John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week, Democrats unveiled their so- called Inflation Reduction Act, a bill that will do nothing to reduce inflation but will double down on Democrats' wasteful government spending, along with imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes--yes, hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes. Our economy has posted negative economic growth for the past two quarters, and Democrats think it is a good idea to raise taxes on American businesses. Perhaps Democrats think that current prices aren't high enough or that businesses aren't struggling enough with the inflation that Democrats helped create. The worst part, of course, is that a substantial part of the burden of these tax hikes will fall on ordinary Americans, Americans who are already struggling with historically high inflation, Americans who are seeing their grocery bills balloon and their rent skyrocket, Americans who are paying more than $4 per gallon every time they fill up their car. Now, Democrats are going to pass tax hikes that will hit these Americans hard--a tax hike on businesses that will almost undoubtedly result in lower growth, lower wages, and fewer jobs; a tax hike on investment--investment that we need to grow our economy and create opportunities for American workers; and tax hikes on energy production. That is right, tax hikes on energy production to the tune of $60 billion. Now, as I mentioned, Americans are still, on average, paying more than $4 a gallon every time they go to fill up their cars, as they have been for months. Their electricity bills are up. The price for utility gas service is up by almost 40 percent. And Democrats think now is a good time to raise taxes on oil and gas production? I guess maybe they are hoping that they can force Americans off conventional energy by continuing to keep gas and energy prices high. And in case anyone was thinking that Democrats would be content with shutting down domestic production--with a methane tax, higher royalties, excise taxes, and costly permitting delays--and would rather Americans receive conventional energy from abroad, well, Democrats have a tax hike for that too. The Democrats' bill would impose a new tax hike on U.S. refiners importing crude oil and petroleum products intended to make conventional energy prohibitively expensive. But, of course, Americans will need conventional energy, and that will continue to be true for a while yet, no matter how much wishful thinking Democrats engage in. And Democrats' energy tax hikes are setting ordinary Americans up to continue to suffer under high energy prices for the foreseeable future. So what are all these tax hikes for? What government spending is worth imposing tax hikes that run the risk of pushing our economy into a longer recession or, worse yet, stagflation? Well, let me just review some of the priorities that Democrats will be spending that tax hike money on. There is $1.5 billion--billion dollars--for a grant program to plant trees, and $1.9 billion for things like identifying gaps in tree canopy coverage. That is right, identifying gaps in tree canopy coverage. There is $1 billion for electric heavy-duty vehicles like garbage trucks. I am not really sure why the Federal Government is going to be spending money on electric garbage trucks or how that is going to reduce inflation. There is $3 billion for the U.S. Postal Service to purchase zero- emission delivery vehicles. Quite a lot of money, I might add, for an Agency that is supposedly self-funded. There is funding for road equity. All told, there is more than $60 billion in funding for ``environmental justice''--$60 billion. That is more than the Federal Government spent on highways in 2019. There is also at least $30 billion in climate slush funds, part of which is allocated for, among other things, climate-related political activity--yeah, political activity. So, in other words, Democrats are raising taxes on Americans so that they can provide Federal funding for Green New Deal activism. And I haven't even talked about all the tax credits for adopting Democrats' preferred green energy technologies. There are tax credits for purchasing electric vehicles and for refitting windows and skylights and doors to meet Democrats' required level of energy efficiency. That is right, Democrats are raising the tax burden on working Americans to pay for tax credits for wealthy Americans to purchase a brandnew electric vehicle or to do some home remodeling. Of course, these tax credits aren't officially limited to wealthy Americans, but I am hard-pressed to think of many working families who can afford to spend $60,000 on a new electric vehicle while inflation is at a 40-year high. I am a longtime supporter of clean energy. I come from a State that is leading the way toward cleaner and more efficient energy technologies, and I have worked with colleagues from both parties to advance clean energy, including through the responsible use of energy tax credits to bring clean energy technologies to the point where they can compete on their own. But this bill has nothing in common with the bipartisan work I and many others have done to responsibly advance clean energy. This bill is wasteful and irresponsible and will do essentially nothing to reduce warming globally as others nations continue to skate by. It will, however, waste a lot of taxpayer dollars and create a lot of economic pain for hard-working Americans. One think tank analyzed a plan similar to the one Democrats are pushing and found that it would result in staggering job losses, higher energy bills, and a tremendous reduction in economic growth. One sensible move to advance clean energy and necessary investment in conventional energy would be to address the arduous permitting process which can hold up both renewable and conventional energy projects for years. That is something we should be focused on, to promote investment in the conventional energy we still need and in the renewable energy technologies of the future. Instead, we are being asked to support a bill that will squander billions and billions of taxpayer dollars on Green New Deal activism and road equity and monitoring tree canopies. And we are supposed to vote for it based on the vague promise that the Senate will consider--consider, mind you, not pass--permitting legislation; permitting legislation that may or may not meaningfully address the broken and burdensome permitting process or negate spurious lawsuits from far-left environmentalists. And even if it did provide meaningful reform, my hopes are not high that the Biden administration would actually act on the legislation. Canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline, a project that endured a decade of permitting, was already underway, and was to be paired with $1.7 billion in private--yes, private--investment for renewables--it doesn't install confidence that even approved projects are safe from the President and Democrats' Green New Deal ideology. The Democrats' reckless $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan spending spree helped plunge our economy into an inflation crisis that has left Americans struggling to make ends meet. If this new, partisan tax-and- spending spree passes, Americans can look forward to a lot more economic pain in the future. But at least they will be able to console themselves with the knowledge that their tax dollars are going to fund tree canopies. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, ``You don't want to take money out of the economy when the economy is shrinking.'' ``You don't want to take money out of the economy when the economy is shrinking.'' Those aren't my words. Those were the words of the current Democratic leader in 2008: ``You don't want to take money out of the economy when the economy is shrinking.'' Well, apparently, it is a philosophy the Democratic leader no longer subscribes to because, last week, he introduced legislation to take money out of the economy when the economy is shrinking. The Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act--which is a misnomer if ever there was one, since the bill will do nothing to help alleviate our current inflation crisis--will take hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy in the form of new tax hikes and comes just as our economy posted a second quarter of negative growth. Notably, the bill imposes a $313 billion tax hike on American businesses, with roughly half of that increase falling on American manufacturers. I guess the President's commitment to boosting American manufacturing takes a backseat to raising revenue to fund Democrats' Green New Deal priorities. I don't think I need to tell anyone what happens when you raise taxes on businesses, particularly when the economy is shrinking. You get less growth, fewer jobs, and lower wages. According to an analysis from the National Association of Manufacturers, in 2023 alone, the Democrats' bill would reduce real gross domestic product by more than $68 billion and result in 218,108 fewer workers in the overall economy--a $68 billion reduction in GDP and more than 218,000 fewer workers. And ordinary Americans would bear a substantial part of the burden of this tax increase. According to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the Democrats' bill would increase the tax burden of Americans across every income bracket, with more than half of the increased tax burden falling on Americans making $400,000 or less. Next year alone, the Democrats' bill would increase the tax burden on Americans earning less than $200,000 by $16.7 billion. Democrats are brazenly attempting to sell this new tax as somehow closing a loophole instead of hiking taxes on American businesses, but that isn't even close to being the truth. When companies pay less than the current corporate tax rate, they are often simply taking advantage of tax credits that Republicans and Democrats put in place to encourage investment in things like research and development or the production of new technologies. Democrats aren't closing a loophole in the tax bill. Let's face it. They are raising taxes on American businesses at a time when our economy has posted two consecutive quarters of negative growth. They are raising taxes on businesses that are already struggling with historically high inflation. Democrats claim they will make large companies pay at least a 15- percent minimum tax, but that isn't true either because Democrats have created carve-outs to their own minimum tax. That is right. Not all companies will have to pay the new book minimum tax. For instance, green energy companies and companies that take green energy tax credits will be allowed to pay less than the Democrats' alternative minimum corporate tax rate. In other words, if you are a member of or invest in the Democrats' preferred industries, you get special tax treatment under their legislation. So much for ensuring that all companies--all companies--``pay their fair share.'' In addition to their $313 billion tax hike on American businesses, Democrats' legislation also raises taxes on investment--another bad idea at a time when our economy is already shrinking. Perhaps Democrats' real plan is to reduce inflation by slowing our economy and ensuring that we enter a recession or what is known as stagflation. Democrats' legislation also raises taxes on oil and gas production even as Americans continue to struggle with high energy prices, including a 75-percent increase in gas prices since President Biden took office. Taxes aren't the only way the Democrats raise revenue in this bill to pay for their Green New Deal measures. The Democrats' bill also attempts to raise revenue by increasing IRS audits and enforcement. The Democrats' legislation gives the IRS an additional $80 billion in funding over 10 years--$80 billion, about six times their annual budget. This would allow the IRS to hire an additional 87,000 employees, meaning that the IRS would have nearly--do you believe this?--three times as many personnel as U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Agency that is charged with overseeing security at our Nation's borders--87,000 new employees. The IRS's budget would also substantially exceed Customs and Border Protection's budget if this legislation is enacted. Now, you might think that given the raging crisis at our southern border, the Biden administration would be focused on beefing up funding and personnel for Customs and Border Protection instead of the IRS, but you would be wrong. Apparently, the need to find money for Democrats' Green New Deal trumps the need for a secure border. Of the additional $80 billion the Democrats' bill would hand to the IRS, 57 percent or more than $45 billion would go to enforcement and only 4 percent to taxpayer services. Think about that. Four percent for an Agency, as I said on the floor yesterday, that only succeeded in answering about 1 out of every 50 taxpayer phone calls during the 2021 tax season and has repeatedly, as we all know, mishandled sensitive taxpayer data. To name just one instance, confidential taxpayer information was either leaked or hacked from the IRS last year and shared with the left-leaning ProPublica in order to advance a partisan agenda. More than a year later, the IRS still hasn't provided meaningful followup to Congress or accountability to taxpayers for that leak. Yet Democrats' focus is not on improving the IRS responsiveness and accountability but on boosting the number of audits. Speaking of those audits, no one should think the IRS would be just auditing major corporations and billionaires. No, this bill would result in a lot of audits of small businesses and ordinary Americans. In fact, it is extremely unlikely the Democrats will be able to gather the revenue they are claiming they can get from increased IRS enforcement unless they audit Americans making less than $200,000 a year. Based on data, again, from the Joint Committee on Taxation, 78 to 90 percent of the revenue projected to be raised from underreported income would likely come from those making under $200,000. Only 4 to 9 percent would come from those making more than $500,000. That, again, is from the Joint Committee on Taxation. I just want to repeat that. Seventy-eight to ninety percent of the revenue projected to be raised from underreported income would likely come from those making under $200,000 a year. In other words, all this talk about audits and, you know, closing the tax gap and forcing people to pay taxes that are due that they are not paying today and implying that somehow that is all going to apply to high-income taxpayers or big corporations or big businesses is just flat inconsistent with the data and the facts as compiled by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Up to 90 percent of the revenue projected to be raised from underreported income would come from those making less than $200,000 a year. So, Mr. and Mrs. American Taxpayer, get ready. Get ready for the IRS enforcement auditor to come to your house and to start harassing you so that the Democrats can pay for their massive tax-and-spending spree. After more than a year of high inflation spurred by Democrats' reckless American Rescue Plan spending spree passed last year and with an economy that has shrunk for the past two quarters, it is hard to believe the Democrats are trying to pass hundreds of billions of dollars in tax hikes, but that is exactly what is happening. Once again, economic common sense is taking a back seat to Democrats' big spending and big government ideology. Democrats have already inflicted a lot of economic pain on the American people, and if this legislation passes, there is more to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``no.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, Democrats dropped the latest version of their tax-and-spending spree last week. And like every previous version, this bill is a bad deal for the American people. So where should I start? Well, maybe with the bill's title. In true Orwellian style, Democrats are calling the bill the Inflation Reduction Act, even though the bill would do nothing to reduce inflation. And you don't have to take my word for it. The nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model analyzed the bill and found that the bill would not reduce inflation. In fact, the analysis found that the Democrats' bill would contribute to inflation through 2024 and have no material impact on inflation in the long term. Inflation has hit working Americans hard. Their grocery bills have ballooned. Rents have skyrocketed. Filling up their cars costs 75 percent more per gallon than it did when the President took office. Their utility bills have increased. And the list goes on. Families are having to cut back on purchases and dig into their savings or pull out their credit cards--or in some cases, visit a food bank--to make ends meet. And what does Democrats' tax-and-spending spree do to help? Nothing. Americans are dealing with the worst inflation in more than 40 years, and Democrats' bill does nothing to help end our current crisis. So what does the bill do? Well, for one thing, it raises taxes. That is right. Our economy has shrunk for each of the past two quarters--in fact, by any common definition we are now in a recession--and the Democrats' bill raises taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. Here is what the Democratic leader previously had to say about raising taxes in a recession. If we're in a recession and we're in a difficult economic time, I don't think Sen. Obama or anyone else is going to raise any taxes. You don't want to take money out of the economy when the economy is shrinking. That is something the Democratic leader has previously said. President Obama himself expressed a similar sentiment when he said: [T]he last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. ``The last thing.'' Apparently, that doesn't apply when Democrats have Green New Deal projects they want to pay for. The Democrats' bill attempts to offset the cost of the Green New Deal spending spree by raising taxes on American businesses, particularly-- particularly--manufacturers. The proposed book minimum tax would be a $313 billion tax hike, with roughly half of that increase falling on American manufacturers. I don't think I need to tell anyone the likely outcome of raising taxes on businesses, particularly when the economy is contracting. The likely outcome is less growth, lower wages, and fewer jobs. According to an analysis from the National Association of Manufacturers, in 2023 alone, the bill would reduce real gross domestic product by more than $68 billion and result in 218,108 fewer workers in the overall economy--218,000 fewer workers in 2023 alone. That is according to the National Association of Manufacturers if the Democrats' bill passes. The Democrats' bill also raises taxes on the energy sector-- specifically, on domestic oil and gas production. It is another face- palm move from Democrats. Currently, gas prices are 75 percent higher than they were when President Biden took office. Electricity prices are up. The cost of utility gas service is way up. And yet Democrats think it is a good idea to raise taxes on domestic oil and gas production. Apparently, Democrats want our current high energy prices to stick around for the long term. So what are Democrats going to use all that tax-hike money for? Well, for one thing, they are going to use it to fund Green New Deal projects; critical priorities like monitoring gaps in tree canopy coverage and road equity and funding--funding--for the post office's purchase of electric delivery vehicles. And then there are the multiple slush funds for Green New Deal projects and the tax credit for the purchase of a new electric car or truck. Of course, you will only be able to use the credit if you can afford to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000, which is the average price for a new electric vehicle, while we are in the middle of a recession. So it would almost undoubtedly be mostly Americans with higher salaries--and according to the bill, up to $300,000 per household--who would be able to make use of this credit. So it is a tax credit to buy electric vehicles for rich people. But I guess Democrats think electric vehicle tax credits for wealthier Americans are a good use of taxpayer dollars. What else is in here? I mentioned the bill's tax hikes, but the Democrats' bill also attempts to raise revenue by increasing IRS audits and enforcement. That is right. The Democrats' bill would more than double the current number of IRS employees, making the Agency nearly three times larger than the U.S. Customs and Border Protection--the Agency, I might add, that is charged with security at all of our Nation's borders--and more than 50 percent larger--this is the IRS on the Democrats' plan--more than 50 percent larger than the entire U.S. Department of Agriculture. Democrats give the IRS a whopping $80 billion in additional funding over the next 10 years. Of that $80 billion, 57 percent goes to enforcement; 4 percent goes to taxpayer services. That is right: 4 percent. This is an Agency that only succeeded in answering about 1 out of every 50 phone calls during the 2021 tax season, and yet 4 percent of the $80 billion is going to taxpayer services. Fifty-seven percent goes to enforcement so that the IRS can spend more time harassing taxpayers around this country. Democrats are focused not on improving the IRS's responsiveness to taxpayers, but on boosting the number of IRS audits. I still haven't mentioned the bill's socialist-style price controls for prescription drugs--price controls that would result in fewer new drugs and treatments. A study from last November found that Democrats' price control plans would result in 135 fewer new drugs through 2039. That is a lot of potentially life-changing and lifesaving treatments to lose. Then, of course, there is Democrats' plan to expand Obamacare subsidies to higher earning Americans, a move which would drive up the cost of health insurance. I could go on. Most Americans remember the lead-up to Democrats' American Rescue Plan spending spree last March. We were promised--they were promised-- at the time that passing that bill would have big benefits for our economy and for American families. Well, we know what actually happened. Democrats' reckless spending spree helped trigger the worst inflation for decades, and American families have suffered as a result. Now we are being asked to swallow a similar story about the Democrats' latest spending legislation. This bill will help our economy, we are told, even though we know it would make life harder for American businesses and workers at a time when the economy is already contracting. Make no mistake about that. This is the second consecutive quarter where we have had negative economic growth, negative GDP growth, in our economy. It will help inflation, Democrats claim, even though a nonpartisan analysis said it would do nothing--nothing to help alleviate our current crisis. It will reduce our deficit, Democrats say, relying on some very shady accounting measures to reach their supposed deficit reduction number. It will help lower energy prices, the President claims, even though new energy taxes would further inflate near-term energy bills during a season of already historic prices. You would think Democrats might have been chastened by their disastrous American Rescue Plan spending spree, but you would be wrong. Apparently, Democrats are determined to get in another disastrous spending bill. And, once again, it will be the American people that will be left to suffer the consequences. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) would have noted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, say it isn't so, Joe. Yesterday afternoon, Democrats, Senator Manchin--Joe Manchin from West Virginia--and their leadership announced the latest version of their Build Back Better tax-and-spending spree, which they are, bizarrely, calling the Inflation Reduction Act. Now, I have to say that when they announced it, I think it certainly blindsided the Republicans, but I think it also blindsided, I am told, an awful lot of Democrats who didn't know or hadn't been consulted about what was going to be in this so-called Inflation Reduction Act. Let me just tell you a few of the things the bill does. It imposes a new tax on job creators. It provides funding to the IRS to harass small businesses and nonprofits. It provides tens of billions of dollars in tax credits for Green New Deal projects and the purchase of costly electric vehicles. It extends increased government subsidies for people on ObamaCare. Well, I think the question you have to ask is, What exactly is any of that going to do to address inflation? How are more IRS audits going to help Americans who wonder how they can continue to afford to pay more than $4 a gallon for gas? How is a new tax on businesses going to drive down the price of chicken or milk or fruits or vegetables? As for electric vehicle tax credits, they might make purchasing an electric vehicle slightly less painful, but that is if you can afford to purchase one in the first place, especially in the midst of an inflation crisis. These tax credits are going to do nothing to cool down our overheated economy or bring inflation under control. Then there is the fact that Democrats are attempting to help sell this bill by claiming it is going to help reduce the deficit. Well, it is not that I am not glad to see Democrats actually considering deficit reduction, even though their deficit reduction is unlikely to do much to actually reduce the deficit. Perhaps they should have thought about deficit reduction last year when they passed a massive, partisan $1.9 trillion spending spree financed with deficit spending--a spending spree, I might add, that overheated our economy and helped push us to our current inflation crisis, which is the biggest inflation that we have seen literally in 40 years, a 40-year high. So we found out, of course, about this bill literally hours before we learned this morning that for the second quarter in a row, our economy not only failed to experience any growth but actually contracted. And the news was not unexpected. There have been signs that the economy was weakening for a while now. But I have to say, as I think about that news--the inflation news coupled with the fact that the economy is, in fact, contracting--that it seems really incredible that the prescription for either one of those problems in this country would be a massive new tax-and-spending bill. This bill isn't going to do anything about inflation. It is not going to do anything for economic growth. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this bill's new tax on businesses actually slows down parts of our economy. It begs the question about why you would need new taxes when the taxes that are coming into the Treasury already are, frankly, at record levels. We saw year-over-year increases from the last 2 years in the amount of revenues coming into the Treasury from taxes paid by the American people, increased by 18 and 20 percent--18 percent one year and 20 percent the next year. There have been huge increases in tax revenue, in fact, so big, such big increases in tax revenue that the revenue generated by the tax owed to this country as a percentage of our gross domestic product--in other words, as a percentage of our total economy--reached the highest level since the year 2000, a 22-year high revenue to GDP. That is what has happened in the last couple of years. Revenues have been going up. Revenues coming from individual income tax returns, from business tax returns, from capital gains taxes all have gone up by double digits, and big double digits, 18 and 20 percent in the last 2 years, to the point where revenue to GDP is at the highest level that it has been literally since the year 2000, 22 years ago. Couple that with the fact that, because of inflation, which at 9.1 percent is the highest we have seen in 40 years--you have to go back to the time when I was literally in high school and college to find a time when we saw this kind of inflation and the impact that has on American families and consumers. So the Joint Economic Committee did an analysis recently which found out that the increase in costs for an average American family year over year as a result of this level of inflation is about $9,000. That is $9,000 more for the same basket of goods, the same basic necessities that Americans bought last year; $9,000 higher this year, roughly about $700 a month. So that is $700 a month out of an American family's budget pocket that goes toward nothing more than paying the inflation tax. So you already have this huge tax on American families because of inflation. Now you couple that with the fact that the economy is slowing down. It is getting a little wobbly. You would think just intuitively that when you have an economy like that, the last thing you would want to do, the very worst prescription for high inflation and slow growth would be more taxes and more spending, particularly given the fact that you even have liberal Democrat economists who have said that the $1.9 trillion spending bill last year contributed to--was largely responsible for this inflation and perhaps one of the worst policy decisions ever made. Yes, that has been not just Republicans saying that; that has been liberal Democrat economists. So in light of that situation, that sort of cluster of economic data--slow growth, or in this case, negative growth, a recession, technically speaking--now, of course, there is a question by the administration about what really constitutes a technical recession, but I think if you are an American family or an American consumer, you know, 9 percent inflation and, you know, slow growth in the economy and a concern about what the future economic outlook is going to look like for yourself and your family suggests they probably think that we are in a recession already. I think that is the experience of most Americans who are dealing with the day-to-day pocketbook issues. So you have to ask the question, again, with higher prices already out there and concerns about the economy, why more taxes on businesses, which in most cases--and people think of taxing--always tax businesses because businesses make all this money, they are very rich and all that, but what happens typically with businesses is, obviously, they have to hire employees, so if you hit them with a big fat tax burden, typically what happens is it results in lower wages for their employees or, conversely, it could also result in higher prices for consumers, for their customers, because that typically gets passed on. In most cases, those taxes don't just get eaten or absorbed; they get passed on in the economy in the form of higher prices or lower wages, and there are all kinds of economic studies on both sides of the political equation that show that. So the question, again, is why would you do this, particularly now, when, in fact, what we ought to be doing is focusing on those solutions that actually would reduce inflation, starting with reducing wasteful, out-of-control spending? If spending overheated the economy in the first place--and, of course, the textbook definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. If that is what we have experienced in our economy over the past several months, then you would think you would want, if you are in a hole, to quit digging--don't spend more, don't flood the zone with more dollars out there and increase that demand and put higher pressure on prices. You would think that would be a solution. And you would also think that, since a lot of inflation has to do with the price of energy in this country, that you would focus on reducing the price of energy rather than increasing the price of energy, and this bill does the exact opposite. It puts taxes--taxes on energy production in this country--oil and gas--all in the name of and in the interest of trying to push people into electric vehicles. Now, interestingly enough, when I mention electric vehicles--average cost, about $80,000. So when the suggestion is--you know, so gas prices are high, fuel prices are high, just go get an electric vehicle. Well, when you have got 9 percent inflation and a wobbly economy, the idea that an average American person out there or an average American family is going to go out and drop 80 grand on an electric vehicle seems a little bit far-fetched. But, then, it is not just the average American family. This incentive to buy electric vehicles can be taken, experienced, enjoyed, if you will, by people making $300,000 a year--hardly the average American who is getting hit by high gas prices. So instead of lowering energy costs by increasing more supply, opening up Federal lands, you know, approving permits to drill, approving infrastructure projects, encouraging investment in energy production in this country instead of discouraging it and pressuring companies not to invest in energy production, this has the opposite effect. It is going to tax energy. It is going to put a tax on energy. So you are going to have higher electricity costs, higher fuel costs--I don't get it. I honestly don't get it. Now, I understand there is a very distinct difference in this country in political philosophies and all that, and I also know--I have been here long enough to know--that when Democrats are in power, they tend to grow and expand government. There are--I don't know, I can't think probably of a spending debate that I have been involved with in the time that I have been here where Democrats haven't wanted to spend more and Republicans haven't wanted to spend less, with one exception, and that would be defense. National security is always something that seems to be on the menu when it comes to cutting government as far as Democrats are concerned, but when it comes to just overall spending, government, the role of government, that sort of thing--and these are--I mean, they are philosophical differences, they are ideological differences, whatever you want to call them, but the fact of the matter is that Democrats like to grow and expand government. They like more government. They like more government control. And this achieves that in a lot of ways. Obviously, it makes people more dependent upon government, and particularly if--when it comes to, you know, what you choose to drive, pushes people more into electric vehicles. And it is government, again, picking winners and losers. But I would also suggest that one of the other provisions in the bill locks in policies that socialist countries have adopted, places in Western Europe, that fix drug prices. That is not something we have done in this country. And everybody around here says: Well, Europe does it, why can't we do it? Well, as I recall, we left Europe for that reason. We wanted less government control. We wanted more personal freedom, coupled with individual responsibility. That was part, I think, of the defining principle of this country. So now we are going to adopt the price-fixing policies that have been adopted in places in Europe in an attempt to try and get drug costs down at the same time we are going to be sacrificing the innovation, the investment, and the ingenuity that has resulted in so many of the great cures that we have seen in this country, and as recently as a couple years ago with COVID, which was a record time in terms of getting a vaccine out there into circulation that was actually effective in trying to keep people from getting terribly sick with that disease. So what this, as far as I can tell, does, is it sort of socializes medicine, at least to the extent that it pertains to the pharmaceutical business. It has government fixing prices. It has us adopting the European model when it comes to drugs. It has us taxing energy production here in the United States and investing in all kinds of different green energy things. By the way, $60 billion--$60 billion--in this proposal for ``environmental justice,'' defined, evidently, as grants to communities who are having a hard time keeping up with environmental standards in their communities, which, again, all of us--and I would argue, in my experience here, I have been one of the most forward-leaning people when it comes to renewable energy, you know, coming up with new sources of energy that, obviously, not only are good for our economy, but benefit our environment as well--but $60 billion for environmental justice, nothing for funding the police or law enforcement to keep our communities safe, which is a huge, huge crisis in this country. So I would just argue that if ever there was a time when priorities are misplaced, this would have to be it. I just can't think of a way in which anything that is being talked about here does anything to address the fundamental economic hardship that is being experienced by tens of millions of Americans; and that is, when they go to the gas station to fill up their tank with gas, or a farmer who needs diesel, which has literally doubled in cost, in price, since the President took office, or going to the grocery store, where all these inflation and energy costs and everything else get passed on--everything has gone up. Groceries in this country, on average, up 12 percent, utility gas up 38 percent, gasoline up 60 percent. And that is just year over year. If you go since the time the President took office, the price of gasoline has almost doubled. It is 90 percent higher now than it was when the President took office. And so you have got all this economic bad data and hardship and--you know, the American people are experiencing, and so just kind of out of nowhere, really--I mean, there has been some discussion about this, as we all know, over the past year or so, but everybody, I think, kind of concluded when we got the inflation numbers last month at 9.1 percent, a 40-year high, that: Let's cool it down a little bit. Let's cool our jets here, and let's just see what is going to happen with the economy before we do anything rash. Well, you can't say that $1 trillion in spending and taxes isn't pretty rash, especially when you try and drive it through on a party line vote, the same way that the $2 trillion in spending was done last year, where you had, again, all these warnings, and not just Republicans. I was saying this, but I am not unique. There were lots of Democrat economists who were suggesting at the time that that kind of spending would do nothing but overheat the economy, overstimulate the economy, and you get too many dollars chasing too few goods and leading to inflationary impacts, which is ultimately what happened. So here we are, with 9 percent inflation, two quarters now of negative economic growth, negative GDP, and Democrats saying: OK. Let's raise taxes and let's raise taxes a bunch, at a time when revenues to GDP are at their highest level since the year 2000, and when we have had two successive years now, year over year, of revenue growth, 18 percent and 20 percent. Surely--surely--the problem here can't be not enough revenue. The issue, I think, is--and it comes back to my fundamental point in the first place. You want to grow government, you want to expand government, you want to have $60 billion--$60 billion--going to environmental justice and zero going to funding the police or addressing the issues of law enforcement, crime in our communities around this country, or maybe putting some money toward the border, addressing another out-of-control problem that I can see--you can point back directly to policy decisions made by this administration and the ultimate consequence and result that we have seen, the outcome that we have seen. But this is going to be done on a party line basis. This is going to be done with Democrat-only votes and, again, sort of came out of nowhere. So I say: Say it ain't so, Joe. I wish I had a better story here, but the fact of the matter is, this will be done with zero consultation with Republicans, and what it appears like very little, if any, consultation with Democrats. Sounds like it was a deal that was cut by basically two people, and it is going to be shoved through on a party line vote, 51 votes here in the U.S. Senate at a time when we have got historic issues related to our economy which are impacting American families in a very direct and real way, starting with the fact that they are now putting more of their purchases on their credit cards, they are dipping into retirement savings to be able to keep up with just the daily cost of living. We have already put--I say ``we,'' not we, but if you think about it, in some ways, the policies that went through here last year, the 1.9 trillion-dollar, party line spending bill, led to a lot of this inflation. So the American people right now, average family, according to the Joint Economic Committee, which is a bipartisan committee here in the Senate, says that it is costing the average family in this country $9,000 more this year than it did last year for the same basic necessities, for the same basket of goods. So they have already seen a $9,000 tax, and now they are being told that there is going to be a big tax increase. Oh, yes, it is going to hit corporations, but don't think for a minute that those costs don't get passed on in the form of higher costs to consumers and lower wages to employees, because these things don't happen in a vacuum. There are decisions, and there are effects that happen as a result of those decisions. I hope my Democrat colleagues will think better of this. I can't think, honestly, of a time where there hasn't been a worse prescription for what ails our economy and ails our country than what is being proposed here in the form of more taxes, more spending, more government control, and more pain and economic hardship for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Biden border crisis continues to rage. Last month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 207,416 individuals attempting to cross our southern border illegally, the highest June number ever recorded. And April and May successively set records for the highest numbers for any month ever. During the 2021 fiscal year, Customs and Border Protection encountered a record number of individuals attempting to cross our southern border illegally--1,734,686, to be precise--a record. We still have 3 months to go for this fiscal year, but we have already exceeded last year's number by more than 11,000. That is right. In just 9 months, we have already exceeded last year's record number of apprehensions. The situation on our southern border is out of control, although you would never know it to hear the President and his administration. ``The border is secure'' the President's Homeland Security Secretary said just a few days ago. Again, The border is secure. My only question is how he said that with a straight face. Our southern border is the opposite of secure. It is in crisis. The flood of illegal immigration is so great that huge numbers of Customs and Border Protection officers have been pulled off the border to process migrants. A May article from the Economist reported that: Around 60 percent of CBP agents have been assigned to process migrants, taking them away from field work. That, of course, leaves our borders wide open to illegal activity, including the drug trafficking that is flooding our country with fentanyl. It also means even with all the apprehensions the Border Patrol has made, many more individuals are getting through unstopped. One source reports that so far this fiscal year, there have been more than half a million got-aways--in other words, individuals the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. The Economist article I mentioned also noted: One border expert estimates that less than 20 percent of people trying to cross the border undetected are stopped. Less than 20 percent--that is a security nightmare. Our Customs and Border Protection agents are giving this job their all, but there is no way for them to keep up with the flood of illegal immigration, especially when they are being pulled off the border to process migrants. It is President Biden's job to help stop this border crisis, but when he is not pretending this crisis doesn't exist, he is taking actions that are contributing to this disaster. On his very first day in office, President Biden rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border. He halted construction of the border wall. He revoked a Trump administration order that called for the government to faithfully execute our immigration laws. And his Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines pausing deportations, except under certain circumstances. That was all, again, on his first day in office. Needless to say, the effect of all this was to declare to the world that the U.S. borders were effectively open. And even as huge numbers of illegal immigrants pour across our southern border, he has continued to build on those actions. The President sought to significantly limit the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enforce immigration laws. Deportations dropped precipitously during fiscal year 2021, as did arrests in the interior of the country. In March of this year, the administration rescinded a 2019 rule expanding expedited removal for individuals here illegally. And, of course, the administration is still attempting to remove title 42 COVID-19 restrictions, with no viable plan to control the resulting surge in illegal immigration. Illegal immigration, especially the kind of out-of-control illegal immigration we are currently experiencing, has serious consequences. I have already mentioned some of the security risks it presents. With Customs and Border Protection overstretched, it is easier for bad actors to cross the border into our country--gang members, drug traffickers, human smugglers, and the list goes on. Our country is currently in the midst of a fentanyl crisis. In fact, right now, fentanyl overdose is the leading cause of death for American adults between the ages of 18 and 45. And where is all this fentanyl coming from? Most of it is being trafficked across our southern border. The current border situation is undoubtedly facilitating that trafficking. Illegal immigration is financially costly, as well. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is currently running out of money for this year, thanks, in part, to the out-of-control situation at our southern border. President Biden has talked about wanting to build a ``fair, orderly, and humane'' immigration system. There is nothing--nothing--humane about our current situation. Encouraging illegal immigration, as the President's policies have done, has contributed to a humanitarian crisis that saw 557 migrants die attempting to cross the southern border during fiscal year 2021. Just last month, in an incredibly tragic, horrific story, 53 migrants died in an unair-conditioned tractor-trailer after being smuggled across the border. It was a sober reminder of the human costs of policies that enable illegal immigration. The President may think that his border policies are compassionate, but, again, he would be wrong. Policies that encourage illegal immigration, that encourage individuals to undertake the often dangerous journey across our southern border often at the mercy of human smugglers are the very opposite of compassionate. I would like to think that the President would wake up to the dangerous situation we are in and take action to help stem the flood of illegal immigration at our southern border, but after a year and a half of his administration's neglecting this crisis, I am not getting my hopes up. I am afraid that, like inflation, out-of-control illegal immigration has become a fact of life in the Biden Presidency. As with inflation, Americans and those vulnerable individuals who are attempting to enter our country, will be left to suffer the consequences. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).