Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate our Republican…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate our Republican colleagues on finally releasing their big plan to end inflation. What a day.
We have all been home for 2 weeks. We know inflation is a big problem. We hear about it at the supermarket. We see it in our communities. It is a global problem impacting every single country.
Now over the last 2 years, Democrats here in the House, alongside President Biden, have taken aggressive action to fight inflation and lower prices, and at every step Republicans have voted ``no,'' ``no,'' ``no.''
At every step, they have boasted about their own alternative comprehensive plan to stop inflation in its tracks. It has got to be big. It has got to be really big; can't wait to read it. Wow, wait until you hear about the Republican plan to stop inflation in its tracks.
Forgive me if I am confused today, because after months of waiting with bated breath, after all your announcements and after all your press releases and all your tweets about inflation, we finally find out what your big plan to stop inflation really is, your big bill to address the American people's number one concern.
It is a report. More government paperwork. Great.
I mean, will people be able to print out the report and trade it in for cheaper gas or lower food prices? Because unless they can, and I am not an economist here, but I don't think this is going to make a difference.
The bill, and I hesitate to call it a bill, because it might as well be a tweet or a press release, does nothing. Maybe it should be an amendment to an actual bill that fights inflation--just a suggestion. Don't try to pass this off as a real plan. Don't pretend this actually does anything.
I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed for my Republican colleagues, to be honest.
Mr. Speaker, it took 2 years to put this together?
The number one issue for the American people and this is what they come up with?
A book report on inflation.
It reminds me of the time last year when they tried to solve crime with a report. This is what happens when you
try to write a bill for Twitter instead of a bill that actually helps everyday people.
The audacity, the sheer audacity of saying all this inflation was caused by President Biden when the guy before him added nearly $8 trillion to the national debt, when the guy before him presided over a 39 percent increase in the national debt, when the guy before him accumulated 25 percent of the total debt in American history. The hypocrisy is incredible.
Now, just contrast that with what Democrats did to rein in inflation and lower costs for people.
Democrats capped insulin at $35 per month.
Democrats reduced the price of prescription drugs for seniors.
Democrats, for the first time in history, are making sure that Big Pharma faces penalties for raising their prices faster than inflation.
Democrats are saving families money with special tax credits for making good investments--all things that Republicans voted against.
Mr. Speaker, 100 percent of Republicans voted against reducing drug prices; 100 percent of them voted against cheaper insulin for our senior citizens; 100 percent of them voted against lower gas prices.
I guess we could give them some credit because only 95 percent of them voted against lower food prices.
Hear me out here. Maybe Republicans don't want to solve inflation. Maybe they know that addressing inflation takes on greedy CEOs, Big Oil, and billionaire corporations. Maybe they know it means standing up to Putin, who is driving up energy prices with his war in Ukraine.
Maybe Republicans are too scared to fight inflation, but Democrats are ready to go to bat against corporate greed, because we stand with everyday families who are being hurt by rising costs.
Today, Leader Jeffries is introducing the PRO Act, a bill empowering workers to unionize and hold their employers accountable for improper work practices. Because while Republicans continue standing with the billionaire corporations responsible for price gouging, Democrats stand with workers hurt by inflation. We support their right to organize for better wages.
Instead of wasting time writing a bill that only requires a book report on inflation, we spent the last 2 years taking action to actually stop inflation in the long term by bringing jobs and manufacturing back to America.
Democrats secured over $300 billion in investments in U.S. manufacturing to move supply chains back to America.
We voted to lower food and fuel prices, made the most robust updates in 70 years to the Buy American Act to boost domestic manufacturing, and after the Ocean Shipping Reform Act to cut costs for American families and bring down shipping prices, oversaw the largest 1-year decrease in the Federal deficit in American history. That is the Democratic record.
Now, we don't claim its perfect. Prices are still too high. Inflation is hurting people. I know it. Joe Biden knows it. Democratic leadership knows it. So there is a difference here. There is a difference here, and it is a big one.
Democrats are fighting for the families being hurt by inflation and taking on the greedy corporations who are driving prices up. And Republicans, their solution is to blame Democrats, blame Biden, and write a book report.
Now, I guess when you have no plans, when you have no real ideas, you will do anything to say you did something. That is all this is: a talking point, a press release, and a total waste of time. Apparently, the bar is on the ground for this new House majority, and it is a real shame.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution that affirms the House's unwavering commitment to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare and states that it is the position of the House to reject any cuts to the programs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are the bedrock of our Nation's social safety net. Yet, as many of my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in exchange for paying our Nation's bills, these programs are under threat.
Despite recent rhetoric to the contrary, Republicans claim that they won't cut Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Well, Mr. Speaker, today, Democrats are giving Republicans a chance to back up that claim with action by providing them a chance to reassure the American people not just with their words, but with their votes.
Today, they can vote unequivocally that they won't cut these vital programs. Anything short of that is an empty promise.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that none of my fellow Republican colleagues want to come down and join in with my colleague from Texas to talk about how great this bill is to fight inflation. I would be embarrassed to be here defending this measure, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Washington Post titled, ``What should the White House do to combat inflation? Experts weighed in with 12 ideas.
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 26, 2022]
What Should the White House Do To Combat Inflation? Experts Weighed in
With 12 Ideas
(By Jeff Stein and Rachel Siegel)
The United States is experiencing its most dramatic burst
of inflation in four decades, as rising prices hit nearly
every sector of the economy and create new political hurdles
for the Biden administration.
As the country frets over inflation and the administration
weighs how to react, The Washington Post asked independent
experts from across the ideological spectrum how they would
respond if they controlled the White House.
Their 12 ideas include using antitrust to break up large
corporations, relaxing the trade war with China, and
massively scaling up U.S. manufacturing production, among
other proposals. Some of the experts blamed President Biden
for increasing economic demand, while others insisted that
concerns about inflation have been overblown. The proposals
are not meant as exhaustive, and many of these economists
support each other's ideas.
1: make america produce again
We can once again make the United States the world's workshop
for democracy
(By Robert C. Hockett)
It should have been obvious even in February 2020 that the
coronavirus was going to present the American economy with
both demand-side and supply-side challenges. It should
therefore also have been obvious that measures to boost
demand with government programs--such as stimulus checks and
unemployment benefits--would fuel inflationary pressures if
not accompanied by measures to boost supply and the
availability of goods and products.
Almost two years after our pandemic began, policymakers are
now finally talking about supply chains, as they should have
done early in 2020. But thus far they are talking almost
solely about improving the domestic transport links in those
chains--not the production of what is being consumed.
Attention to truck routes, warehouses and loading docks is
helpful, but it isn't nearly enough in our present
environment--not in a world where we needlessly import so
much of what we used to produce.
This presents all of us with a grand opportunity now--to
reverse inflation in a manner that restores American
production and world leadership in the industries of today
and tomorrow. We can, in other words, make our war on
inflation a war on national decline.
For instance, America invented the semiconductor industry
and then globally dominated it for decades until the turn of
the millennium. Yet since we relinquished our lead over
microchips to insecure sources such as China and Taiwan, the
importance of this ubiquitous input to all modern products
has only grown. That is why so many supply shortage stories
we read about now--from autos to homes to appliances--boil
down to chip shortage stories.
Next, consider electric vehicles and their lithium-ion
batteries, as well as other related forms of high-capacity
power storage, such as the big battery packs used by power
generation stations nationwide. Here, too, production lines
are bottlenecked, slowing
product availability, lengthening product waitlists and
raising product prices.
Similar stories to these can be told about solar power
cells; hydrogen fuel cells; steel, concrete and other housing
materials; essential medical equipment; affordable cutting-
edge pharmaceuticals; rare-earth metals; and a host of other
essential inputs to modern life. If we want to end inflation
and reclaim the mantle of ``workshop of the free world'' in
one stroke, there can be no better way forward than to invest
massively in restoring U.S. productive prowess.
It can be done. When Nazi Germany rolled over France in but
six weeks in 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt demanded
that our aircraft industry, which had produced just over
3,000 planes the previous year, produce at least 50,000
planes that year. Roosevelt then directly set about building
the factories, in consultation with public officials and
private-sector industries, to produce U.S. planes, ships,
tanks, trucks, munitions, synthetic rubber and other
materiel. The government then cheaply leased these facilities
to manufacturers with plausible production plans, selling
them once the war had been won.
Roosevelt also built entire neighborhoods for workers
wishing to move near the new factories, schools for their
children, clinics for their health and power lines for their
domestic needs, making the United States the world's
``arsenal of democracy.''
This massive expansion provided the productive foundation
for America's global economic leadership from the end of the
war to the late 1970s. We lost that edge only when we began
massively ``outsourcing'' in the 1980s and 1990s.
We have all the tools Roosevelt had. The president and
White House Cabinet, in consultation with experts from
industry, should plan a national reindustrialization across
industries in every region of the country, and the Federal
Financing Bank within Treasury can fund projects devised by
all relevant federal agencies.
We can once again make the United States the world's
workshop for democracy. That will reverse not only inflation,
but also four decades of decline.
--Robert C. Hockett is a law professor at Cornell Law
School.
2: stop the spending
This surge in spending is a key driver of other prices
(By Brian Riedl)
A year ago, the Federal Reserve forecast that inflation
would increase by 1.8 percent in 2021. Instead, consumer
prices jumped 7 percent--the highest rate since 1982. Some of
this unanticipated inflation was driven by knotty issues such
as supply chain disruptions, rising energy prices, and shifts
in demand to sectors with less capacity to maintain low
prices.
Yet Washington poured gasoline on this fire by enacting the
$1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan in March. This surge in
spending is a key driver of higher prices faced by consumers.
To combat it, lawmakers should begin paring back portions of
the remaining $500 billion in scheduled spending from the
rescue plan, put Biden's Build Back Better legislation on the
back burner and resist new spending sprees.
The critics of Biden's rescue plan were ignored, mocked--
and ultimately vindicated. A year ago, the Congressional
Budget Office estimated that the baseline economy would
operate $420 billion below capacity in 2021, and then
gradually close that output gap by 2025. Biden and
congressional Democrats--believing that the Great Recession
had been unnecessarily lengthened by insufficient stimulus--
overlearned their lesson and decided to shoot a $1.9 trillion
bazooka at a $420 billion output gap.
The problem is that once America's output capacity taps
out, any additional stimulus will simply bring inflation
rather than additional production--especially when financed
in part by Federal Reserve bond purchases. Economists on the
left and right warned lawmakers that ARP would accelerate
inflation, with top Clinton and Obama White House economist
Lawrence Summers leading the charge.
With the word ``trillion'' becoming commonplace, it is easy
to downplay the sheer size of the American Rescue Plan. It is
the most expensive spending law of the past 50 years,
including the Cares Act approved under President Donald
Trump.
In its first seven months, ARP spent $1.2 trillion--which
exceeds the entire cost of the 2017 tax cuts from their
enactment through the same late 2021 date. All this spending
is on top of the December 2020 stimulus bill that poured in
$900 billion.
The inflation damage created by Biden's stimulus would be
more justifiable if it was necessary to end the pandemic.
However, just 1 percent of its cost went toward vaccines and
5 percent had any direct relation to health care. Instead,
the law gave state and local governments $350 billion for
budget deficits that did not exist. Schools received $129
billion even as they sat on $50 billion in unused relief
funds from earlier emergency bills. The unemployment bonuses
were so large and self-defeating that 26 states took the rare
step of refusing federal assistance and canceling the bonuses
before they expired. Even the popular relief checks--which,
combined with earlier checks, amounted to $11,400 for a
typical family of four--contributed to the very inflation
that ultimately eroded their value.
Moving forward, combating inflation requires addressing
supply chains, reducing tariffs and gradually tightening
Federal Reserve policy. Yet it makes no sense to push one
foot on the gas and one foot on the brake. Lawmakers should
explore options to pare back the $500 billion in scheduled
ARP spending, such as rescinding extraneous assistance to K-
12 education, businesses and private pension bailouts. They
should also reject BBB legislation that would spend trillions
more upfront, yet delays many of its disinflationary taxes
until later years. BBB's subsidies and regulations would also
drive drastic price increases in child care, and thus should
be rejected.
--Brian Riedl is a senior fellow at the Manhattan
Institute.
3: Control the covid pandemic
`Covid's fingerprints on inflation are unmistakable`
(By Claudia Sahm)
Consumer prices rose 7 percent in 2021--the fastest pace in
40 years--and covid deaths doubled to more than 800,000.
These two facts are bound together. The solution to today's
high inflation, as with labor shortages and supply chain
disruptions, is clear: Contain the pandemic.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell agrees. Asked at his
reconfirmation hearing by Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-
Nev.) if he believes containing the pandemic is the best way
to fight inflation, Powell said: ``I do. And imagine a world
in which we no longer have to deal with the pandemic. . . . .
We would quickly see the supply-side problems alleviate. We'd
probably see significantly more labor supply. So these issues
are still related to the pandemic.''
The data supports Powell and experts like me who focus on
covid. As one example, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank
of San Francisco estimate that the price increases in the
spending categories most sensitive to covid disruptions
accounted for about half of the total inflation (excluding
food and energy) before the pandemic. Now they account for
three-quarters of it. Of course, what's pandemic-related and
what's not is impossible to know for certain. But covid's
fingerprints on inflation are unmistakable.
We do not have a monetary policy crisis. We have a covid
crisis. In fact, up to this point, fiscal and monetary policy
have been a relatively bright spot in the pandemic and
notably better than after the Great Recession. Yes, inflation
is high. Consumer spending, even with the higher prices, is
strong. The unemployment rate dropped below 4 percent in
December, less than two years after the recession began.
Overall, the economy is moving rapidly in the right
direction. But the pandemic is moving rapidly in the wrong
direction with the omicron variant.
To fight inflation, the Biden White House must end the
pandemic. The goals the administration set in January 2021,
including ``expanding masking, testing, treatment, data,
workforce and clear public health standards'' and
``protect[ing] those most at risk,'' are the right ones.
Julia Raifman, a public health professor at Boston
University, argues: ``That's what we need to do now that will
help us navigate our way out of this pandemic. If we don't
have that, we will continue to have the virus manage us.''
High inflation and labor shortages will continue too.
The White House must use all its influence to push business
leaders, community organizers, members of Congress, governors
and mayors across the political spectrum to join in these
public health efforts. Instead, administration officials used
their bully pulpit to bust a strike by the Chicago teachers
union over a lack of coronavirus protections, saying that
they ``do not believe people should be sitting at home'' and
should go to unsafe workplaces. That won't solve our economic
problems, but it will kill people.
The Fed is not ``behind the curve'' in fighting inflation.
It's the White House that's behind on ``bending the curve''
of covid cases, and it's falling further behind every day.
--Claudia Sahm is the director of macroeconomic research at
the Jain Family Institute.
4: Invest in child care
Child-care policies `can boost the capacity, productivity and
the potential of our economy'
(By Lauren Melodia)
Although the unemployment rate is falling faster than
expected, the pandemic continues to fundamentally disrupt our
economy. Many people are choosing to remain out of the labor
market altogether until public health conditions and
disruptions subside, which in turn limits productive capacity
and can raise prices. One policy that could address many of
these issues across sectors at once has already passed the
House and is waiting for Senate action: public investment in
our child-care system.
Child care is the backbone of our economy and can enable
all parents--who historically have some of the highest labor
force participation rates across all genders, races and
education levels--to get and keep a job. But as of 2018, many
communities across the country are child-care deserts--a
result of our nation's complex history of underfunding,
undervaluing and under-compensating care work and women's
labor more broadly.
The covid pandemic has further decimated this
infrastructure. As of this time last year, 20,000 child-care
providers were estimated to have permanently shut down. And
yet ample evidence exists that access to even part-time day
care and preschool programming has a
dramatic impact on parents' labor force participation.
Private markets and existing policies will not solve these
problems on their own, for many reasons.
First, America's historical and continued reliance on
unpaid care workers drives women's wages down throughout the
economy. This is one of the major dynamics of the gender pay
gap and makes the choice of paying for child care
unaffordable for many families. Because care work
traditionally done by women is unpaid, women are undervalued
in the labor market--where they make 83 cents on the dollar
to men. That disincentivizes them from entering the labor
market. What results is a cycle in which women are unable to
secure jobs that allow them to pay for the cost of child
care, which in turn keeps the pay for child-care providers
low.
Second, because of this dynamic, the child-care industry is
built around low wages and thin, unsustainable profits that
have contributed to the failure of the market to deliver a
greater supply of child-care centers to meet demand.
Lastly, the government's existing consumer subsidies
program, while making child care more affordable for many,
has not resulted in the growth of the supply of child care. A
2021 Government Accountability Office report found that 78
percent of families eligible for child-care subsidies do not
use them, often because there are no available spaces at
local child-care facilities or because they live in a child-
care desert.
By making supply-side child-care investments--building new
child-care centers; offering loans and grants to existing or
recently closed small-business child-care providers; and
offering universal pre-K--we could both enable parents to
reenter the workforce and create new jobs in child care.
Those new jobs would disproportionately go to Black and Brown
women, who have been hit hardest by the pandemic and are
still suffering from some of the lowest employment rates.
Black women, who historically have some of the highest labor
force participation rates in the country, currently
experience the largest gap (3.5 percent) in their employment
rate, comparing December 2021 with pre-pandemic levels.
Many of these policies were passed by the House in the
Build Back Better Act and are now on the table in the Senate.
And once they are passed and implemented, we can boost the
capacity, productivity and the potential of our economy and
reduce future economic disruptions--all of which can be
deflationary and stabilizing.
Insofar as today's inflation--or the fear of future
inflation--is linked to labor market tightness or dynamics,
investment in child care is critical for minimizing ongoing
disruptions and expanding people's ability to work across all
industries in our economy.
--Lauren Melodia is the deputy director of macroeconomic
analysis at the Roosevelt Institute.
5: Tax wealthy investors
The richest 10 percent consume as much as the bottom 40
percent combined
(By William Spriggs)
The economy proved far less resilient to the shock of the
global coronavirus crisis than most people had expected. We
need to focus on measures that increase the supply of goods
and target price inflation--particularly in markets where
inequality is helping drive prices--rather than taking
measures that would destroy jobs and weaken growth. One way
to do so would be to raise capital gains taxes on investors
and levy new taxes on income from stock dividends.
Consumption in America is currently extraordinarily ``top-
heavy,'' meaning the wealthy consume far more than most
people. In fact, the richest 10 percent consume as much as
the bottom 40 percent combined, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. Instead of taking measures that would hurt
growth and cost jobs, policymakers could temper demand amid
massive supply chain disruptions by slowing down the
consumption of those at the very top with modest taxes on the
rich.
A tax on short-term capital gains and dividends would
disproportionately target wealthy Americans who are currently
responsible for very high demand. This would alleviate the
pressures on the supply chain without leading to a broader
economic slowdown. Encouraging longer-term savings--and
having companies retain earnings--will keep balance sheets
strong and result in investments that can help the economy
become more resilient.
It's worth stressing the potential danger of alternative
approaches. Using the blunt instrument of raising interest
rates, the tool of the Federal Reserve, would be an attempt
at price controls. But that mechanism for lowering prices
would broadly shrink demand across the income distribution.
Lower demand would lower prices, at the cost of even lower
production. In the case of automobiles, for instance, that
would be disastrous, because the unprecedented spike in used-
car prices is caused by the collapse in the current auto
supply; domestic production in November was at 58 percent of
its February 2020 level. We do not want to solve inflation by
starving the economy and causing production to plummet.
Policymakers should remember that inflationary trends are
caused in part by numerous factors outside higher demand, and
we need to be careful if we are attempting to tame it. We
have seen a rapid recovery in demand for consumer goods, but
weak demand for services. This switch in consumption has
helped protect employment by facilitating the movement of
workers forced out of the service sector, but it comes with
higher prices for some goods. In addition to exacting a
devastating human toll, the lack of protections for workers
has led to millions getting sick, creating disruptions that
lead to supply shocks that drive up prices. And it's not
clear exactly how broad-based inflation is. For instance,
rental costs have been relatively stable--well within the
Federal Reserve's target level for inflation--in another sign
that price pressures have more to do with supply shocks and
demand shifts than an overheating economy.
Mr. Speaker, maybe my friends on the other side of the aisle should take a look at this article. While I don't agree with all the ideas in here, at least this article has actual ideas to bring down inflation, instead of the Republican plan to write a book report on inflation to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the American people deserve better. They deserve more than a book report. They deserve action that will make a positive difference in their lives.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill titled, ``Five actions Biden has taken in response to high gas prices.''
[From The Hill, Apr. 22, 2022]
Five Actions Biden has Taken in Response to High Gas Prices
(By Zack Budryk)
Gas prices are both a top concern for American consumers
and a consistent drag on President Biden's approval rating,
prompting the administration to take several measures to
counter pain at the pump.
An ABC News/Ipsos poll in March indicated widespread
approval for the president's decision to ban oil imports from
Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, which Biden has warned
could exacerbate energy costs. However, the same poll
indicated 70 percent of respondents disapprove of Biden's
handling of gas prices.
A number of factors impact gas prices, and experts note
many of them are outside the White House's control. Still,
the administration has taken several steps in hopes of
providing some temporary or near-term relief.
Here are five actions the Biden administration has taken so
far on gas prices:
1. Releasing oil from the strategist reserve
Biden initially announced a release of 50 million barrels
of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in November in
response to rising gas prices.
However, after a further spike around the time of Russia's
invasion of Ukraine earlier this year, Biden announced
another one-time release of 30 million barrels followed by an
average daily release of 1 million barrels over the next six
months--or about 180 million barrels overall.
Biden told reporters in late March that the price of gas
``could come down fairly significantly'' as a result of the
move.
In the days after, gas prices fell about eight cents,
according to AAA, although they have since crept up. However,
during the same period, some regions of China imposed
lockdowns in response to new COVID-19 outbreaks, which
reduced overall demand.
``This is a wartime bridge to increase oil supply until
production ramps up later this year. And it is by far the
largest release from our national reserve in our history,''
Biden said as he announced the release. ``It will provide a
historic amount of supply for a historic amount of time--a
six-month bridge to the fall.''
2. Removing restrictions on sale of higher-ethanol fuel
In an executive order last week, Biden removed restrictions
on the sale of E15, or fuel that is 15 percent ethanol,
between June and September of this year.
Ethanol-heavy fuel is sold at a limited number of stations
concentrated in corn-producing states, and sales are normally
restricted during the summer months due to concerns that
another mix, E10, could contribute to increased air
pollution. Ethanol and renewable fuel industries, however,
maintain that tailpipe emissions, rather than fuel
volatility, is a bigger contributor to smog, and that E15 is
less of a contributor than E10.
Biden administration officials projected at the time that
the availability of E15 could save a family about 10 cents
per gallon on average.
``This will also help us bridge towards real energy
independence and implementing the emergency fuel waiver the
[Environmental Protection Agency] EPA will work with states
across the country to ensure there are no significant air
quality impacts in the summer driving season,'' an official
said on a call with reporters. ``EPA is also considering
additional action to facilitate the use of E15 year-round,
including continued discussions with states who have
expressed interest in allowing year-round use of E15.''
3. Asking oil-producing nations to increase production
The U.S. has appealed to members of OPEC to step up
production and exports to cover demand, including Saudi
Arabia in particular.
However, this plan has encountered difficulties due to the
rocky Washington-Riyadh relationship.
The Biden administration has faced tensions with the Saudis
due to America's vocal criticism of the Gulf kingdom's human
rights record, particularly the Yemen civil war and the 2018
killing of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Meanwhile, human rights advocates have called it
inconsistent to seek closer ties with Saudi Arabia while
seeking to isolate Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
``I hate that the Biden administration has to figure out
how to leverage our relationship with Saudi Arabia to get
them to do that so that my constituents aren't being squeezed
at the pump,'' Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) told reporters in
March.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who numerous
intelligence agencies have concluded ordered Khashoggi's
killing, reportedly refused a call from Biden soon after the
Russian invasion. White House press secretary Jen Psaki has
denied the report.
4. Pressuring U.S. oil companies
Republicans have vocally blamed the Biden administration's
energy policies, in particular an executive order freezing
new oil and gas leasing on public lands, for gas prices and
insufficient supply.
That pause has been in limbo since a court order halting it
last summer, and the Biden administration last Friday
officially announced a forthcoming lease sale.
In the meantime, however, the administration has sought to
shift the blame to oil companies and accused them of gouging
customers, pointing to the industry's numerous currently
unused leases, which include some 9,000 approved drilling
permits.
Biden has called for Congress to enact a ``use it or lose
it'' policy that would impose fees on companies that do not
make use of their leased land.
``I have no problem with corporations turning a good
profit. But companies have an obligation that goes beyond
just their shareholders to their customers, their communities
and their country,'' Biden told reporters in late March. ``No
American company should take advantage of a pandemic or
[Russian President] Vladimir Putin's actions to enrich
themselves at the expense of American families.''
5. Promoting the transition to renewable energy
Amid concrete steps to bring down consumer prices, the
Biden administration has emphasized the necessity for
increased support and infrastructure for renewable fuels,
saying the current market illustrates the need for less
volatile resources.
In a fact sheet distributed to reporters, the
administration presented its steps to increase access to
clean energy as a key tenet of its response to gas prices.
Specifically, officials pointed to sales of offshore wind
leases, with a goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind
installed by the end of the decade. Officials further cited
the Interior Department's road map this week that sets a
target of doubling clean energy permits, with a goal of 25
gigawatts installed by 2025.
Mr. Speaker, President Biden has taken steps to lower prices at the pump for the American people. Since prices began to rise, President Biden released 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, removed restrictions on the sale of higher ethanol fuel, and called out oil companies for taking advantage of their customers, communities, and their country. He also continues to promote a transition to renewable energy.
So President Biden has acted to try to lower prices. My Republican colleagues cannot do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I will say finally that we have some serious challenges in this country. Inflation is one of them. The idea that after all the buildup, after all the talk of, We have a comprehensive plan to fight inflation. This is it? This is it?
This is an embarrassment, Mr. Speaker. There are things that we can do together to lower costs for the American people. A book report doesn't lower the cost for anybody.
By the way, under this bill, the book report that is required for executive orders, it is not even required to be published. They could write a book report, and no one gets to see it.
I mean, this is not what the American people had hoped for. They had hoped we would come together and kind of rally around ideas that would actually make a difference in their lives.
So, yeah. You can pass this and say, we just passed this big plan to fight inflation and then hope that nobody realizes that you did nothing.
I will say, Mr. Speaker, this is a missed opportunity. This was a time, quite frankly, where committees of jurisdiction should have come together, done hearings, heard ideas, Republican ideas and Democratic ideas, and taken the best of them and brought them to the floor; ideas that would have made a difference in people's lives. This does nothing. This does nothing.
So I guess you can tweet out that you voted for a book report on inflation and hope that your constituents will think that somehow you accomplished something big, but I would say that my constituents certainly would not be satisfied with this.
Mr. Speaker, all this talk about bringing down the deficit--and do I need to remind everybody that the first Republican bill passed this year when we came into the majority, their first bill added $114 billion to the national debt. I mean, come on.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Hill titled, ``CBO: GOP's IRS bill will add $114 billion to deficit.''
[From The Hill, Jan. 9, 2023]
CBO: GOP's IRS Bill Will Add $114B to Deficit
(By Mike Lillis and Aris Folley)
The Republican proposal to eliminate billions of dollars in
IRS funding will pile more than $100 billion onto federal
deficits, according to a new estimate from Congress's
official budget scorekeeper.
The bill, which is slated to hit the House floor Monday
night as the first legislative act of the new GOP majority,
would claw back most of the almost $80 billion in new IRS
funding provided under the Democrats' massive climate, health
and tax package, which was signed by President Biden last
year.
Almost $46 billion of that spending would go toward agency
enforcement efforts designed to prevent certain taxpayers--
largely corporations and wealthy individuals--from paying
less than they owe.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated Monday that
the legislation would cut federal spending by $71 billion,
but would reduce tax revenue to the tune of almost $186
billion. The net effect would be a $114 billion increase in
deficits over the next decade.
The numbers were not overlooked by Democrats, who wasted no
time hammering Republicans for vowing to rein in deficit
spending, then defying that promise in their first act of
business.
``It's a giant tax cut for rich tax cheats,'' White House
chief of staff Ron Klain tweeted on Monday. ``Bill #1 from
the new House GOP. Adds to the deficit.''
Republicans had made the IRS funding cut a top promise on
the midterm campaign trail, warning that the money would lead
to the hiring of 87,000 new tax collectors to target middle-
income Americans. Some Republicans said those agents would be
armed.
Those claims were highly misleading, however, as much of
the funding will go to hire thousands of customer service
agents and other employees with no auditing responsibilities.
And the 87,000 figure is a reference to the total number of
employees--not just auditors--the IRS hopes to hire over the
next decade, when 52,000 workers are expected to retire.
Additionally, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said
that, while the new funding is crucial to streamline
processing and eliminate the backlog of returns, the agency
will not increase audit rates for those taxpayers making less
than $400,000.
Still, few government agencies are less popular than the
IRS, and the Republican message appeared to resonate with the
GOP base.
``On our very first bill, we're going to repeal 87,000 IRS
agents,'' Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was newly
elected as Speaker, said last year as he unveiled the
Republicans' agenda. ``Our job is to work for you, not go
after you.''
Zach Moller, who previously worked as a Senate Democratic
budget aide, says the GOP's bill would violate previous House
rules targeting legislation that would add to the deficit,
known as PAYGO, that were in effect when Democrats held
control.
Under the prior rules, Moller explained, it wouldn't be in
order for lawmakers to ``have a bill on the floor that
increases the deficit over the first five or seven or first
10 years.'' The PAYGO rules were often waived, but aimed at
fiscal responsibility, Moller said.
The Republican majority is expected on Monday to pass a new
set of rules governing the new Congress, to include a so-
called ``CUTGO'' rule that exempts tax cuts from the deficit
spending prohibitions.
So anyway, look, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and again, I want to repeat that.
The reason why you want to vote ``no'' is because the previous question basically would allow us to bring up an amendment that basically says it is not the intention of this House to do anything to cut Social Security or Medicare.
My friends, they are all upset, notwithstanding their rhetoric, that they want to go after Social Security and Medicare.
Yeah, they were all upset that they were being called out on their words. Well, here is an opportunity to put
that to rest; very, very simple. We are not going to cut Social Security. We are not going to cut Medicare.
So if you vote ``no'' on the previous question, we can do that. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
