Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining time be yielded back.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in the past few weeks, I have been working with my colleagues in the Senate to draw attention to the privacy concerns of requiring all financial institutions to report to the IRS on the inflows or outflows on every checking, loan, and investment account above a certain threshold. Under the guise of closing the tax gap, Democrats have proposed to drastically expand the powers of the IRS and turn banks and credit unions into private investigators for law-abiding Americans. The proposal as it originally came out in the ``Green Book'' from the White House required that every single financial account--not just bank accounts, not just credit union accounts, but all financial accounts that have more than $600 worth of inflow or $600 worth of outflow in a given year would have to have that reported to the IRS. We have been pointing this out to people across America now for several weeks, and the uproar is loud. The message has been getting heard obviously because now the administration and the IRS are saying: Well, we didn't really mean just everybody who has a $600 inflow or outflow of their account. We are willing to raise that to $10,000--so that you don't have to have the IRS snooping on your financial data in your financial accounts unless you have more than $10,000 worth of income or more than $10,000 worth of outflow in your account. And they said: And we are not even going to count wages or interest or government benefits in that. Well, let's see what that really means. Does that really reduce the scope of this spying on Americans' financial accounts, this dragnet, letting the IRS have access to everybody's account? How many people don't have $10,000 worth of income or outflow in their account? Let me just give you a few data points. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average household in America--the average taxpayer in America spends about $61,000 a year. What do they spend that on? The average is housing, $20,000; transportation, $9,700; personal insurance and pensions, $7,296; healthcare, $4,968; groceries, $4,464; restaurants and other meals, $3,459; entertainment, $3,226; other, $2,030; cash contributions, $1,888; apparel and services, $1,866; education, $1,407; and personal care, $768--for a grand total of the average American running $61,224 through their personal accounts in a year. So does raising the total to $10,000 really stop the IRS from accessing very many people's accounts? No. The IRS today, because of the pressure that we have been putting on them, said today: Well, you know, we already have data from everybody's account on their paychecks; and we already have data on their interest that they get on their various accounts, which has to be reported to us; and we already have data on Federal benefits, like the COVID payments that have been made to people. So we don't need to have those data points collected in this new, massive privacy violation. We can leave those out. But we need-- and this is what the IRS said today, trying to defend this: But we need to have access to the other sources of income that people have. Now, in that very same document, the IRS said: Well, we are not going to audit anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year. Well, that wasn't what the Green Book said. They didn't say we will change our proposal to forbid us from auditing anybody who makes less than $400,000 a year. All they said was: Take our word for it. We promise. We will only audit rich, rich people who are billionaires. Well, if that is really the position they are taking, then why don't they put it in the bill? Why don't they put it in the proposal? Why don't they put right in the proposal that they cannot, secretly or publicly, access the data of private individuals in their private accounts if they make less than $400,000 per year? It would be really simple, wouldn't it? But the IRS didn't say that, and the reason they didn't say that is because that is not what they intend to do. Remember, they started out at $600. That tells you what they wanted. Now, they said: Well, we think we can get away with $10,000--because they know that still covers everybody. Think of a family that doesn't spend more than $10,000--yeah, that spends less than $10,000 in a year in their financial accounts. Think of a small business in America that doesn't run more than $10,000 a year of income and expense through their accounts. It will pick up every small business in America; it will pick up, I think, every family in America; and nothing will be changed. The IRS will have data on every American's account. Then they say: Well, OK, but it is only two numbers. It is just the total of your income and the total of your outflow. Well, everybody can kind of intuitively tell that that doesn't make sense. What would they do with those two numbers? What they will do with those two numbers is use their algorithms to figure out which taxpayers to audit--or which taxpayers that they don't even need to audit; they will just send them a notice of deficiency and say: Well, we think you should owe more taxes, and this is what we think you should owe us. And if the taxpayers don't comply, then the IRS can go ahead and audit them. And guess what happens when they audit them? They get access to every single transaction in their account. I asked the IRS Commissioner about whether this proposal involved transactional data or just totals, and he said: Well, we already have access to their transactional data if we want it. That is not a direct quote, but that is the essence of what he said. And it is true. If they want to audit you, they can get access to your bank accounts already. So the question is: Who are they going to audit? Now, today, those who are trying to defend this say: Well, we are only going to audit people who have, as they said, $10,000 worth of inflow or outflow, and we will even exclude wages, which are already reported, and we will exclude government benefits, which are already reported, and we will exclude interest, which is already reported, and we won't look into anybody's account if they make under $400,000. Well, that is actually not true. They just said they wouldn't audit those accounts. How can they make the money they are trying to make out of this proposal if they don't? Let's look at this in another perspective. We asked the Joint Committee on Taxation to tell us what they think the distribution of audits and tax collections would be from Americans in all income brackets of this proposal, and the Joint Committee on Taxation said: Well, you know, we can't tell you that because they haven't given enough detail on their proposal. So we can't tell you what their proposal is going to do because they haven't told us just the details of how their proposal is going to work. But Joint Committee on Taxation did say: You know, what we can do is look at the tax gap, which this is supposedly aimed at addressing, and we can tell you where that tax gap falls among the various income cohorts. So we asked them to do that. They indicated that the tax gap falls mostly in ineffective or less than accurate reporting on schedules C and schedule E. So they went through and they looked at this. So if you look at the Joint Committee on Taxation's report and the tax gap that is available for the IRS to go get, here is what would happen: 40 to 57 percent of the tax gap collections would come from taxpayers making $50,000 or less. If you add in up to $100,000, 65 to 78 percent of those making less than $100,000 would be part of the tax gap that they would be going after; 78 to 90 percent from those making less than $200,000; and only 4 to 9 percent would come from those making $500,000 or more. So if you want to know what the IRS wanted, you can look at this data on the tax gap; you can look at the data on where the tax gap lies; and you can look at their very first proposal that was down as low as $600. And you know then what the IRS is seeking to get. Americans should be outraged that the IRS is seeking to make banks, credit unions--I don't know--Venmo, PayPal, credit card companies, everybody who handles financial transactions, report to them, if you hit some level, whether it be $600 or $10,000 of either income or expenditure. And then the door is open. Then the IRS can use its algorithms and decide whether to do a deeper dive on you. And if they use the data from the Internal Revenue Code and from the tax reporting that has already gone on, 90 percent or more will come from people making $200,000 or less. Or the IRS will have to forgo that; in which case, they will be trying to collect on only 4 to 9 percent, which is the people making over $500,000. Either way you look at it, either they are going to be collecting money--and that is billions and billions of dollars--from people who make less than $400,000 and mostly less than $200,000 or $100,000--or they won't make the tax collections that they are claiming they are going to get to justify the spending they want to make in their spending spree, in this big tax-and-spending spree that they are trying to cram down through Congress. Let's look at it from another way. Does Treasury envision gathering information on all of a--let's take a teacher. So if you have a teacher, does Treasury envision gathering information on all of the teacher's savings, checking, PayPal, Apple Pay, and Venmo accounts and somehow expect financial institutions to crosscheck these transfers to see if the threshold has been tripped? And at which point must additional reporting be done? It is very important to point out here: When I said earlier the White House and Treasury haven't really said what their plan is, it is because they don't want people to know what the real plan is. There is a telling sentence in the Green Book, put out by the White House, about this plan. It says that broad powers will be given to Treasury Department to issue by rule and regulation the details of how they are going to utilize and access this data. So if you have got a Treasury Department which has already proven it can't keep the data it has safe and that its data will be hacked; if you have a Treasury Department that has already proven that it will not avoid utilizing the data it has for political purposes, that it will not weaponize the data it collects to punish or try to diminish the effect and influence of people with different political points of view; if you already have an IRS that has proven that it will take those kinds of actions, and that it is available to be accessed for its private data to be hacked, what can Americans expect from that? Again, those today who have talked about it said they have fixes that, as I see it, don't really fix the proposal because it has fundamental flaws. The IRS does not need to have access to the accounts of every American who spends more than $10,000 or every American who has income of over $10,000. Industry has already spoken up about these changes that were proposed today. The American Bankers Association says that even with the modifications announced today, this proposal goes too far by forcing financial institutions to share with the IRS private financial data from millions of customers not suspected of cheating on their taxes. The exclusion of payroll and Federal program beneficiaries does not address millions of other taxpayers who will be impacted by this proposal. Not every nonwage worker is a millionaire. How about self- employed hair stylists, convenience store owners, and farmers, just to name a few? If enacted, this new proposal would still raise some of the same privacy concerns; increase tax preparation costs for individuals and small businesses; and create significant operational challenges, particularly for community banks. The list goes on. Americans must speak up loudly and say ``no.'' When asked if she was going to put this in the next bill, Nancy Pelosi said: ``Yes, yes, yes, yes.'' Americans should say ``No, no, no, no.'' I yield to Senator Grassley.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, that concludes the Finance Committee Members' discussion today. I just want to thank Senator Grassley and Senator Young for joining me to help to continue to make the American people aware of what is going on here in Washington with this reckless tax-and-spending spree and this massive dragnet of IRS access into people's individual bank accounts and other financial accounts. I hope Americans across the country will speak out loudly in opposition to these terrible ideas that are now being crammed down in both the House and the Senate. I yield back our time. I believe Senator Grassley is here to speak on other matters.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I draw attention to and recognize the immense service and commitment to our country of our Nation's Atomic Veterans. I also extend special recognition and gratitude to Idahoan and Atomic Veteran Noelan ``Mac'' McCormack for his service to our country and his efforts to ensure his fellow veterans receive appreciation and recognition for their service and sacrifices. Mac McCormack of Coeur d'Alene, ID, served in the U.S. Marine Corps Test Unit #1, a unit active from 1954-1957 involved in specialized tactics, including warfare as it related to nuclear weapons. An Atomic Veteran is a veteran who, as part of his or her military service, participated in nuclear testing between 1945 and 1962, served in the U.S. military forces in or around Hiroshima and Nagasaki through mid- 1946, or was held a prisoner of war in or near Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Earlier this year, when designating July 16, 2021, as National Atomic Veterans Day, President Biden noted the considerable challenges Atomic Veterans have faced, ``Atomic Veterans served our Nation with distinction, but their service came at a great cost. Many developed health conditions due to radiation exposure, yet because they were not able to discuss the nature of their service, they were unable to seek medical care or disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their illnesses.'' Decades after their service, in 1996, Congress repealed the Nuclear Radiation and Secrecy Agreement Act, which enabled Atomic Veterans to seek services and share their experiences. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs provides information to connect Atomic Veterans with medical services and compensation. However, the National Association of Atomic Veterans, Inc., notes, ``Currently, there are approximately 195,000 Atomic Veterans across America who either do not know their oath-of-secrecy has been rescinded, and who are not aware of the potential monetary benefits due them for (service connected) radiation induced illnesses.'' While the best healthcare and other services in the world can never reverse what many Atomic Veterans and their families have endured, we owe it to America's servicemembers who have answered the call to duty to ensure access to high-quality services and resources to support their commitment to our country. As part of this effort, I cosponsored S.565, the Mark Takai Atomic Veterans Healthcare Parity Act, which would reclassify veterans who participated in the cleanup of the Enewetak Atoll as radiation-exposed veterans, making them eligible for the same benefits afforded to those covered by Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA. Work also continues on bipartisan legislation to extend and expand RECA eligibility to those in Idaho and other States who have suffered from cancers related to fallout from nuclear weapons testing during the Cold War period of the 1950s and 1960s. As work continues on these and other efforts to support veterans, I join in honoring Atomic Veterans whose service has been a central part of our national defense. I hope recognition can also draw attention to available services and resources for Atomic Veterans. In 1983, then-President Ronald Reagan urged fellow citizens to join him in appreciation of the service of Atomic Veterans he characterized as, ``those patriotic Americans who through their participation in these tests helped lead the United States to the forefront of technology in defense of our great Nation and the freedoms we as Americans hold so dear.'' Thank you, Mac McCormack, and your fellow Atomic Veterans, for your immeasurable and in many ways unrepayable service. I hope you know how deeply grateful we as a nation are for your patriotism.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am here today with a number of my colleagues from the Finance Committee to discuss in the next hour the partisan $3.5 trillion reckless tax-and-spend bill that the Democrats are trying to cram down on the American people. The United States is experiencing unprecedented economic pressures, including significant inflation and record price increases, significant friction in labor markets, and intense international competition, all while the pandemic continues to threaten Americans' health and our economic recovery. Yet the Democrats want to move forward with this reckless $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending spree that will stunt our economic recovery, further impede labor markets, and punish low- and middle-income workers with higher prices for everyday goods and services. The Democrats are currently debating just how high they want to increase taxes on American businesses and workers. House Democrats have proposed to hike the corporate tax rate to 26.5 percent from 21 percent. This would return our combined corporate tax rate, at 31 percent, to one of the highest among developed countries. Hiking the rate indisputably hits the middle class. Estimates suggest that workers shoulder up to 70 percent of the burden of the corporate tax. A recent analysis performed by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation says the burden on over 98 percent of Americans who make less than $500,000 a year increases over time. Let me make that clear. Ninety-eight percent of the increase that is felt by labor falls on those making less than $500,000 per year and the vast majority of that on those making less than $400,000 per year. Our Democratic colleagues argue that these increases do not violate President Biden's pledge since they are not specific higher individual tax rates. But hard-working Americans do not care about the distinction between a direct or indirect tax; they care about how taxes hit their pocketbooks. A higher corporate tax rate would result in lower wages and reduced benefits, hit the nest eggs of everyone saving for retirement, and force consumers to pay more for everyday necessities. This plan would also impose hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes on U.S. businesses operating across the globe, overwhelmingly rewarding our foreign competitors and making the United States again one of the highest taxing countries in the developed world. These pro- China tax hikes would raise the relative cost of doing business in America and punish businesses selling products or services overseas, reigniting inversions and foreign acquisitions, again putting America's business climate back into trouble. Democrats also want to increase the top individual tax rate to 39.6 percent from 37 percent--a rate that kicks in at $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples. This includes a supercharged marriage penalty, as unmarried couples can earn almost a million dollars a year without being subject to increased taxes. Democrats have also proposed increasing the number of Americans subject to the original death tax, including farmers and small business owners. Others are pushing for a double death tax by eliminating the step-up in the basis entirely. Rather than be given time to grieve their loss, families could be forced to sell farms, businesses, and homes just to pay Uncle Sam. Less noticed are some of the plans to drastically expand the powers of the Internal Revenue Service and turn banks and credit unions into private investigators for monitoring law-abiding Americans. This financial dragnet will force financial institutions into reporting deposit and withdrawal flows on as little as $600 in their customers' accounts, exposing sensitive data to future breaches. Whether the cutoff for monitoring transactions is $600 or $10,000, Americans of all income levels would have their private financial activities reported to the leaky IRS. The threats to privacy and invasion of compliant taxpayers' personal financial affairs are staggering. Moving on, the Democrats are also proposing sweeping government price controls on the very innovators in our healthcare system who helped to battle the pandemic by developing lifesaving vaccines and therapeutics. Under the guise of negotiation, government bureaucrats would have the power to set prices for medications, devaluing the lives of the most vulnerable among us, including older Americans and those with disabilities. Their proposals could prevent scores of game-changing prescription drugs from coming to the market in the years to come--with one recent study projecting as many as 342 fewer new medication approvals in the next two decades--in addition to driving up the launch prices for new products. This even went too far for some of the House Democrats, with three Members at least voting against this legislation in committee. As I have indicated, this reckless tax-and-spend plan comes just over a year after we were experiencing one of the most prosperous economies in decades. Before the pandemic, a combination of reduced regulatory burden and pro-growth tax policies helped to create one of the strongest economies in our lifetime. All in the period of a short few years, we have seen that evaporate. We should be focused on policies that will get us past this pandemic and back to the strong and inclusive economic growth we were experiencing rather than taking advantage of a prolonged pandemic to reimagine America as a welfare state. This is the wrong time to raise taxes. Excuse me just a moment, Mr. President. Excuse me. I didn't notice that I have been joined by the Senator from Nebraska. I will now yield more of my time to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, that wraps up the presentations that we have for today, and I want to thank my Republican colleagues on the Finance Committee for coming and helping to explain the dangers of this incredibly reckless taxing-and-spending spree that is being proposed here in Congress. As we get more details, as this package gets played out, we will be back to explain further the dangers that there are. But I think we have shown very clearly today that not only is the spending going to be so damaging to this country, but the tax plan that is accompanying it will make us less competitive if, in fact, not completely back into last place in terms of competitiveness globally and will impact people all across this country in their own tax burdens and their own inflationary cost pressures, not just those who make over $400,000 per year. This tax-and-spend spree must be stopped. I yield back our time.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in honor of the observation of National POW/MIA Recognition Day this September 17, 2021, I join in raising awareness about the more than 81,600 Americans the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, DPAA, reports remain missing from World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Cold war, the gulf wars, and other conflicts. Thank you to the members of the POW*MIA Awareness Rally Corp. of Pocatello, ID, and other similar groups for their unwavering commitment to keeping the need to bring all missing American servicemembers home at the forefront of our national focus. Etched on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery are the words, ``Here Rests In Honored Glory An American Soldier Known But To God.'' The tribute prompts reflection on the American servicemembers, many also in graves known but to God, who have not yet been identified or returned home. This year marks 100 years since the first unknown soldier, a World War I veteran, was interred at the tomb. Over the century since, a World War II, a Korean war, and a Vietnam war veteran were also laid to rest in the tomb. Following the identification and exhumation of the interred Vietnam veteran Air Force First Lieutenant Michael Joseph Blassie, the empty crypt was rededicated to honor American servicemembers who remain missing in Southeast Asia. The DPAA reports 75 percent of lost Americans are located in the Indo-Pacific, and more than 41,000 of the missing are presumed lost at sea. My heart remains with the families of the missing and those working tirelessly, often through significant challenges to get needed answers, to bring them home. Despite the difficulty, the DPAA has reported accounting for more than 100 of America's missing since the start of this year. This includes Navy Fireman 2nd Class Carl M. Bradley who was killed in action aboard the USS Oklahoma on December 7, 1941. He was returned to rest in his hometown of Shelley, ID, earlier this year. To support these efforts, work continues toward reintroducing the Bring Our Heroes Home Act to provide a more efficient process for accessing records needed for recovery efforts of missing servicemembers. We can never let up in bringing home all our Nation's heroes, including the 358 Idahoans, who have yet to be returned. Our country's dedication to bringing our lost servicemembers home must mirror the precision, stamina, formality and respect with which The Old Guard unwaveringly protects the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. They resolutely honor our Nation's unidentified and missing servicemembers, as we must in steadily pressing forward to get answers for the families who await their return.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3099 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the IRS financial institution reporting requirement forces financial institutions to turn over detailed bank account information to the IRS based on vague and flexible criteria, such as a $600-threshold, and account inflows and outflows would be covered--this all to be determined by the IRS. Think about that. It subjects every law-abiding American who has a bank account or a credit union account in which they transact more than $600 worth of transactions to have that information monitored and reported to the IRS. This is an outrageous violation of the privacy of American citizens, and we should reject it. The community banks and credit unions support this amendment, and I thank the ICBA, CUNA, the ABA, and the NAFCU for their support, as well as the Americans for Tax Reform and the Center for a Free Economy. My amendment prevents the undue monitoring and reporting of sensitive financial information on law-abiding Americans.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this is one of the biggest violations of the privacy of American citizens to come to the floor of the Senate in a long time. This amendment would require reporting of--and I quote--``large'' financial account balances to the IRS. So now, instead of $600, they are going to say that whatever the IRS says is large is what they will require every single American, whether they are an individual, a small business, or a corporation owner. Everyone is going to be subject to reporting on whatever the IRS says is ``large.'' And this comes after another proposal that is coming down the pike to double or triple the funding to the IRS, so they can monitor the financial transactions of American citizens. This amendment should be rejected. Vote on Amendment No. 3365

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the devastating tax- and-spend policies we will shortly be debating here. First, I want to differentiate between the bipartisan infrastructure legislation we are currently debating and the separate, looming debate on my Democratic colleagues' $3.5 trillion reckless tax-and-spend proposals. Senators on both sides of the aisle have long agreed to the need to modernize and expand our hard infrastructure, including transportation systems and broadband networks. We have done so in a bipartisan manner. Infrastructure investments have traditionally been accomplished through bipartisanship and regular order. Traditional hard infrastructure investments include the funding of roads and bridges, transit, rail, airports, drinking water, and wastewater infrastructure, ports and inland waterways, water storage, and broadband infrastructure. The bipartisan infrastructure bill we are considering today focuses on those core elements and is built around several vetted, unanimously consented committee-passed bills. It includes a number of priorities important to Idaho, including billions of dollars for roads, highways, and bridges; funding for high-speed internet and broadband infrastructure deployment; millions in water infrastructure, including for groundwater storage and conveyance; funding for resiliency against natural disasters, like wildfires and droughts; a reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools program; and much more. It does not raise taxes. It reprioritizes the use of certain unused COVID relief funds from previous spending bills away from bailouts and idle funds and toward supply-side investments that will provide benefits to the American people for many years. Because this infrastructure spending focuses on long-term productivity rather than near-term demand, it will not be inflationary. In fact, it will counteract the inflationary pressures we are now seeing as a result of the excessive spending in this Congress. This is especially critical right now, as rising prices are impacting families and small businesses across America. In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that consumer prices were up 5.4 percent over 1 year ago--the largest increase since August 2008. Consumer price inflation has been accelerating since the beginning of the year, and American families pay the price. In the past year, gas prices have increased 45.1 percent. The cost for major appliances has increased 13.7 percent. Airfares have increased 24.6 percent, and the list goes on. A recent University of Michigan survey showed that consumers expect prices to rise 4.8 percent over the next 12 months, and a National Federation of Independent Business survey found that 47 percent of companies are increasing average selling prices, up 7 percentage points from May and the highest share in four decades. Economists on both sides of the aisle have warned that excessive, nonproductive spending could put us in this position. And despite these warnings, in March, the Democrats passed nearly $2 trillion in purported COVID relief spending on top of the nearly $4 trillion that had already been spent. A fraction of this $2 trillion was actually pandemic-related. That poorly targeted package has grown the national debt, spurred inflation, and discouraged workers from returning to the workforce. Now Democrats are proposing to spend an additional $3.5 trillion to balloon the Federal Government even more, and that is just the advertised price. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Democrats' new legislation will actually cost closer to $5 to $5.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Democrats intend to couple this runaway spending with job- and growth-killing tax hikes to create and establish their reckless spree of tax-and-spend policies. They intend to go it alone with this social spending spree through another budget reconciliation process in a 50-50-tied Senate, which is willfully partisan. Yet, amazingly, despite having the tools to raise the debt limit within this process, Democrats want to ignore the debt implications of their reckless budget. If the Democrats are going to cram down this massive tax-and-spending spree, they will have to deal with the debt limit themselves. Yet they don't include dealing with their irresponsible growth of our debt in their bill. What about offset proposals? The Democrats' budget proposals include provisions that will cause immediate and long-term damage to our economy and send many of our most successful businesses--and the jobs they provide--abroad. One, they propose increasing taxes on all kinds of businesses, large and small, leading to lower wages, fewer jobs, and higher prices for consumers. Two, they would allow and encourage rival countries to change the international tax system for the worse. Three, they want to raise our taxes on our businesses in hopes that other countries may raise theirs sometime in the indefinite future, while ceding U.S. taxing rights to our competitors today. Four, they propose enacting a double death tax, particularly harmful for family farms and small businesses. Five, they want to substantially increase taxes on investors, entrepreneurs, savers, and retirees. Six, they want to drastically expand the powers of the IRS, while limiting its accountability, and turn banks into private investigators for monitoring law-abiding Americans. Seven, their ideas will raise taxes on middle-class individuals and families, and not just those earning over $400,000. At the very same time, they want tax relief for some of the wealthy living in the high tax-and-spend States. And, finally, they are also seeking to impose government price controls on the pharmaceutical industry that will stifle medical innovation. Let's go back into a little detail on this. Business taxes. The Democrats plan to hike the tax rate paid by all types of businesses, including corporations, ignoring the fact that a significant portion of the tax burden is paid by workers. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce notes, most corporations are small businesses, with 84 percent of them having fewer than 20 employees. As to those who actually bear the burden of a corporate tax increase, estimates say that workers share anywhere from 20 to more than 70 percent of this burden. A higher corporate tax rate would hit the nest eggs of everyone saving for retirement. This stealthy but very real tax hike would hit retirement savers across the spectrum, falling most heavily on the middle class and the elderly through retirement accounts and pensions, and clearly violating President Biden's pledge not to tax anyone making less than 400,000. Any business tax increase will directly hit the very small businesses and workers that the administration claims it wants to help. International taxes. The Democrats' tax plan would reverse the smart policies of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act adopted in 2017, once again raising the relative cost of doing business in America and punishing American businesses selling their products or services overseas. They fail to acknowledge that the tax increases in their plan will rocket the United States back into the outlier position it once occupied compared to peer nations. Once again, we will have the highest tax rates of the developed world. We are very near the top. The Democrats are intent on winning a race to get to the top of the heap in terms of international corporate tax rates. Their international tax proposal would more than double the minimum rate paid by U.S. businesses on their foreign earnings to 26.25 percent. This hike far outstrips the 15 percent minimum rate promised by some of our largest international competitors at the OECD. If the administration wants to promote economic growth that will benefit American workers and savers, why is it sharply increasing taxes on its global businesses when no other country even levies such taxes? The administration's international tax proposals seem designed to reignite the job-crushing inversions and foreign acquisitions of American companies that the Obama administration faced. There is no reason to tax our businesses into moving abroad, as the Democrats' proposals will do. Family farms and small businesses. Today, family businesses passed down at death are subject only to estate tax and not an additional income tax. Instead, a business's tax basis is increased or stepped up to fair market value, sparing the next generation a large capital gains tax bill. President Biden wants to create a double death tax by eliminating the benefits of this step-up in basis, including for small businesses, farms, and ranches passed down from one generation to the next at death. More insidiously, the Biden plan would tax these businesses on simple inflation, sticking them with a bill for reckless, inflationary tax- and-spend policies enacted by politicians in Washington. Capital gains tax. For decades, the Republicans and Democrats have recognized the importance of encouraging people to save for their future goals, including starting a business, saving for retirement, achieving financial independence, or even buying a home or a car. Members of both parties have long agreed on a key tool to encourage these goals for all Americans, specifically, a lower tax rate on long- term capital gains. President Biden wants to nearly double this tax rate from 23.8 percent to 43.4 percent, which will be the highest rate--and hear me on this: the highest rate--in a century. In many cases, when combined with similar State taxes, the government would take more than half of an asset's appreciation in taxes. This is the appreciation that lower income, middle-income, and all income categories of workers and earners in the United States will have to pay. This supersized tax hike would be a powerful disincentive to small businesses, savers and retirees, and entrepreneurs and innovators who power our economy, and harm all Americans, regardless of their financial circumstances or goals. IRS funding and bank monitoring. The Biden administration has proposed nearly $80 billion in additional IRS funding, of which $72.5 billion would be accountability-hindering mandatory spending. Nearly doubling the IRS' budget without increasing its accountability opens the door to repeating and supercharging the Agency's past abuses of power. Further, the administration's proposal would press financial institutions--private-sector financial institutions--into reporting the deposit and withdrawal flows on their customer's accounts of greater than $600 in value. Now, think about that. This isn't big corporations. It is not even just corporations. It is small businesses and individuals that have a financial account that has more than $600 in it. And what we are going to see is a dragnet pulling law-abiding Americans into this, exposing sensitive data to future breaches, burdening financial institutions, and encouraging the growth of shadow banking--what a huge violation of the privacy of all Americans. As if this proposal could not be worse, the data provided to the IRS would have almost no value in fighting tax evasion. The era of big data should not be viewed as an opportunity for Big Brother. The SALT deduction cap. While my colleagues are proposing reckless, across-the-board tax increases on businesses and families, they are simultaneously proposing to expand a tax deduction for the wealthiest-- those living in high-tax States. Democrats are fighting to reverse the cap on State and local taxes, or what is called the SALT tax--these deductions--stoking a tax break for the very wealthy. Democratic silence on who benefits from their proposal is telling. Per a 2020 Brookings Institute study, 96 percent of its benefits would go to the top quintile of earners, 57 percent would go to the top 1 percent of earners, and 25 percent to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of earners--a huge tax break for the wealthy. And, finally, price controls on pharmaceutical manufacturers. Thanks to the genius of science, private-sector innovation, and the success of Operation Warp Speed, America is ready for its comeback. Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues are proposing sweeping governmental price controls on the very innovators who have enabled our return to normalcy. Under the guise of negotiation, the government would be empowered to set a maximum fair price for drugs and apply bureaucratic standards that determine the value that cures and therapies bring to American lives. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has confirmed, this type of scheme will lead to fewer new medications, threatening access to lifesaving healthcare options for our most vulnerable citizens. One of these forgone therapies could treat pancreatic cancer; another could cure ALS. While every patient should be able to afford lifesaving medications, their proposal has the potential to eliminate the existence of these very inventions and innovations. Congress should come together in a bipartisan way to make all healthcare services, including prescription drugs, more affordable and accessible, and I have introduced legislation to do just that. We do need to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, but using the savings from this misguided government price control scheme to pay for unrelated partisan priorities is not the answer to the high cost of healthcare. Before the pandemic, a combination of reduced regulatory burden and pro-growth policies, including the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, helped to create one of the strongest economies of our lifetime, with all-time high median household income, a 50-year low unemployment rate, and real wage gains month after month, especially and most for the low-income workers. Inflation-adjusted weekly median earnings grew 4.9 percent for the 2 years between 2018 and 2019--the fastest 2-year growth rate in real earnings since 1998 and 1999. Polling showed Americans' general satisfaction at the highest level in 15 years. We would do the American people a disservice if we mortgaged their future while undermining the foundations of their past successes, and, sadly, this is the approach that many of my colleagues are seeking to take as we move into the next step of this debate. We should, instead, be building on time-proven, pro-growth policies, not reversing them to fund a reckless spending spree.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senator Jim Risch, Representative Mike Simpson, and Representative Russ Fulcher, I honor Allen Thomas Noble, a stalwart of the city of Boise and a great Idahoan. Allen Noble was a visionary, who loved our country. He was a native Idahoan, born in Idaho Falls. He graduated from Kuna High School and started out in farming in the Happy Valley of Idaho. Allen married Vera May Shulz, of Kuna, and they had five children: Susan, Linda, June, David, and Mark. As his obituary reads, ``He loved farm equipment and in 1958 bought an interest in Nampa International Harvester and moved his family to Nampa.'' Allen's deep love for farming was evident in his agricultural advancements, including his development of ``high lift pumping'' that advanced farm irrigation capabilities in the Dry Lake area and later near Glenns Ferry. In 1965, Allen married Billie Dee Jolley Johnson and added four more children to the family: Linda Sue, Cindee Lou, Kate, and Rusty. He later expanded into John Deere dealerships, as Campbell Tractor Co., and extended his appreciation for aviation into agricultural spraying and Idaho Helicopters, Inc.'s firefighting and air medical operations. His helicopter operations have served as the primary life flight service in the Pacific Northwest, saving countless lives. This service has been instrumental in serving Idaho's backcountry and moving patients quickly from accidents to medical care. In addition to his success and advancements in agriculture, Allen gave generously of his time, talents, and resources to many organizations and efforts in the community. He was a longtime supporter of Boise State football, and he contributed for decades to the Boise State athletic department. This included backing the expansion of Albertsons Stadium and helping to establish the Allen Noble Hall of Fame Gallery, named in his honor. He served on the Bronco Athletic Association Board of Directors and earned the Bronze Bronco Award. He also served on the board of directors for the Idaho First National Bank. Additionally, he was an initial outside investor in Micron Technology and served on its board of directors, playing a key role in the start and growth of the company. Allen's light shined brightly over the 92 years we were blessed to have him as part of our world. He has been fittingly described as a great man who had an innovative mind, a passion for progress, and a pioneering spirit with the drive and determination to accomplish anything he put his mind to. He was also warmhearted and giving, and his encouragement and support touched many lives over the years. He is remembered as a loyal friend who was open and generous with his life. We offer our heartfelt condolences to his many friends and loved ones, including his siblings, children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren. Multiple lifetimes may not have been long enough for all Allen Noble had in mind and was so capable of accomplishing, but he certainly made his time on earth count--putting strong foundations under his ideas and steadfastly helping others.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President I rise today to remember and honor Ian F. Fergusson, Specialist in International Trade and Finance in the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service, CRS. Ian passed away on Thursday, June 17, after a brief serious illness that unfortunately struck at the height of a distinguished career of more than 20 years at CRS, serving Congress on international trade and economic policy issues. Ian exemplified the very best of CRS during his years of direct support for Congress. He achieved a remarkable record of accomplishment through his many reports, confidential memoranda, committee prints, and confidential consultative work for Members and congressional staff. Ian played a vital role in Congress's consideration of important legislation, including on export control reform when I chaired the Senate Banking Committee. He also was intricately involved in major trade policy legislation and debates before the Senate Finance Committee, including its work on renewing and reforming Trade Promotion Authority--TPA--and the committee's and Senate's deliberation over the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement-- USMCA. There are many more examples of lan's authoritative, nonpartisan, and objective expertise and analysis for Congress, including his deep knowledge of U.S.-Canada economic relations, the World Trade Organization--WTO--and global trading system, and U.S. trade agreements. His institutional knowledge of U.S. trade policy and export controls was invaluable, especially to the Senate Finance and Senate Banking Committees and its members. The breadth and depth of Ian's institutional and policy expertise will be truly missed as Congress continues work on these important issues. I offer my sincere condolences to Ian's family, friends, and his colleagues at CRS during this difficult time and hope they may take comfort in the knowledge of his indelible contribution to the work of Congress on international trade and economic policy.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senator Jim Risch and Representatives Mike Simpson and Russ Fulcher, I congratulate Ron Pisaneschi on his remarkable more than 35-year career with Idaho Public Television. Ron is retiring after serving as Idaho Public Television's general manager since August 2013. He joined Idaho Public Television in 1985 and served in numerous positions for the station prior to his managerial role. This includes serving as director of content, director of programming, director of public information, and director of marketing and development. We understand under his leadership of the station, Idaho Public Television has been one of the most watched and best supported Public Broadcasting Service, PBS, stations per capita in the Nation. Douglas Balfour, president of the Friends of Idaho Public Television, wrote, ``With his leadership, IdahoPTV has focused on the wonderful people and places we have in the Gem State, with local productions like Idaho Reports, Outdoor Idaho and Idaho Experience. Ron will be missed, but we will carry on in the tradition he established.'' Ron has also contributed extensively of his time and talents to serving in various roles throughout the community, State, and Nation. This includes his service as vice chair of the NETA board of directors, chair of the Idaho State Broadcasters Association, and member of the board of directors of American Public Television. Ron dedicated more than 25 years to serving on the PBS Children's Advisory Committee. He also served on the board of directors of the Public Television Programming Association from 2002-2007, serving as president in 2006. From 2002-2012, he served on the board of directors of the Idaho Humanities Council, where he served two terms as chairman. These are just a few examples of his longtime involvement in numerous leadership roles and advisory panels. His dedicated work has earned recognition, including Ron being named the 2005 Programmer of the Year by his colleagues in the PBS system. Ron, thank you for your commitment to advancing public discussions in Idaho for all these years. Your curiosity, ingenuity, and thoughtful advocacy for Idaho interests have no doubt contributed significantly to broadening understanding, educational opportunities, and public discourse across Idaho and well beyond our State's borders. We will miss you at the helm of Idaho Public Television but wish you all the best in a well-earned retirement.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, along with my colleague Senator Jim Risch, I congratulate Jack Buell, of St. Maries, ID, on his extraordinary 46 years of public service as Benewah County commissioner. We thank him for contributing his time, talent, and resources to the people of St. Maries, Benewah County, and to Idaho. Throughout his time in leadership, Jack has earned deep respect and admiration for his unwavering commitment to the community and county he loves. Jack Buell was first elected Benewah County commissioner nearly five decades ago in 1974, and he served steadily as commissioner until December 2020. Jack is known as someone who can be counted on to help meet the needs of the community. For example, Jack made his own property available to the U.S. Forest Service to use as a fire base. There are many other examples of his generosity and outstanding service, as he seems to never tire of doing what needs to be done. Jack is truly a stalwart of our great State. He and his wife Eleanor own Jack Buell Trucking based in St. Maries. This business has long been a pillar in the community, providing jobs that support families and contributing to Benewah County's economic base. In addition to his business and service as Benewah County commissioner, Jack has supported and served on boards for many local and State organizations. He has been formally recognized for his contributions to the community and State, including his 2012 induction into the Idaho Hall of Fame and receiving the Idaho Distinguished Service Medal in 2021. Jack is someone with great integrity, dedication, experience, wisdom, and institutional knowledge. He adds humor, curiosity, know-how, humility, and hard work to the countless challenges he has faced throughout his remarkable career. Jack has led by example for decades, and despite all he has done, he is not resting from service. We understand his ongoing efforts include increasing safety on the roads of St. Maries. Thank you, Jack, for all you have done and continue to do for Idahoans. We are honored to join many others in expressing our gratitude to you for a lifetime of exceptional service.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President and Members of the Senate, what we are going to be voting on shortly here, Senate Amendment No. 1562, is an example of the bipartisanship that can be achieved if we put in the hard work to work out the details and the differences between us on very critical issues. This is not just an amendment on one topic; this is an entire title, the Finance Committee's title. The chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden, and I have worked for months together to identify that intersection--which is a big one, as you will see--between Republicans and Democrats here in the Senate on trade policy to help us to put together a package of strong trade policy that will help us to stand up our efforts in pushing back against China in one of the most critical arenas that we face: trade, our economy, and working against the very nefarious activities that China is engaged in to try to undercut us economically and to undercut our American companies in our trade relationships. Senator Wyden and I worked hard together to get this done, and I am glad that we now have a package that can be put forward. As I said, it is not just one provision; this is an entire trade title. Let me summarize just some of the things that are in it. It provides a comprehensive approach to combat China's manufacturing imbalances, threats to free and fair trade, and illicit activity, which undermine America's leadership in innovation. This legislation will level the playing field for American consumers and companies, including workers, farmers, fishers, families, and taking aim at China's worst practices. The amendment itself carries a bipartisan approach into a Senate-wide effort to ensure that the United States is positioned effectively to compete on a fair playing field globally--not just with China, globally, but especially with China. It bolsters efforts to prohibit goods made with forced labor from reaching the United States by strengthening our Customs and Border Protection enforcement efforts and through better use of the Seafood Import Monitoring Program. It provides modernized trade enforcement tools to U.S. Trade Representatives to address anti-competitive digital trade and censorship practices, like China's great firewall, by requiring the USTR to identify trading partners that disrupt digital trade. It appoints a USTR official to oversee information communication technology and provides advance notice and text of proposals for any digital trade agreements 5 days before they are tabled to facilitate our efforts here in Congress to oversee an effective trade policy. It requires a review of trade in essential supplies, including the sources of imports, and analysis of any vulnerabilities, as well as additional tools for businesses in the United States seeking reliable suppliers. It strengthens oversight over U.S. trade policy by providing an inspector general to the USTR and by ensuring the application of section 301 tariffs related to China are calibrated to provide the necessary leverage to support American competition while ensuring U.S. competitiveness in manufacturing. It reauthorizes, critically, the miscellaneous tariff bill--what has been called the MTB--and improved generalized system of preferences, the GSP. That will promote human rights, the environment, women's economic empowerment, and the rule of law and digital trade, and restarts and reforms the critical section 301 product exclusion process. These things might sound complicated, but it is our way of standing up our American competitors in a very anti-competitive environment dealing with China. It expands the duties of the Interagency Center on Trade Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement to include investigations of practices, diffuse impacts on the economy and workers of the United States where there is systemic impacts on the resiliency of multiple critical domestic supply chains. Standing up and building out our supply chains is critical in this economic competition. It requires the U.S. Trade Representatives to initiate talks with the Quad countries to develop a strategy on critical minerals to counter China's dominant share of that global supply. It requires the CBP to submit a report to Congress on achieving supply chain transparency. CBP is seeking greater supply chain transparency to address merchandise made with forced labor, with counterfeits, and through a 21st Century Customs Framework Initiative. It requires the USTR to brief Congress on the findings of a forthcoming report by the Comptroller General of the United States related to that critical 301 exclusion process. It directs the USTR to enter into negotiations with allies to stop the importation of goods made with stolen intellectual property into the United States and allied countries. The theft of American intellectual property is becoming critical to our ability to be effectively competitive against China. This list goes on. This is a major Finance Committee title that will significantly strengthen U.S. competitiveness in response to the malign activities that we continuously see growing from China. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important amendment. Before I finish, I want to say what I was going to say at the beginning of my remarks, and I alluded to it briefly. Senator Wyden and I have had a very close and strong negotiation going on, and I appreciate deeply the ability that we have to work together in a bipartisan fashion to build this, and we will be building other very important policies for this country. I just wanted to thank my colleague Senator Wyden for his partnership in this effort.

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 1562, as modified with the changes at the desk, and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I and Senator Wyden and Senator Schumer may be able to complete our remarks before the vote.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on amendment No. 1565 to the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, or USICA, the underlying bill. My amendment preserves the constitutional authority of Congress over international trade. It does so by ensuring the President cannot waive or modify congressionally approved trade agreements, including the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS--the TRIPS Agreement. And the reason is that the TRIPS Agreement, like the USICA, contains provisions that facilitate the leadership of the United States in scientific and technological innovation. China is challenging that leadership through predatory practices aimed at our highest value sectors, including our pharmaceutical sector. Plain and simple, China wants our intellectual property. Remarkably, the administration announced, without consulting Congress, that it would support a waiver of U.S. intellectual property rights under the TRIPS Agreement with respect to vaccines. Moreover, the U.S. Trade Representative declined to confirm that she would oppose letting this waiver extend to China. Colleagues, there are vaccines precisely because the innovative U.S. firms exist because of strong IP protections. The problem with access to vaccines is not intellectual property. The problem is the manufacturing capacity. This amendment I am proposing allows the administration to proceed, providing it is willing to make the case, including by presenting evidence and respecting Congress's authority. The outcome is subject to congressional approval, just like the original TRIPS Agreement. I also demand real consultation with Congress. My colleague's amendment provides only that the administration will provide relevant proposals and pertinent documents to Congress related to the final agreement. There is no reason to grant this leeway to the administration given its existing failure to consult with us. My amendment requires the administration to provide the text of any U.S. proposal to Congress 5 business days before it is tabled in a trade negotiation, not after it has agreed to amend a congressionally approved agreement. With respect to that agreement and the other WTO agreements, we have spoken clearly as a body that the United States can withdraw from these agreements if, and only if, Congress passes a resolution to that effect. For example, it requires reports on issues central to whether the administration's decision makes sense and provides for consultation by the administration with the public and Congress concerning its proposal. This will facilitate transparency, identify any national security risks presented by the administration's proposal, and, importantly, will stop an action that does not further vaccine access or present a risk to our national security. Accordingly, if the administration's proposal is determined by the administration's own Agencies not to present a risk to U.S. national security and that it positively facilitates vaccine access, the administration may continue negotiating and seeking an outcome for a waiver. It must not be the case that once Congress approves a trade agreement, the administration can simply withdraw rights or obligations under a congressionally approved trade agreement or alter its terms however it sees fit. Yet that is exactly what the administration is seeking to do here. If we were to accept that proposition, what is the point for Congress's approving any future trade agreement if the administration can simply alter it without again coming to Congress to make that change? This amendment ensures that the administration's proposal will, in fact, get a vote by applying fast-track-like procedures to its conclusions. It also prohibits our IP from going to China or Russia. I have only one redline, which I suspect all of you share: The administration may not waive U.S. IP rights under the TRIPS Agreement to China and Russia. Congress approved the entry of these two countries into the WTO precisely because we wanted to hold them accountable to WTO rules. Russia and China are a threat to American innovation and the principle reason why the USICA is before us on the floor of the Senate today. So why would we then allow the administration to legally bless their malfeasance? If we must stand together and waive the IP rights of Americans, the least we can do is insist that China and Russia, which tout the successes of their own vaccines, not be allowed to take hard-earned U.S. technology. This concern is particularly valid since the Chinese Government is actively trying to steal mRNA technology, and its efforts to develop such technology is led, in fact, by an arm of the Chinese military USICA is a sincere, bipartisan effort to promote American innovation in the face of China's predations. My amendment complements that effort and must likewise be considered. I encourage all of my Democrat and Republican colleagues to support it.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I ask for the yeas and nays.