Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks before the start of the vote. Mr. President, it is another day and another…
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks before the start of the vote.
Mr. President, it is another day and another really bad idea that is coming from the Democrats to fund their reckless tax-and- spending spree. It seems like, to fund this massive amount of spending, they are trying desperately to come up with new revenue sources, so much so that, as of yesterday, still under consideration was a tax on unrealized gains--in other words, on income that people haven't received yet.
Let's just put that into perspective.
If carried to its full conclusion and it became a precedent as part of the tax policy in this country--and it never has been before--to put it in terms for people to understand, a lot of people participate in the 401(k) or they have some sort of retirement plan from their employers. If there were a gain in a particular year--say that the total value of the portfolios of assets in their retirement plans, those 401(k)s, went up by 20 percent--they could be taxed on that 20 percent even though they haven't received the income yet.
That is what is being talked about here in terms of precedent. Never before has that been attempted or tried or implemented in American history, where you would actually have a tax on income before people actually ever received the income.
Of course, if you carry that to its natural conclusion, as we all know, markets go up and markets go down. If you had a year wherein your total value went down by 20 percent, then what? Do you get a refund from the Federal Government? My understanding is that they would offer some sort of a tax credit, in a case like that, if you had a year when you had losses.
Just think about the precedent that would establish, what that could mean for the American people, if at some point the government literally could tax you--tax you--on income that you hadn't received yet.
That is the latest really horrible idea which I think is being shot down by Democrats because they recognize what a horrible idea that is. But it is a good example of the desperate lengths to which Democrats are trying to come up with new ways to fund this reckless tax-and- spending spree that they seem to be insistent on trying to force through Congress. With an evenly divided Senate and evenly divided House of Representatives, it is hard to imagine that you could do something that radical, but this entire proposal is that radical, which is why they are having such a hard time getting even people in their own caucuses to agree with it.
Two years ago, Democrats introduced their original Green New Deal resolution. While the guiding principles of the Green New Deal was climate change and energy, Democrats didn't limit themselves to these issues. They outlined a radical, comprehensive socialist revamping of our society with the Federal Government inserting itself into nearly every aspect of American life. And while Democrats haven't advanced one all-inclusive bill to implement the Green New Deal--probably because of the absolutely staggering pricetag for a comprehensive piece of legislation like that--the Green New
Deal socialist vision has rapidly become an organizing principle of the Democratic Party. For proof, look no further than the tax-and-spending spree Democrats are contemplating with its massive expansion of government and radical climate agenda.
One major problem with the Democrats is they never fully consider the cost of their legislation, whether it is the actual dollar amount or other costs their proposals might impose. And nowhere--nowhere--is that more true than with the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree.
I have spent a lot of time on the floor talking about things like the way this bill will further drive up inflation and the dangers it imposes for economic growth. Today, I want to address some of the costs of the bill's Green New Deal-esque energy provisions, starting with the cost to American families.
We know some energy prices are increasing due to the rising demand from the lows of the pandemic. Yesterday's average price for a gallon of gas was $3.38. That is compared to an average price of $2.16 1 year earlier. Meanwhile, natural gas prices recently hit a 7-year high, and there are mounting concerns about supply.
Americans are paying a lot more to drive their cars, to heat their homes, and to cook their food. The high cost of gasoline and natural gas are two more reasons why Americans are finding that their paychecks don't stretch as far these days.
Given the situation, you would think that finding ways to lower energy costs would be among Democrats' top priorities right now, but you would be wrong. Democrats' tax-and-spending spree isn't going to lower energy prices; it is going to drive them even higher.
The new energy policies that Democrats are considering would drive up the price of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline and subsidize Democrats' preferred technologies with Americans' tax dollars. And the icing on the cake is that Americans are likely to be paying higher electric costs for possibly worse electric service.
A lot of Americans are familiar with the problems with California's electric grid--namely, blackouts. Well, if Democrats have their way, Americans around the country will be able to enjoy California-style electricity; in other words, expensive and inconsistent electricity delivery along with higher gas prices.
This is what I mean when I talk about Democrats not fully considering the costs. Nobody--nobody--questions that clean energy is a good thing. I have been a strong supporter--a strong supporter--of clean energy innovation. My State of South Dakota leads the way, whether it is wind energy, biofuel, or hydropower. Most of the energy generated in the State of South Dakota comes from renewable sources. In 2020, 83 percent of the electricity generated in my State of South Dakota came from renewable sources.
But clean energy policies need to be realistic and practical for each region of the country. We have to, for example, understand that we are not yet at the point, innovationwise, where we can rely mostly on intermittent renewable sources to power electric grids. We need reliable baseload power from sources like clean natural gas and nuclear. Additionally, forcing older electric plants to close before the end of their remaining useful life, especially the most modern and efficient ones, will strand those assets. Our utilities make long-term investments, and when they can't recoup those facility investments, they pass the costs on to consumers.
Overreaching clean energy policies that place heavy burdens on working families are unacceptable. Wealthy Democratic politicians and the wealthy donor class that supports them may not have to worry much if they have to spend more on their electric bill or an extra $20 to $25 filling up their gas tank. But that is a big deal to a family on a budget, especially when that family is also dealing with the increased price of food and other basics.
Thanks to inflation and other pressures on gas prices, Americans are already having to spend a lot more money to fill their gas tanks, and with the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree, many working families would end up unable to fill their gas tank when they need to in a diminished oil and gas sector. Maybe that is the goal of some of the more extreme members of the Democratic Party, but it is an unacceptable one.
Working families are likely to have a tough time thanks to the energy provisions in the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree, but wealthy families should do a little better. Not only are they more likely to be able to afford increases in the price of electricity and gas, but they will also be able to claim a tax credit from the Federal Government if they want to purchase an expensive electric vehicle.
Democrats' tax-and-spending spree will offer tax credits of up to $12,500 for the purchase of an electric car or truck with the biggest credit naturally going to those who purchase union-made vehicles.
That is right. Only electric vehicles produced at facilities under a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement would be eligible for the $4,500 plus-up, which would take the credit up to $12,500. And anyone making up to $400,000 a year will be able to claim this credit.
That is right.
Under Democrats' legislation, you could be making nearly half a million dollars a year and still receive a substantial tax break for the purchase of an electric car.
Meanwhile, more accessible and readily available clean energy technologies--notably, biofuels--take a backseat in this bill.
Electric vehicles are Democrats' chosen winner in the transportation sector, no matter how impractical they may still be for a lot of working Americans.
Speaking of impractical, if you want an electric bike to go along with your electric car, Democrats will also give you a tax credit for that as well. Yes, the Democrats' bill contains a tax credit for electric bicycles--a credit that would go to bicycles that can cost up to $8,000.
Now, maybe it is just me, but if you can afford an $8,000 electric bike, I am not sure you need a tax credit for it from the Federal Government. Also, while electric bicycles may have their appeal in urban and maybe some suburban communities, they are a completely impractical option for most individuals in States like South Dakota. When you live 20 miles away from the nearest grocery store, an electric bicycle is not going to be your vehicle of choice for getting around. And I am pretty sure that South Dakota agricultural producers will back me up when I say that electric bicycles are not going to be much use for getting out to check the fences in the far corners of their ranch.
However, I have got to say that tax credits for electric bicycles are far from the most wasteful use of government money in this bill. That honor may have to go for the new tax credit to higher education institutions for teaching environmental justice programs. That is right. I am sure Americans will be relieved to know that Democrats are planning to create a new tax credit for higher education institutions-- including Ivy league schools and other well-funded universities--so that they can teach courses on environmental justice, whatever that is. You would think colleges that charge students tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars in tuition could perhaps afford to fund their own environmental justice programs. But, again, I guess you would be wrong.
Then there is the $3 billion the bill provides for tree equity--tree equity.
Now, I support and encourage the planting of trees, and I have introduced a straightforward bill to rapidly expand tree planting across the country without any Federal spending. But I am fairly sure the Federal Government cannot afford to spend $3 billion on tree equity, especially when Democrats need to save money for their civilian climate corps--a new government program to provide government jobs and subsidized housing to climate activists.
There is so much more.
The word is that Democrats will soon be releasing a new version of their tax-and-spending spree, and I can only hope that it will be less extreme than the current version because if the bill's current Green New Deal-esque energy provisions go into effect, Americans are going to be looking at a future of higher energy costs, diminished energy resources, and a weakened energy independence, not to mention a lot of wasted taxpayer dollars.
Once again, it is abundantly clear that the Green New Deal is a bad deal for American families.
I yield the floor.