president, we have the capability, if we pass these amendments, of taking a giant step forward, not only in addressing the needs of our kids, our elderly and working families, but it may be, just maybe, beginning to restore the confidence of the american people in their democracy, in believing that their elected officials are listening to them and not just lobbyists and

wealthy campaign contributors. so i would look forward to offering these amendments, and getting them passed, and i thank the president very much and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senior senator from south carolina is recognized. mr. graham: thank you very much mr. president. i yield myself 20 minutes from the bill. so, where to start? well, i've thought long and hard about how to explain this to the american people, and the only thing i can tell you is insanity is defined as doing the same thick and expecting a different outcome. so here we are, with the same people coming up with a plan to help you. how well did that work out the last time these 50 people were going to save you and your family? you'll eventually come to the

conclusion, i hope, they generally don't know what they're doing. and the best way to stop a drunk driver is to take the keys away before they get in the car. the best was i to stop this tax-and--- the best way to stop this tax-and-spend spend inflationary madness is to fire some of the 50 so they can't keep doing this to your family. march of 2021, we had a debate. senator sanders, very good, good man, and everybody over there told us if we pass the american rescue plan your life will be dramatically better, and as $1.9 trillion passed with democratic votes alone in march of 2021. not one republican voted for it. since then, we've been able to pass a infrastructure bill in a bipartisan manner. we passed legislation trying to

keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people and generally help were that problem. we've come together around the ukraine to help them beat the russians. we've come together to designate russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. my oligarch friend up there, the guy who hates oligarchs more than anybody, we've come together to try to go after the assets of the putin cronies. so it's not like we can't work together. but what you're not going to get from our side is buy-in to really bad ideas. so, to the american people, the same people telling you what this bill is going to do for you are the same people who told you the american rescue plan would work. let's go down memory lane here for a second. here's what the vice president said about the $1.9 trillion american rescue plan passed in

march, 2021 with democratic votes alone -- help has arrived for the families that have struggled to put food on their table, for the small businesses that have struggled to keep their doors open. help has arrived, america. this was said in 2021. she promised you help is on the way if you pass the democratic american rescue plan. here's what senator schumer said, we've heard a lot about how the american rescue plan will prime the american economy to come roaring back. economists are already projecting that economic growth could double as a result of the american rescue plan, march 16, 2021. i don't know where the economists are today, but i hope they're not in the economy business, because they sure as hell didn't know what they were talking about. what's happened from those statement to now? instead of help being on the way, helping you put food on the

table, see if that makes sense to you. the american rescue plan has helped put food on the table, that help is on the way for business. in march of 2021, before the american rescue plan, inflation was at 2.6%. today it's at 9.1%. tdo you think it's an accident this has happened? if you do, you probably shouldn't be driving. you're a danger to yourself or others. we told you, and by god, god knows the republicans are by no means perfect, but we told you what was going to happen, that we had a struggling economy because of covid, and this tax-and-spend growing the government throwing money to everything is going to come back to bite us in the ass and it did. take a hundred bucks and go to the grocery store, see what you get for it. you got to get a mortgage on your house to fill up your car.

this is no accident. and the same people who told you then they had it figured out for you are telling you something now that i think is throwing gasoline on the fire that you're living with. that's why every republican will vote no. senator sanders is reluctantly going to vote yes. i'm going to enthusiastically vote no. i don't mind working with democrats when it matter and it helps, but this to me is insane. so, here's where we find ourselves as a nation. we find ourselves as a nation in a recession. if a republican would be president, i doubt if most of the media would doubt we're in a recession. and it's defined as a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced,

generally identified by a fall in gdp in twoive quarters. the first quarter was 1.6 negative growth, the second quarter 0.9. over time, unfortunately, it's probably going to get worse because we'll have to raise interest rates to control rampant inflation, and that's going to make it harder to borrow money and invest in the economy. on top of that, they're about to pass a bill without one republican vote that will take every problem they created in march and make it dramatically worse. now, let's go down sort of what life is like in america right now. they told you help would be on the way, the economy would double if we passed their bill in march of 2021. didn't quite work out that way, did it? gasoline has gone up 59.9%. it will eventually come down because the economy's coming to a halt.

34% increase in airfare if you can get a plane to leave in the same month you schedule it. electricity rates, 13.7. food, 10.4. chicken, 18.6. serial, 14.2. this is sort of what i eat. bacon, i love bacon, 10.8% increase. the bottom line is the american rescue plan did not help your family, it's not helping your business, it's taken every problem we had from covid and made it worse. what is their solution? to do the same thing all over again in a different way. what's in this bill, what makes me say that? when you ask people does the reduction in inflation act reduce inflation, i mean, not

me, not any of the 50 of us, but just ask somebody who is sort of like supposed to know what they're talking about, and they will tell you it does not. the whole bill is a lie. the american rescue plan should be called the american recession plan, and this inflation reduction act is a lie. it's not going to reduce inflation in any meaningful way. we have the highest inflation in 40 years, and here's what the penn wharton school of business says, that it has a negligible impact -- sorry, it's kind of late, but we'll have breakfast together, i'll get better as the night goes on. the manchin-schumer bill is going to make inflation worse. here's what the penn wharton

university of pennsylvania business school says, low confidence that legislation will have any impact on inflation. bill would actually cause inflation to rise until 2024. these people could give a damn. nobody is going to convince them to stop taxing and spending as long as they have the ability to do it. penn wharton, it was sort of the bible for senator manchin when he stopped build back better. and i'm glad he did. but they're telling him that what he and others are saying doesn't actually work. cbo, supposed to be the bible, according to senator manchin, has a negligible -- i can't say that word, very little effect on inflation. they said it would not reduce inflation in 2022, and inflation would go up or down .01% in 2023. this is the people who wrote the

budget bible, telling all of y'all what you're saying is not true. but you don't care. you could care less. so, here's what the bill does. here's why none of us are going to vote for it. how many of you think now is a good time to create a new gas tax? it's not. so, let me tell you what's in this bill. this bill has a 16.4 cents per barrel new gas tax on all imported oil and petroleum products, and all domestic crude refined in america, which will create billions of dollars of new gas taxes at a time we need to have less gas taxes, in my

view. so, in the name of climate change, this bill increases gas taxes. it brought back from the dead a 1995 tax that was 9.7 cents per barrel on imported oil, increased it to 16.4 cents at a time of high gas prices, and included domestic crude refined in america. pennies become dimes and dimes become dollars. so, if you're looking to increase gas taxes, your ship has come in, vote for this bill. if you think it's dumb as dirt to have a new gas tax with this economy, vote for my amendment that comes up later. what else does the bill do? it increases taxes. got to be shocked about that. so, it increases taxes by billions, hundreds of billions,

and they say it won't affect you. well, the cbo analysis and penn wharton said that the effect of the tax increases on business will be passed down to people who make below $100,000 a year. just think about, does that make sense to you? you increase taxes on a business, they pass it along to their customers. that's just sort of the way the economy works. the 15% minimum tax, how does that work? the tax eliminates expensing for equipment and other items a business may purchase to grow their business, which we created in 2017, in the same year you buy it. what does cbo say about that? cbo says that this bill will deinseptember advise purchasing -- deincentivize purchasing equipment and building factories. think about what i just said.

you're about to push on the american people another bill that will raise gas taxes and deincentivize investment in the private sect yo, in the area of -- private sector in the area of equipment and factory expansion at a time we need it the most. what does this bill do on the health care front? obamacare subsidies under this proposal will go to people making $304,100 as a couple for a family of four. let me ask you, is now the time to subsidize ob obamacare for people making $304,000 a year? that's what's in this bill. now, here's my favorite part.

this bill has a plan to hire 87,000 new irs agents. new ones. that's enough to fill up the rose bowl. that's bigger than the british army. they're going to propose hiring 87,000 new irs agents, and they promise you this is only going to go after the rich. you should not believe that. this is an army of irs agents are going to go after everybody about everything to fill the insaish -- insatiable desire of our friends on the other side to

take money from you. there will be now irs agents, than the british army, the german army, the french air force and navy. literally an army of new irs agents, and you shouldn't worry about what these people may do. as i tried to tell people last time, the american rescue plan wasn't going to rescue you. it was going to make your life worse. and it did. 9.1% inflation, the highest in 40 years. senator sanders is right, people are hurting out there. let's work together to help them. but you're not helping anybody. at the time you promised us help was on the way, inflation was

at 2.6%. because of the help you gave the economy, it's at 9.1%. here's what we're trying to tell you over here. if this bill passes, the problems you face today are going to get worse. and we will remind you in november. prescription drugs. in this bill they identify 15 drugs they're going to have price controls on. talked about the price in canada. most new drugs come from this country, not canada. so let's make canada pay more for the research and development done in our country to help the world. that makes some sense to me. but price-fixing is a socialist idea that has never worked anywhere. even richard nixon tried it. it didn't work. and during covid we should have learned one thing.

the private sector developed drugs to keep a lot of people alive, out of the hospital, and i'm glad they were able to do it. operation warp speed was a tremendous success, and it was done by the american pharmaceutical industry. and after this exercise is over, the idea of new drugs coming online is going to go down, and the socialist model that senator sanders embraces is going to hurt innovation. he's a fine man but he's a democratic socialist. this bill doesn't go far enough for him, but it goes way too far for you. so i'm hoping and praying that one of you over there would agree with me. let's don't raise gas taxes now. let's don't raise taxes on business so they can invest in buying new equipment now.

let's don't spend a bunch of money subsidizing obamacare for people who make over $300,000 now. but that's probably what we're going to do unless we can convince one person over there to reject this madness. and i'm telling you, ladies and gentlemen, throughout the country, this is madness. our democratic friends, there is some plan to tax and spend on something. nice people, but they consistently have a view about what to do for the economy that is not working. i beg and plead with one democrat, listen and learn from what you did last time. senator manchin has been strong

at times, but he voted for the american rescue plan. he's telling us this will reduce inflation when cbo says it will not. he's telling us that this will improve the economy when penn wharton says it won't. no matter what anybody says, they're hellbent on doing this because they can. i hoping after this election they can't do this anymore. and here's what i think it's going to take. one democrat admitting maybe the american rescue plan didn't work, and this won't work. maybe there's one among you. but if there's not, to the american people, in november i hope you will remember this. help is not coming by passing this bill. help was not on the way by passing the american rescue

plan. misery came from that massive tax-and-spend bill, and we're about to pile misery on top of misery. we're about to increase gas taxes at a time you can't afford it. so to my republican colleagues, you should enthusiastically vote no. to my democratic colleagues, apparently you haven't learned a damned thing about what you did last time. with that, i yield. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: that you want. i rise -- thank you, mr. president. i rise tonight to talk about the inflation reduction act. i'll keep within my five minutes. i want to start by providing a brief summary. this is legislation which will

do a number of things, all of which are helpful to the american economy and american family. first of all, it will lower the cost of prescription drugs for seniors. it will in fact lower the cost of energy, the prices people pay for energy. on the prescription drug front, we talk about lowering costs, it empowers medicare for the marisa time to begin to negotiate for lower prices. it also caps the out-of-pocket costs that medicare beneficiaries pay at $2,000. in pennsylvania, the estimate is that there are more than 73,000 pennsylvanians that pay more than $2,000 a year for prescription drugs. every one of those 73,000-plus pennsylvanians and more will benefit from that capping of out-of-pocket costs. so it lowers costs for families, but it also reduces the threat of climate change and

reduces the deficit at the same time. all of that, while reducing emissions between now and 2030 by some 40%. and this may be the very last time, the very last time that we have an opportunity to take action in a substantial way against the threat of climate change. the presiding officer has worked on this issue for years. he knows of what i speak better than anyone. this may be the last chance to take action on climate change. thirdly and not by way of a complete summary, it extends the affordable care act subsidies. the subsidies that were provided in the american rescue plan, enhanced subsidies and premium tax credits, those subsidies will be extended to 2025. again, i'll personalize it to pennsylvania.

this directly affects at least 100,000 people. 60,000 people in our state will lose all their insurance coverage if we don't pass this bill. another 40,000 will have their subsidies taken away. and several hundred thousand will have their premiums go up. so it affects 100,000 people directly and several hundred thousand people directly or indirectly. and then of course this bill creates millions and millions of jobs over the ten years that the bill has been measured. so after we pass the inflation reduction act, which will reduce inflation -- that's what we're told by some 126 economists. larry summers and others have said the same thing. it will fight inflation in the ways that already been spoken about. but after we pass this bill, this strong bill for the

american economy and for american families, we've got more work to do. we've got to continue our work to pass legislation to invest in home and community-based service for seniors and people with disabilities. we've got to invest in child care and institute again what we did with the american rescue plan, by taking the child care tax credit and enhancing that child care tax credit. we've got to invest in prekindergarten education and paid leave, paid family leave. we've got to invest in and protect the medicaid program and extend it. we've got so much more to do. and i'll just spend my remaining minutes talking about one issue, the issue i started with on that list -- the home- and community-based services issue. this is an issue that people across the country have come to talk to us about, about a

senior, a loved one that they want to have home care and can't get it because they're on a waiting list as it's approaching a million people. or a person with a disability who wants that same kind of care in the home or in the community. i met a lot of people and listened to them and listened to their stories. two come to mind in particular -- someone who needs that care, his name is brandon kingmore, and his caregiver, lynn widener. i visited brandon's home with lynn there and learned firsthand what they're up against every single day in that home. some months later brandon had the chance to meet with the president in my hometown of scranton. one thing that he said about lynn as a caregiver and caregivers overall, he said the following. he said i would not be able to have the life that i have without lynn's help. he said caregivers give us a substantial life, unquote. that's what one pennsylvanian

said about the care he receives. every family should have that opportunity to have care in the home or in the community, and they can't get that under current law. the only option for most families is care in a nursing home or other institutions. now if -- or institutional care. if someone wants that care, that's great. and a lot of those nursing homes do really good work. but here's the problem. so many americans should have the right to have care in their home, and they don't have that opportunity today. so we've got to pass legislation to do that. the better care, better jobs bill does that. jobs for home care workers to get that pay up, we can't be a nation that claims to be the greatest country in the world and pay home care workers just $12 an hour. that's not going to provide the care that our families need. so this bill is about jobs for home care workers, care

obviously for seniors and people with disabilities, and support for family caregivers. more than 50 million americans, more than 50 million americans are providing care to a loved one. they're saving us money by doing that, saving the nation money, but they're caring for a family member out of an act of love. we've got to help them a lot more than we do. the last two more points i'll make, we can decide to go forward and just say your only option as a senior or person with a disability is to go to a nursing home or institutional setting. if we continue to do that, the do have the of that is $90,000 per person. or we can invest in home- and community-based services and not pay $90,000 person person. we can pay $26,000 per american for that kind of care. it has a huge cost benefit as well as the compelling moral

argument that we should provide these opportunities. so, mr. president, this bill we're going to pass tonight or tomorrow morning or whenever we pass it, is a good bill for families. lowering costs, helping seniors with prescription drugs, and really moving forward on action against climate change. after it's passed, we're going to continue to work on these other issues. i want to end with this. i want to thank members of my staff who have particularly worked so hard the last 18 months on a range of issues, but in particular the ones who worked on home and community-based services and will continue that fight with us. stacey sanders, michael g amma mccormick, norda apache and so many others who have done good work like so many others of the staffs of so many senators here tonight. but let's get the inflation reduction act passed tonight and let's move forward on these other issues in the months ahead. mr. president, i

-- mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: mr. president, i yield myself ten minutes from the bill time. mr. president, i rise today to honor the lives of four hoosiers who were lost tragically in a car accident this week. edith smucker, zachary potts, emma thompson and representative jackie walorski. we grieve them all and we pray for their family and friends. this is, of course, a profoundly difficult time for those of us who knew one or more of these hoosiers. it's such a difficult time for their families and their

friends, and all of us, i know, we commit to do whatever it is in our power to comfort their loved ones in the difficult days ahead. like everyone here and back home in indiana, i'm absolutely heartbroken. i think one thing that hit everyone, particularly hard, was the loss of two young congressional staff members. whether you knew zack or emma personally or not, you certainly know their type if you're watching these proceedings from capitol hill. you know the type of hardworking, smart, committed young person that comes to work on a congressional staff. they dedicate so much of their time, their talents, other opportunities are given up in order to serve their country to work towards the betterment of their nation. we should celebrate their

accomplishments whale we grieve their loss -- while we grieve their loss. it is a reminder for us to thank the many congressional staff members who do much more than the public will ever know. i want to take a few minutes to pay tribute to our colleague right here in the halls of congress, jackie walorski. jackie and i came to congress roughly the same time, she two years after i. i will never forget when she arrived here at the u.s. chill. jackie didn't need time to get her sea legs. no, she knew she belonged here. she knew this was her calling and don't need people to tell her anything. she got right to work. i have to say her confidence was infectious. everyone saw it. everyone was impressed by it.

people loved being around her, including me. jackie had so many other amazing qualities and i'd like to highlight a number of those today. she was always so full of energy. it was a positive energy. she was -- she was a lightning bolt. she could light up a room like no other. in fact, in my observation, she only had two speeds, it was full on and off. she was high spirited and full of fire. jackie also had a really big heart. in fact, her heart was as big as it was good. she wore it on her sleeve every day, every moment of the day. she didn't hide her convictions. in fact, she made sure they were expressed in the boldest, most colorful fashion. her convictions were deeply held. she was proud of them.

it's what made jackie jackie. it was -- she was of deep conviction, clearly not just with respect to her politics. no, it came from a deeper place. she had deep convictions with respect to her religious faith. i have to say for all the many speeches i saw her deliver, for all the people i saw her energize, it was often after she delivered a prayer, and i saw her deliver a number of those, that audiences gave their most heartfelt ovations. jackie was a larger-than-life figure, but jackie was never fake. she was never contrived. she was beloved, in fact, because she inspired and motivated people with a passion that was so authentic. so human.

and jackie cared about the people she connected with. she was genuinely concerned. she was what you might call the genuine article. jackie was also very smart, not just energetic. she was very smart. as a member of the house ways and means committee, you could see that on a regular basis, but even in a casual conversation, jackie had a habit of cutting right to the issue. but more importantly, jackie was smart about the people she represented. she knew their hearts. she knew their concerns. she knew their challenges. she knew their aspirations. she studied them. she lived it. she stayed in touch with it. she never forgot who she worked with. she never forgot who she worked for, and she never forgot who sent her to washington.

jackie also had courage. she was a fearless leader. you see this in your best leaders. she didn't flinch in the face of tough votes. no, jackie was smart enough to know the consequences, but she wasn't afraid. she did what she thought was right, she did it for the right reasons and she had enough self-confidence to go explain her votes to her constituents. it was a confidence in herself, but it was also a confidence in those she represented. she was a leader. confident in her only abilities and confident in the abilities of those around her. if there's a single memory of jackie's time in this building, the u.s. capitol, and i'd say her time in the indiana state house, it was that she is,

indeed, a leader. since jackie's passing, i've had the opportunity to discuss her service, her life with a number of people, and this keeps coming up, she was a real leader. this is what they're talking about. for all these amazing qualities, i have to say personally there's something else that i keep coming back to. it's the first thing i come back to when i think of jackie and it's, frankly, it's very personal to me. i'm going to miss jackie's laughter. she had a beautiful, belloing laugh, uninhibited, so authentic, not contrived, she appreciated humor, she appreciated at time life.

maybe she had read something recently she wanted to share with me, but we had so many great laughs together and she could make my side hurt in fairly short order. i'm going to miss that. it's really hard to believe that our paths won't ever gross again. they crossed so frequently. sometimes in this building, but typically it was in indiana's second congressional district back home. it was rare, i'd say, that i didn't go into that region and encounter her or at least follow in her traction. she was -- tracks. she was so active, so engaged. i'm going to miss those encounters. just a few weeks ago i had an opportunity to visit with jackie in person. she shared some laughs, of

course, it was at a dinner in elkcart county, she were scheduled to attend a ribbon-cutting ceremony this week, she was constantly on the road serving, doing her job. it's not too much to say that was her calling. it's also not too much to say that jackie's last breath was spent in service -- in service to her constituents, to her god, to the great state of indiana, to her country, to her calling. jackie loved them. she was ever faithful to all of those things, to the great benefit of indiana and america. and for that i am grateful, for

that we loved her back and will miss her dearly. let that be her legacy. i yield to my colleague from indiana. mr. braun: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: i yield myself five minutes from the bill time. i rise today to honor the life of congresswoman jackie walorski. three others were lost in the tragic accident. like i said last week, a real gut punch to any of us who knew jackie and the hoosiers across the board. the outpouring of grief for the lives lost has been immense in our state as hoosiers share their memories of them, you can see just how important all those lives were.

let me talk about jackie. i got to know her early on when i was entertaining running for senate. she was up in the north central part of indiana, a place that i had been very little, and she was engaging, i spent get togethers with her before and after i was elected. todd said it well. whoever she came across, she was their friend. full of enthusiasm, never really knew a stranger. i got to know her better over the years since then, and i can tell you faith, family, community were the principles that guided her. in times of mourning show us just how important those things truly are. as the friends and families grieve for the four lives lost in this tragedy, i hope they can find constellation in their

faith -- constellation in her faith, their families, their communities in the memory of their loved ones. zack potts was a rising presence in indiana politics. he was a district chair, also the republican chair of st. joe county, an up and comer. he is remembered by friends as someone who truly care, who didn't ask what's wrong, but instead asked how can i help? emma thompson, jackie's communication director is remembered by those who knew her, creative, funny, driven, committed to the idea that people are the most important thing in politics. edith smucker is remembered as a loving mother and a big-hearted friend to all at the assisted living facility where she worked

and served others. i hope you will join me and todd in praying for their friends and their families as we honor the lives of jackie, zack, emma, and edith, their legacies will live on in those whose lives they touched. and, jackie, was a living testament to what it means to be a good and faithful servant. she lived it out every day and she will truly be missed. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. young: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 748, which is at the desk. i further ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions

to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. a senator: map, i yield myself 30 minutes from the bill time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. crapo: thank you, madam president. i'd like to start my remarks by going back to near the very beginning of this congress when we were debating what was called the american rescue plan. we were told then by our colleagues on the other side that this was going to save the country.

$1.9 trillion of debt-financed spending, they said, was going to fix everybody's concerns in the united states. where are we today? 9.1% consumer price inflation, which we told them was coming. gas prices doubling. economic stagnation, gdp contracted by .9% in the second quarter, we're arguing over semantics over what is a recession. 65% of the people in this country think we're already in a recession and more than 80% of the country think our economy is on the wrong track. the penn wharton budget model has made a comment about what we're looking at today. what are we being told today? another rescue plan. only this time they call it the inflation reduction act. the penn wharton budget model says this bill will if anything

raise inflation in the first few years of this budget with a small and significant negative effect later in this decade. that same model concludes that there is, quote, low confidence that the legislation will have any impact on inflation. but it does have an impact on all of us and our economy. it does nothing to bring the economy out of stagnation and recession but rather the inflation reduction act of 2022 gives us higher taxes, more spending prks higher prices -- spending, higher prices and an army of irs agents. let's talk about the taxes first. hundreds of billions of dollars are raised through taxes, around $350 billion to $400 billion. there's a new book minimum tax on corporations. there's a new tax on stock

buybacks. there's -- believe this or not -- a new tax on gasoline, on oil and gas production and refineries at the very time when our president has shut down production of oil and gas on our interior and offshore and has stopped the keystone xl pipeline basically freezing america's production and driving us from a state of energy independence to a state of energy dependence where we have to ask our friends and often our enemies across the globe to increase their gas production to help us deal with our prices at the pump. and this book minimum tax, everybody in america knows that corporations don't bear the burden of the taxes we put on them. who does? workers, consumers, and owners.

a recent national bureau of economic research study estimates that 31% of these taxes will be borne by consumers via price hikes, price hikes at a time when we are dealing with record inflation. 38% is borne by workers by way of lower wages or less employment. and 31% is borne by owners. now, my colleagues are very quick to say well, this is just rich people and rich companies who are tax cheaters. the owners of the corporations, though, are primarily people in america who have retired and are leaning on a pension or who yet have not retired or are trying to save money for their retirement by putting their money into 401(k) programs or other investment programs. that's who bears the burden of these taxes.

we just asked the joint tax committee to tell us who bears these burdens, who will bear the burden of these tax hikes? they told us as the chart here shows, in 2023 these taxes will be -- the taxes will be increased by $16.7 billion on american taxpayers earning less than $200,000. in 2023 another $14.1 billion will come from taxpayers earning between $200,000 and $500,000. and by 2031 when the new green energy credits and subsidies provide an even greater benefit to those in america with higher incomes, those earning below $400,000 are projected to bear as much as two-thirds of the burden of the additional tax revenues collected in that year. that's what we're being offered as a solution to the crisis that we are now in in our economy.

and as i'll discuss later, the nonpartisan congressional budget office has recently confirmed that a significant portion of the revenue that the irs supersized funding they claim will be coming from audits that they are going to be taking will come out of taxpayers' earning less than -- taxpayers earning less than $400,000. so in response to this data that we've been able to show about their very tax proposals in this bill, the democrats surprisingly have claimed that this joint tax committee analysis isn't valid because it didn't include the effects of their spending that they were putting into the bill. that's a novel idea. it's okay to raise taxes, and it's okay to put more tax burden on people making more than $400,000 because we're going to be sending some subsidies to some of them. so we asked the joint tax commission to include those subsidies in its analysis which they did.

the analysis they gave us back incorporated the obamacare subsidies and shows the burdens of the proposed tax increases in the democrats' reckless bill will be so substantial and so widespread throughout all income categories, i repeat all income categories, that no amount of temporary health care credits or even the subsidies that this bill gives for $80,000 luxury suv's will overcome the tax increase burdens that will be overwhelmingly felt by lower and middle-income class americans. few if any americans will get a net reduction in the burden that they will bear from the taxes and subsidies provided in this bill. and for any that do, it will only be temporary. the vast majority will still bear the burden of these taxes. the book minimum tax does not

close loopholes. you often hear that from my colleagues on the other side as well. it raises taxes on u.s. companies by hundreds of billions of dollars. and it would not prevent all companies from paying zero tax. instead it would let some of the companies preferred by the democrats continue to avoid their taxes by using not loopholes but legitimate provisions for research and development, cut tax credits and other kinds of tax credits that are intended to incentivize the conduct of those companies. the joint tax committee has already estimated that half of the burden of the book minimum tax will fall on manufacturers. in other words let me go to what 252 trade associations and chambers of commerce from across the country said when they realized that close to half of

this burden will fall on manufacturers. this is from those trade associations who jointly, 252 of them, wrote to congress. enact be the proposed corporate books minimum tax would be the antithesis of sound tax policy and administration. its introduction would neither be simple nor administrationable and would pose a competitive disadvantage to u.s. headquartered businesses while increasing the incidence of unrelieved double taxation. it would also have a detrimental effect on the quality of financial reporting. the business round table said the proposed book minimum tax would among other things suppress domestic investment. remember that. suppress domestic investment. when increased investment is needed to spur a strong recovery in our economy, this tax hike would also undermine the competitiveness of america's exporters. even with a carve-out for

accelerated depreciation, there remain many unresolved problems with the design and structure of this minimum tax that make it a poor revenue option. so let's go to the next one that they raise. stock buybacks. once again my colleagues on the other side are quick to attack any company that does a stock buyback saying they're just trying to make owners of their stock who are rich tax cheaters even more wealthy. i've already explained that the owners of that stock are the vast majority of americans who are retired or who are working for retirement or who are trying to invest a little bit to try to get ahead. despite the claims that these are loopholes, they're doubling down on proposing a $74 billion tax on u.s. companies. democrats want to create a third layer of tax on american companies which will have the harshest impact on seniors and

other savers. "the wall street journal" in a recent editorial explained, companies use buybacks to return cash to shareholders for which they don't have a better use. shareholders who sell shares back to companies can invest the proceeds elsewhere. that beats letting the cash sit on corporate books earning interest while ceo's get complacent or decide to buy a business they don't really want or understand how to run. buybacks aren't tax free. owners who sell shares back to the company realize a taxable gain. any boost in the share price contributes to a higher taxable gain for remaining owners when they sell their shares in the future. why not pay dividends instead? companies and shareholders might prefer buybacks in some instances such as the company is disbursing a one-time lump sum or shifting the balance of equity and debt on its books. for the economy overall,

buybacks have the effect of distributing capital specifically to those owners who choose to participate because they believe they have a more productive use for it. capital flows from companies that don't need it to companies that do. democrats are telling companies if you return value to your retirees or to retirees in the country or if you return value to people's investment in 401(k) plans or pension plans, then you will pay a punitive tax. the majority of american households have direct or indirect ownership of corporate stock via pensions, 401(k) plans or other saving vehicles. here's some interesting statistics about the americans who will bear the burden of this tax. 80 to 100 million americans have a 401(k) plan. 46.4 million households have an individual retirement account. and half of the generation z'ers

and millennials are invested in stocks. seniors are especially dependent on investment income. an association of mature american citizens reports that 68% of workers between the ages of 55 and 64 were active participants in a retirement plan to save for their golden years, and that on average 40% of seniors' net worth is held in stocks and mutual funds invested over and above those retirement accounts. companies also rely on investments by individuals and institutions like pension funds to finance their operations. successful companies use this capital to generate profits which are then used for expansion, for research and development, for hiring, and for benefits and for investment in communities. companies may also choose to pay down their debt or return excess funds to shareholders.

restricting stock buybacks could force companies to sit on cash or waste it on low potential projects both of which limit our economic growth and prosperity. as the tax foundation points out, a large body of evidence supports the idea that companies generally only consider stock buybacks when they have exhausted their investment opportunities and met their other obligations. meaningit is residual cash flow that is used for buybacks. in fact stock buybacks can supplement capital investments as they can help reallocate capital from old established firms to new and innovative firms. this unvetted stock buybacks tax is a crippling tax that reduces retirement security for americans. so let's go to the next tax that they propose and this one is the one that i said was just a little difficult to understand.

the superfund tax and methane fee. i understand why they call it the superfund tax because it is a 16.4% increase on oil and gas production in the united states. according to the energy information agency, regular gasoline prices have risen $1.94 per gallon since president biden was inaugurated, an canopy coverage of over 80%. americans are still paying on average more than $4 a gallon for gas and many can still remember the $5 a gallon gas. the price for utility gas fs is -- is up by almost 40%. these prices incurred -- occur because president biden shut down domestic energy production, including through permitting delays and canceling pipelines like the keystone xl pipeline. now, again, unbelievably, the president's democrat allies in congress are doubling down with

a methane tax and higher royalties on petroleum. reimposing and increasing by nearly 70% the superfund tax on refiners of crude oil, importers of petroleum product, and crude oil exporters costing almost $12 billion over ten years will be ultimately borne by american motorists. and americans know that. in addition, higher taxes diminish the ability to improve domestic supplies of oil by making capital investments cost prohibitive at a time when with the u.s. has already lost one million barrels a day of refining capacity compared to before president biden's unwise restriction of fossil fuel production in the united states. on the methane fee, the american gas association says new fees or taxes on energy companies will

raise costs for customers. americans understand this. continuing with the quote, creating a burden that will fall most heavily on lower-income americans. based on similar proposals introduced earlier this congress, we estimate that the fee could amount to tens of billions of dollars annually. these major new costs most likely will result in higher bills for natural gas customers, including families, small business, and power generators. any increase in low-income households' energy costs could prove devastating. the bottom line on taxes is that millions of americans will bear the burden of these tax hikes. some of my colleagues have claimed that those tax hikes are worth the support -- the supposed benefit, but let's look at those benefits. drug price reform is one they refer to. the largest source of proposed savings in the democrats' bill

is a system of bureaucratic drug price controls that will lead to higher launch prices, stifled growth, gut domestic manufacturing jobs and aid foreign adversaries like china. higher prices, triggering financial strain. hundreds of thousands of american job losses, particularly in domestic manufacturing, which is already getting hit by the new minimum tax with some estimates projecting as many as 800,000 job loss. a competitive edge for the chinese communist party which has singled out biomedical innovation and which could also supplant the united states as the global life science leaders with a profound amount of national security implications. an unprecedented expansion of the d.c. federal health

bureaucracy financed with a staggering $3 billion in new administrative spending, as the federal government takes even greater control over another segment of our health care economy. this bureaucracy would also have unbridled new price authorities and with initial implementation shielded from basic notice and comment rule making requirements. fewer new treatments and cures with a university of chicago analysis estimating 135 fewer new drugs approved between now and 2039, resulting from an 18.5% reduction in innovative research and development. less funding for cancer r&d. today nearly 50% of the f.d.a. pipeline is comprised of new cancer treatments. however, according to the same economists at the university of

chicago, the drug price controls would reduce funding for cancer r&d by nearly $18.1 billion over nine times the amount of funding proposed for president biden's cancer moonshot. so much for the president's cancer moonshot. dangerous new mechanisms for compelling total compliance with federal government mandates with potential applications across all sectors of the economy, including an escalating noncompliance penalty of up to 95% on all gross sales levied every day for failure to meet any terms of the government's price-setting program, negotiation in name only. rendering any new federal mandate, however sweeping, an offer you can't refuse. even late paperwork would trigger this catastrophic penalty, which has a

tax-exclusive rate of up to 1,900%. it's negotiation in name only. as a messaging gimmick, the democrats have framed their government price-setting program as negotiation, but their legislation tells a far different story. under they are proposed program -- under their proposed program arc the secretary has absolute unilateral, uninhibited price-setting authority with no floor, enabling a price of $1 for even the most innovative new drugs. manufacturers have no choice but to comply and to provide indefinite access to their products at the secretary-dictated price, regardless of how unfair. they cannot walk away from the negotiating table or withdraw selected products from the medicare market, even if the secretary sets is an economically untenable price, stripping even small businesses

of any leverage. judicial and administrative review of key decisions including the price setting itself are prohibitive. the bill completely disregards the rest of the prescription drug supply chain targeting manufacturers while doing nothing to address other key players or to improve oversight and transparency. there is a better way. it's called the lower cost and more cures act. senate republicans have developed a commonsense alternative based on more on this two dozen solutions aimed at providing relief at the pharmacy counter while ensuring long-term access to lifesaving new treatments and cures. among other provisions, virtually all of which are based on proposals with bipartisan support, the lower cost and more cures act would reform the part d benefit to induce seniors' cost sharing burden and incentivize plans to negotiate

the best deals possible for enrollees. it would create a hard cap on the annual out-of-pocket spending for all seniors under medicare part d. it would increase part d plan choices for seniors by enabling sponsors to offer additional plans with incentives for options that pass a greater share of the discounts directly to their beneficiaries at the pharmacy counter. it would permanently extend a trump administration program providing part d enrollees with access to plan options that cap out-of-pocket monthly insulin costs at $35 or less. it would permanently allow high-deductible health plans to offer pre-deductible privilege for preventable coverage, including insulin. it would establish a chief pharmaceutical negotiator to combat foreign freeloading ensuring the best trade deals available for american consumers and job creators. it would strengthen

consumer-oriented oversight through more useful cost-comparison tools, price transparency measures and robust measures for stakeholders across the drug supply chain, including pharmacy benefit managers. it would facilitate value-based arrangements where private and public-sector payers can pay based on patients' outcomes, driving better results for patients at a lower cost. and it would restructure payments for drugs administered in a doctor's office or hospital outpatient department to encourage physicians to deliver cost-effective treatment options when appropriate. these are the kinds of solutions that our prescription drug pricing system requires, not an arbitrary and offensive federal price fixing program. now, let's move on finally to the irs funding for an army of

auditors. this bill proposes $80 billion in new spending in mandatory appropriations to the irs. let me give you that a little perfect. the annual budget of the irs is only about $12.6 billion. nearly six times the annual budget of the current irs. of this, had a $45.6 billion for enforcement purposes. that's more than 57%, almost 60% of this $80 billion is for enforcement purposes, and i'll get to the that in a minute. $25.3 billion for operations and support. only $4.8 billion for improving their business systems and bringing themselves into the 21st century with their technology so they can communicate with taxpayers. and only $3.2 billion for taxpayer services. some estimate that this part of the chart, the $46 billion for an army of auditors, will allow us to hire as many as 87,000 new

auditors. that would make the irs one of the largest federal agencies, larger than the pentagon, larger than the state department, larger than the fbi, and larger than the border patrol. all of them combined. according to the congressional research service, the democrats' reckless irs funding increase would raise enforcement more than 70% over what the irs is currently projected to get. increased audits for the middle class, for small businesses, and for those making less than $ 4 who,000 are inevitable and unavoidable under this act. how will this money be used? interestingly you the white house, after we started pointing this out, the white house -- even the irs commissioner have said they won't use all of this

money for auditing people who make less than $400,000. and my colleagues just continue to say they won't do it. multiple studies show, however, that no reasonable doubt to raise the money -- that in order to raise the money they are requiring to be raised under this bill from audits, around $200 billion of more tax revenue from americans by awed ating them -- by auditing them, they have nowhere else to look. last year the irs announced that it planned to ramp up audits of small businesses by 50% this year. why did they announce that? because that's where they need to look to collect all of this new tax revenue that they want to get. so i asked the nonpartisan joint tax committee to estimate where most of this tax gap lies, where is this trillion dollars of tax gap that my colleagues on the other side say is all coming

from big tax cheats. the irs looked at the data and determined, out of all the revenue projected to be raised from unreported, under reported income, 40% to 57% would come from taxpayers making $50,000 or less. 65% to 78% could come from taxpayers making $subsidy 00,000 or less e and 78% to 90% could come from those making less than $200,000. only around 4% to 9% could come from those making over $500,000. that's what the data shows. that's why the irs a 00% increase for audits for small businesses and that's why it is impossible for the democrats' claims that they want to not have audits of people under $400,000 cannot be honored. you know, in their bill, in

response to this criticism, they included a sentence that said, nothing in this brill is intended -- nothing in this bill is intended, focus on that word, nothing in this bill is intended to increase taxes on those making less than $400,000. why did they use the word intended? because they know that that's not what they want to happen, but it's what will have to happen. and they are not willing to use it a stronger word. i've asked them and i will ask them in an amendment on this floor, to say that none of this money can be used to audit taxpayers making less than $400,000 a year. let's see how they vote on that amendment. why couldn't they just say that this money shall not increase taxes on people making undernd 400,000 per year? why couldn't they say that these funds cannot be utilized to

audit taxpayers making less than $400,000 per year? because they know they can't say that and claim the amount of revenue that they want to spend unless they audit those making less than $400,000 per year. the fact is here, the tax cap isn't just millionaires or billionaires or oligarchs or whatever the term of the attack is today. referring to all tax gap as misreporting, that everybody who has not accurately reported their income is a tax cheat, is misdirection. it calls all of these people who make less than $400,000 and who are simply having trouble with this complex internal revenue code a tax cheat. that's unfair. we have examined the irs's own data on how successful it is in having the courts sustain its claims that these folks in the $400,000 list category and other

categories are cheating on their taxes. over the past 20 years, the irs has a less than 47% success rate, and a less than 45% success rate over the last ten years. in other words, the irs, more often asserts that these deficiencies exist than the courts agree with. that's hardly evidence for a multitude of tax cheats, but firm evidence that innocent taxpayers are often subjected to unnecessary and inappropriate scrutiny. and we can be sure they will be with 87,000 new auditors. again, making the irs larger than all of those other agencies that i talked about. by the way, folks may remember just a short time back when the proposal also included language that would let the irs get into the bank accounts and monitor the transactions of deposits and

withdrawals of all americans. well, let me say it better -- all americans who had more than $10,000 worth of transactions in a year, which is essentially almost all americans. now, admittedly, that language isn't in this bill yet, but the broad authority that is given to the internal revenue service with this $80 billion of supersizing will undoubtedly result in rules and regulations issuedpy the irs -- issued by the irs to achieve that objective. they just knew they couldn't put it in statute because they would be rejected immediately by the american people. i encourage the american people to see past this and to reject this legislation. it's too many taxes, too much spending, too big of a burden on american people across all income categories. we don't want to supersize our internal revenue service and go back to that very first

statistic i gave you, it's not even going to have a statistically significant impact on inflation. if anything, the taxes will drive prices up. madam president, i encourage all of my colleagues to reject this reckless bill. with that, i yield my time. mr. lankford: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: madam president, i yield myself 20 minutes from the bill time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: madam president, hans christian anderson in 1837 wrote a story about group think. itit's called "the emperor has o clothes." it begins with a leader that really loves his clothes. some unsavory characters saw that, they set up a weaving loom to make the finest clothes in the land but were just weaving air.

there was nothing to it. the catch was they had sold the story that if you can't see what they're weaving, you must just not be wise. so the emperor sends a couple of his advisers to check out the weaving to see what it looks like. they see nothing, because there is nothing there. they all declare oh, it's beautiful, it's lovely, because they don't want to be seen as unwise. then it end up with the emperor preparing for a big parade, and that's where i pick up the story from here. let me read you from hans christian anderson from 1837. when he tries on, quote-unquote, the new clothes, it says, they say to him, these scoundrels, unsavory characters, how well your majesty's new clothes look. aren't they becoming? the advisors all chirped in. he heard all sides. that pattern is so perfect. those colors so suitable. it's a magnificent outfit. the minister of public

processions announced your majesty's canopy is waiting outside. i'm supposed to be ready, the emperor said, turning to the mirror. it's a remarkable fit, isn't it? as he seemed to regard his costume with the greatest interest. the noblemen, who were to carry his train, reached to the floor as if picking up his mantle, then presended to live it and -- pretended to hold it and lift it high. they didn't dare admit they had nothing to hold. so, off went the emperor under the splendid canopy. everyone in the streets and windows said oh, how fine are the emperor's new clothes? don't they fit him to perfection? see his long train. nobody would confess he couldn't see anything, for that would prove he was either unfit for his position or a fool. no costume the emperor had worn before ever got such a complete success. but he hasn't got anything on, a little child said.

did you ever hear such innocent prattle, said his father? one person whispered to another what the child had said, he hasn't anything on. a child says he hasn't anything on. then the whole town cried out at last, but he hasn't got anything on. the emperor shiferred for he suspected they were right, but he thought this procession must go on, so he walked more proudly than ever as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all. when the facts come out, it's hard sometimes to admit you're on display, that the bill actually doesn't do what the title says it's supposed to do. this time the bill is called the inflation reduction act. they say it's designed to be able to lower inflation and to

reduce the deficit, except now it's been scored and it doesn't actually reduce inflation, and deficit reduction is as visible as the emperor's new clothes. the score for inflation stated in the public scoring, here's the quote, the impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero. the cbo scored the bill and said it would have a negligible effect on inflation. remember, this is the bill titled the inflation reduction act. the score deficit on the deficit end, after many on the other side. the aisle said it would have $300 billion in deficit reduction is less than a billion. but wait, there's more to the story on even that $100 billion. more than 200 economists wrote a letter to senator schumer detailing how this bill will not reduce inflation, nor reduce the

deficit. taxing more and spending more will only make the problem worse. they closed by saying this statement, the bill deficit reduction is likely to prove illusionary due to implausible spending phaseouts. in summary, we agree with the urgent need to reduce inflation, but the inflation reduction act of 2022 is a misleading label applied to a bill that would likely achieve the exact opposite effect. what they said was, the emperor has no clothes. it doesn't really reduce inflation. at some point, the emperor has to make a decision -- am i going to keep parading through the streets, when everyone knows the inflation reduction act doesn't reduce inflation? or am i going to head back and fix it? let me start with just the plan that's in this bill. here's the bill titled the

inflation reduction act of 2022. so the plan my democrat colleagues have laid out, let me give you a couple details in the plan to reduce inflation in the inflation reduction act of 2022. here's one -- up to $4 billion allocated to study cow burping and their production of methane. i'm sure that's going to bring down the price of beef right away. that grocery store price, as i've heard even on the floor today, this is going to bring down the prices at the grocery store by having up to $4 billion allocated to study cow burping. it has $2 billion in construction grants to improve walkability in context-sensitive projects. no one seems to know what the word context-sensitive projects even means or how $2 billion in construction to improve walkability will bring town inflation. $3,000 for environmental justice block grants to facilitate

workshops. workshops to bring down inflation. aren't you confident that the price of eggs and bread will go down after $3 billion is spent on environmental justice workshops? $17 million for consumer-related education and partnerships to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. that's not reducing, that's partnerships to discuss reducing. there is a brand-new tax credit for elon musk in this, though. i'm sure that will bring down inflation. tesla has used up all of its credits for its electric vehicles. this bill renews it and does a special perk for tesla to give them unlimited new tax credits. i'm sure elon musk is thrilled about his unlimited new tax credit to him. and i'm sure all of our prices will go down based on elon musk's new multibillion-dollar tax credit that he gets.

again, the bill is the inflation reduction act. there's a new fee on methane, which will raise the price of natural gas, which has been estimated to raise the price of our natural gas to the consumer 17%. 17% increase in our natural gas. now, let me remind you, this is the inflation reduction act that will increase the price of our heating, our cooking, our energy production 17%. there's a new tax on imported oil and new fees on domestic oil produced on federal lands. there's new inspection fees and owners' fees on pipelines. i do not understand how new fees, new taxes on oil and gas are supposed to lower the price of garl gas and gasoline -- of natural gas and gasoline, but that's what's declared in the inflation reduction act. if only we had more taxes on oil, gas, and natural gas, then

prices will somehow magically go down. as has been mentioned multiple times on the floor, this inflation reduction act hires more than 80,000 new irs auditors, with no limit on who they can audit. if you thought that there would be a limit to those people making $40,000 or more on being audited, you were wrong. now, that could have been in this bill, but they chose not to put it in this bill. there are no guardrails for who can be audited by the irs with billions of dollars being allocated to new irs agents. every single american of every income bracket, every small business, every large company, everyone is going to experience new irs audits in the days ahead. so remember this night. remember this night. in the next ten years, when you

get an irs audit, it was the democrats in this body that sent the irs to your house. so keep your records, because irs audits are about to dramatically go up due to the gift of the inflation reduction act. maybe this bill should instead be called the cpa hiring act, because i assume millions of taxpayers who struggle under our complicated tax code already will now have to hire a cpa to know their chances of being audited are greatly increasing now. and they know the complicated rules of the irs. most taxpayers submit their tax form every year and hope they got it right, because it's so complicated. but because of this night, and this vote, there will be auditors coming after you to make sure that you got it right. democrats in the days ahead, when the irs comes to this body

for a hearing, will be asking them, did they pull in additional money based on the audits they gave them? because they're not telling you this, but they assume the irs will collect $200 billion more once they give them these new auditors. you can be assured that's going to be a metric that is going to be checked in the days ahead. the irs will suddenly be like the small-town police force that has a quota of writing tickets on the highway through their small town to help pay for the new city hall meeting. you got to pay for city hall, you need to write more tickets on the highway. it's about to be that with the irs. they need to audit more, go get more, because we gave you more people. remember, this is the inflation reduction act. i've yet to figure out how americans getting more audits reduces inflation, but as

advertised this is going to bring down the cost of groceries, this is going to bring down the cost of gas by more people getting audited by the irs. one of the other interesting plans in this bill to reduce inflation is to force more americans to join a union. now, i have to tell you, i have no angst against unions. unions are a choice. those individuals should be able to choose to join a union, be part of collective bargaining. that's an american right and privilege. let me say this, 10.3% of the american workforce is union. 10.3%. the energy portion of this bill, which is billions and billions and billions of dollars, in the energy portion of this bill unions get billions of dollars, nonunion workers get nothing. so if you work in the energy sector right now, and you're not a union employee, you're about to get cut out. because the way this bill is written, it gives federal

payouts to companies that use union laborers, which will make nonunion energy companies country competitive and will force them out of business or force them to unionize. this should be called the mandatory union bill of 2022, not the inflation reduction act. because i'm not sure how forcing more people into a union reduces inflation, but that's a major portion of this bill. i'm confident the union bosses across this country are thrilled to finally see a return on their investment since they gave heavily to democrats in 2022 to get them elected. this is their payoff. they'll no longer be 10.3% of workers in unions. this is going to force more companies to have to unionize or they will not be able to survive because of the federal credits that only go to companies that hire union labor. this forced unionization sound

like the solution to inflation reduction to you? it does to apparently half this body. it creates a subsidy in health insurance to be announced right before the fall elections this fall. it's not for those that are in poverty. those that are in poverty all the way up to a full 400% in poverty already get health subsidies. this is not at folks at the poverty level, 200% or 300% of poverty. this is a family of four making $400,000 that will get this new subsidy. economists believe employers will drop health insurance, it will push employees under the affordable care act policies and will shift more people on to the government rolls. remember, this is the inflation reduction act. as homelessness increases across

the nation right now, the bill adds $1 billion into hud for zero emissions electricity generation in affordable housing. zero emission electricity generation in affordable housing. it's not about increasing access to housing for those that are homeless. it's solar panels in public housing. i'm confident people living on the street trying to survive in 9% inflation rate are hoping they can find someplace with a solar panel. that's what's in the inflation reduction act of 2022 is solar panels in public housing, their solution to affordable housing. this bill gives ag subsidies to landowners regardless of who is the owner of the land. they don't have to be a u.s. citizen. they don't have to be american ownership. we're literally opening up that

owners of land to be able to get access to it. i've also heard over and over again there are no new taxes in the inflation reduction act. i've heard that in national media, from my democratic colleagues saying it over and over again and on this floor. that seems to be true if you're a green energy company, that is true there is no new taxes for you. they'll have huge tax breaks. while there is a push for everyone to have a 15% minimum tax, that's not true to those folks in these green energy companies that are major democrat donors. they will not have that same minimum tax standard. the tax foundation found this, this is their quote. on average, tax filers in every quintile would experience a drop in after-tax incomes. let me run that past you again. on average, tax filers in every quintile would experience a drop in after-tax incomes if this bill passes. that means everyone in the

country. under $400,000 and over $400,000 a year. everyone has a drop in after-tax income. one of the new taxes that was just added into the bill today, the stock buyback tax. this is to punish companies that are listed on our stock exchanges from buying back stocks to raise the value of stocks. they buy back stocks so that the stock value goes up. they're putting a tax on them to be able to punish them to be able to prevent them from doing that. they make it sound like they're hitting the big fat cat corporate ceo's and guys on wall street. they're going to rm -- really stick it to the man except 16 million americans are invested in a 401(k) plan for their retirement. the largest owner of stocks in america are retirement plans, insurance companies and nonprofits. they are the largest owners of

stocks. so the people that will be hurt the most in this new plan to drive down the stock market prices are nonprofits, insurance companies and retirement plans. 58 % of americans own some kind of stock. this is a tax directly and deliberately designed to keep the price of individual stocks from going up. sure, that's going to hurt ceo's that own their own stock, but it's also going to hurt everyday americans that own stock on their own and it's going to hurt all of those retirement plans. but they seem not to care who they hurt in this as long as they can also hurt ceo's. driving down the stock market will, i guess, reduce inflation, if that's their plan in their inflation reduction act, is to drive stock prices lower for retirees and

nonprofits and individual investors. another new tax that was added today, a 15% minimum tax on businesses that are funded by private equity. i have to tell you this one shocked even me when it got slipped in today. most companies that are funded by private money are small businesses, research companies, small manufacturing companies. this does a new 15% tax on those small businesses. basically if you're owned by private money, you're funded by private money separate from the owner itself, you're considered a subsidiary, and so you get this big tax laid on you. let me give you an example of this. i know directly a company in oklahoma that's a small manufacturing company. they're funded by private outdoors money. during covid my democratic colleagues had the same vendetta against manufacturing that was funded by private equity. this particular company, like every other company across the country, during covid could not get access to the paycheck

protection program because democrats said if you're funded by private out money we're not going to get you access to that because you're in evil private equity areas. even though they're vastly small businesses. this particular manufacturing company in oklahoma produces valves. this company has hundreds of employees before covid. once covid happened and business dropped off immediately, because they couldn't get access to the paycheck protection program like every other small business, they laid off hundreds of workers. those workers weren't rich folks. those were folks turning a wrench and making a great product a lot of people wanted. they got laid off simply because of how they were funded. now my democratic colleagues want to jump on top of them as covid has ended, to slap a brand-new new tax on top of them that no one has discussed, no one has evaluated, no hearings have occurred on it to determine how wide and how broad this will

be. literally the owners of this company will wake up tomorrow morning because in the middle of the night a new tax cut added on to them right at the tail end of covid simply because my democratic colleagues don't like any company, regardless of what they do, regardless of the workers that actually work there, they don't like how they're funded through a private individual that funds them. this bill doesn't lower inflation. could a single american go that will take down inflation? that will work? none of those things take down inflation. it also doesn't reduce the deficit. their plan for reducing the deficit -- brace yourself for this -- their plan for reducing the deficit is not doing programs they were already not going to do. that's their plan. that's the deficit reduction reduction let me give you an example of this. let's say you were going through

walmart shopping and you're at your shopping cart and you step aside tock able to get somethint something off your shelf. when you step back somebody stuffed in your basket a big bag of brussel sprouts. as you go through the aisle you see this big bag of brussel sprouts. i don't know about you, i don't want a bag of frozen brussel sprouts. if somebody slipped a bag of frozen brussel sprouts into my cart i would put that away and say i'm not going to buy that. somebody else put that into my cart. here's what i wouldn't say. i wouldn't say somebody put a bag of frozen brussel sprouts on my cart. i'm going to put them back on the shelf. that's deficit reduction by my account. here's what i mean by that. during the end of the trump administration they laid the groundwork for seniors to get a

rebate at the pharmacy counter for medicare prescriptions to make sure every senior got a discount at the pharmacy counter. that was the plan, what the donald trump put in place. when the biden administration came in they didn't like that plan, so they set that plan aside and said we're not going to do that. instead they've come up with this new plan, i'll explain in just a second. but they're saying because they didn't do the plan that trump was planning to do because they didn't do that plan, that's $100 billion in savings by not buying what they never intended to buy, ever. let me just tell you if you don't buy the brussel sprouts, you just don't have the brussel sprouts but you're not saving money from that. you just didn't get them. that's not real savings. whef they say it's deficit reduction it's because they're

not doing what they said they sd they're not going to to do. that's a budget gimmick in washington, d.c. a huge budget gimmick. can i just say the emperor has no clothes. it's not real. in its place, of this rebate rule, in its place they've created a real method of price controls for some drugs, and it's not price and negotiations. it's price controls. they're spend $3 billion to set up a system for the government to be able to select prices on one of the most used drugs in america. by the way, it starts in 2026, is when this starts. i've heard some people on the floor say we're going to have lower prices right away. this plan starts in 2026. taxpayer wouldn't affect

anyone -- it wouldn't affect pharmaceuticals until 2027 so if you're planning on reduction in prices it's not coming soon. it's five years away if there's a price decrease at all. the way it's set up is the president, whoever that may be five years from now will have a new authority not to negotiate pryingses in the next ten years. it's not a negotiation. it's setting the price because if you disagree with the next president whoever the next president is and what they set on the price, they can raise the taxes on your company 95%. so if you disagree with the price that they pick, whoever the next president is, what they pick for the price, then your company gets hit with a 95% tax. how does that sound for government sheer power over a company? to crush whoever they news, that's how this is set up. you don't follow what i say, we will crush your company. what does that mean for the future?

drug companies will have new incentives to not use existing drugs for new treatments because here's how it typically works. if a cancer drug works for lung cancer, then they start experimenting with others types of cancer to see if it works on those. but in this system, the democrats are setting up, if a drug works for lung cancer, they have a disincentive to try it on other cancers because if the drug gets too used, then it false into this new negotiation category. so the incentive for the drug companies is not to try new ways of using this drug for fear of getting too big. can i tell you what this looks like in real life? i have a friend at home whose wife has pancreatic cancer. and they are desperately trying

every treatment and trying to get into every clinical trial they can get into. desperately. they are praying and they are working, and he's being an awesome husband and she's being a tough warrior, going through nausea and pretty awful treatments. they're trying to get into clinical trials which are already hard. this bill will make it even harder because existing cancer drugs will have a disincentive to test out new ways to be able to serve their cancer. thank you very much, to my democratic colleagues who are reducing the number of cancer secures for the future. -- cancer cures for the future. how does that cure inflation? in the inflation reduction act of 2022? there's also a special little feature in it in the way the drug piece is set up that it

incentivizes more i.v. drugs and fewer oral drugs because i.v. drugs get more time. oral drugs get less time, so the incentive is to set up i.v. drugs instead for the during that companies. fo -- for all of us who would prefer taking a pill, democrats prefer i.v. drugs instead of oral drugs, in the future you are taking an i.v. instead of a pill, it's because of the inflation reduction act. medicare has insolvency by 2028. this inflation reduction act takes the savings from this new prescription plan from medicare, it doesn't stabilize medicare which is going insolvent in six