Floor Statements

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks prior to the vote.

Mr. President, the latest inflation numbers came out Friday, and the news was not good. Inflation is currently at the highest level in nearly 40 years--40 years. The last time inflation was this bad, ``E.T.'' and ``Rocky III'' were in theaters, and the Green Bay Packers were being coached by Bart Starr.

High inflation is taking a major toll on American families. Gas prices are at a 7-year high. The price of used cars and trucks is up 31 percent--31 percent. Propane, kerosene, and firewood are up 34 percent.

Food prices have increased significantly. Ground beef is up 14 percent. Apples are up 7.4 percent. Pork is up 17 percent; eggs, 8 percent. Baby food is up 6.7 percent. Bacon and related products are up 21 percent. And the list continues.

Rent prices are up. Utility prices are up. Furniture prices are up, and on and on.

Inflation is so bad that, despite wage growth this year, Americans have seen a de facto pay cut, with real average hourly earnings down 1.9 percent this year.

Inflation is what happens when you have too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. And a big reason for our current inflation situation is the Democrats' decision to pour a lot of unnecessary government money into the economy earlier this year, despite--despite, I might add--being warned that their partisan $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan spending spree could stoke inflation.

And you don't have to take my word for it. Here is what former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman had to say recently when discussing our inflation problem:

The original sin was an oversized American Rescue Plan. It

contributed to both higher output but also higher prices.

That quote from Mr. Furman appeared in a New York Times article that also noted:

But some economists, including veterans of previous

Democratic administrations, say much of Mr. Biden's inflation

struggle is self-inflicted. Lawrence H. Summers is one of

those who say the stimulus bill [that] the president signed

in March gave too much of a boost to consumer spending. . . .

Mr. Summers, who served in the Obama and Clinton

administrations, says inflation now risks spiraling out of

control and other Democratic economists agree there are

risks.

Again, that is from the New York Times.

Inflation is spiraling out of control, and Democrats are preparing to throw more fuel on the fire. That is right. Democrats are preparing to double down on the strategy that helped get us in this mess in the first place and pass yet another massive government spending bill.

I am not sure whether Democrats simply don't care about the inflation situation facing American families or whether they are operating under the delusion that they can somehow pass another major government spending bill without serious consequences for the economy.

Regardless, there is no question that pouring another $1.75 trillion in government money into the economy would likely make our inflation crisis even worse than it is today.

I say $1.75 trillion because that is what Democrats have been selling as the pricetag for their so-called Build Back Better plan. But as we learned on Friday of last week from the Congressional Budget Office's latest analysis, the Democrats' spending spree would far exceed $1.75 trillion. When you take away the shell games and budget gimmicks, the Democrats' spending spree would cost almost $5 trillion--5 trillion. And, of course, the tax hikes in the Democrats' plan, as large as they are, wouldn't even come close to funding that amount.

The Democrats' Build Back Better proposal, if implemented over 10 years, as they plan, would add an eye-popping $3 trillion to our national debt. It turns out that Build Back Better is more like ``Build Back Bankrupt.''

Democrats have attempted to disguise the true cost of their ``Build Back Bankrupt'' plan by strategically sunsetting various provisions before the end of the bill's 10-year budget window. Of course, Democrats have never had any intention of actually sunsetting these provisions. But by claiming that they are going to sunset these measures, they have been able to sort of disguise the fact that their spending spree would actually cost nearly $5 trillion.

That is the Congressional Budget Office, not me. The Congressional Budget Office, last Friday said, if extended--the 10-year window--this bill would cost $5 trillion.

Democrats are implicitly admitting that they plan to extend these programs, but they are saying that people shouldn't worry, that the cost of these extensions will be offset. Well, I would like to know just how exactly they plan to do that.

With massive new tax hikes, on top of the tax hikes they have already included in their bill--just how many tax hikes do Democrats think our economy can handle?

And if Democrats had a plan for future offsets, why didn't they include those offsets in their bill, in the first place, along with an honest accounting of the length of their programs?

Is it because they thought that the American people would balk if they knew the true cost of the bill, that they might not be crazy about the idea of a bill that would cost them $5 trillion?

I am hard-pressed to think of anything more irresponsible than for Democrats to pass their Build Back Better--or their ``Build Back Bankrupt''--measure right now. Inflation is soaring, as I have just pointed out, and there is no clear end in sight. Even the Federal Reserve is now acknowledging that this isn't transitory. They removed that word from their description.

We are emerging from a pandemic that required a lot of government expenditure and a corresponding increase in our debt, and we have no idea what government money might be needed down the road.

Passing a $5 trillion spending spree that would add $3 trillion to our national debt is the very last thing that we should be doing.

I hope that at least some of my Democrat colleagues will think better of their spending plans before the American people are forced to discover just what ``Building Back Bankrupt'' is really like.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis.)

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

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

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Lummis), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Madam President, one thing you can say for the Democrats so-called Build Back Better plan is that it provides a never-ending supply of bad proposals to talk about. And the bad Build Back Better measure I want to discuss today is Democrats' plan to double the size of the IRS--yes, double the size of the IRS.

The IRS is not exactly the most popular government Agency, and with good reason. The Agency has gained for itself a reputation for poor taxpayer service and, most seriously, for mishandling the confidential information--taxpayer information it has access to.

In fact, the IRS was subject to a massive leak or hack of private taxpayer information mere months ago--information that somehow ended up in the hands of advocates at ProPublica. And neither Treasury nor the IRS has provided meaningful followup about the data breach, much less any accountability.

For months, Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee have pressed the administration for details about the breach of private taxpayer information. I would have hoped by now that my friends on the other side of the aisle would have shown similar concern for the privacy of the American taxpayer.

And who could forget the IRS scandal during the Obama administration, when the IRS targeted a number of organizations based on their political beliefs?

Those are two notorious examples of IRS misconduct, but there are plenty of others.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has repeatedly found instances of IRS agents violating taxpayer rights. And then there is the Agency's record of irresponsibility or incompetence, or both-- losing track of laptops that may have contained sensitive taxpayer information, rehiring employees who'd been fired for bad behavior, work delays due to a lack of simple printer maintenance, hanging up on taxpayers who call the IRS for information.

Customer service departments, in general, can be frustrating, but at least at many companies you can reach an actual person in a fairly reasonable amount of time. If you call the IRS, you have a 1-in-50 chance of reaching a human being--1 in 50.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that there are good reasons why Americans tend not to be big fans of the IRS and why they think this Agency already has too much power.

But Democrats would like to double the size of the Agency. The Democrats' bill would add 87,000 new IRS employees--87,000. That's enough employees to fill an entire football stadium with some left over; 87,000 is more than the population of Rapid City, SD, the second largest city in my home State.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that increasing the size of the Agency in this way would result in significantly higher audit rates of American taxpayers. Many of those audits would hit middle-income taxpayers and small businesses; in other words, individuals without easy access to an army of accountants to help them navigate the process and ensure that their rights are protected.

Democrats' primary reason for the IRS expansion is to raise revenue, to help pay for their partisan tax-and-spending spree. They claim that hiring all these new IRS agents and employees will allow them to close or reduce the tax gap--the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid.

But there are a couple of problems with that. In the first place, it is extremely doubtful that they will be able to raise the money they claim they will be able to raise. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office doesn't even score hoped-for revenue from enforcement since it considers the acquisition of that revenue to be so uncertain.

And even if Democrats are able to raise a meaningful sum from increased enforcement, what exactly is it going to cost Americans for Democrats to recapture this money?

Increased scrutiny and costly audits of law-abiding taxpayers. IRS intimidation and harassment.

And just in case anyone thinks I am exaggerating about that intimidation, I would note that a provision in the House version of the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree would repeal a measure requiring written approval of a supervisor before an IRS agent can access--or I should say, can assess any penalties.

The provision was intended to prevent overreaching IRS agents from threatening Americans with unjustified penalties. And it is hard to imagine why Democrats are trying to repeal this measure if they are not trying to pave the way for much more aggressive IRS pressure and enforcement.

And I haven't even mentioned the provision that was in Democrats' proposal for a long time and which some Democrats, including the President's Treasury Secretary and other administration officials, would still--still--like to see included, and that's a provision that would empower the IRS to snoop on the details of Americans' bank accounts.

Under one version of this provision, the IRS would be able to sift through the bank records of any American with just $600 in annual transactions. In other words, the IRS would be able to look through the bank records of just about every American and find out just how much you spent on Starbucks or your last doctor's bill or that new winter coat.

It is staggering that the Democrats could even contemplate giving that much power to an Agency that has a track record of mishandling sensitive taxpayer information. But that is the kind of power the President's Treasury Secretary, for one, would like this Agency to have.

With their so-called Build Back Better plan, Democrats are proposing a massive expansion of government, and we are apparently just supposed to take it on faith that the government will be able to handle all these new responsibilities.

Well, I have to say, I--and I would say many other Americans--have my doubts. And the IRS provides a perfect example of why.

The IRS can't even properly handle the staff and responsibilities it already has, and yet Democrats think it is a good idea to double the size of this Agency and give it new enforcement powers and, if some have their way, expanded access to Americans' personal information.

Doubling the size of the IRS is a terrible idea, and it is one more reason why Build Back Better is a bad deal for the American people.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), the Senator from Florida (Mr. R. Scott), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).