Limit, Save, Grow Act of 2023

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, today's fiscal crisis threatens all Americans. We are here today to debate legislation that accomplishes so much of what the American people want. Specifically, it begins to get Washington's spending habits under control. It starts to slow the flow of special interest handouts to the wealthy and well-connected, and it throws much-needed water on the fire of inflation burning through the wallets of American families.

Unlike the Inflation Reduction Act, the Limit, Save, Grow Act under consideration today actually does what it says it is going to do. It puts real limits on future spending, so that we begin to turn the ship back in a more fiscally sound direction.

It saves taxpayer dollars by clawing back unobligated pandemic spending, a sensible solution given the fact that the President himself has declared the pandemic over.

It saves taxpayer dollars by ending welfare for the wealthy and loopholes for big corporations in the Inflation Reduction Act. Ninety percent of these special interest green tax breaks go to companies with over 1 billion in sales. Financial institutions alone pocket three times as much as any other industry, and these tax dollars are being funneled to China, enriching the Chinese Communist Party and allowing it to dominate critical mineral supply chains.

I know my friends on the other side share in frustration in how that law has ended up so different than what they thought they were voting for.

In this bill, we propose proworker, pro-small business policies like work requirements in our welfare programs that will not only support a more vibrant economy, but also help more Americans realize the dignity of work. This plan will also take the target off the backs of low- and middle-income taxpayers under threat from a supercharged army of 87,000 at the IRS.

The Biden administration brags about the $400 billion in revenues they plan to bring in by unleashing the new agents. To do that, audit rates will have to go up on low- and middle-income Americans. In fact, under the so-called historical audit rate the administration says it will adhere to, we will see a million--a million new audits with 650,000 of them falling on folks who make $75,000 or less.

I find it curious to hear my Democrat colleagues and the President say they will not negotiate on spending when it comes to the debt ceiling, while at the same time complaining there is no plan over which to negotiate.

Well, here you go. Republicans have a plan. It is time for the President to negotiate overspending reforms as part of addressing the debt ceiling just as we have done many times before. In fact, just as the President himself has done many times before as a Senator and as Vice President.

Eleven of the previous debt ceiling increases going back decades have included fiscal reforms. President Biden voted for such agreements as a Senator, and he negotiated them as a Vice President. The President's current position of refusing to discuss commonsense spending restraints when it comes to the debt ceiling is a reckless abandonment of past precedent and in his own history.

Under one-party Democratic rule, we got $10 trillion in new spending. The consequences have been very real. Since President Biden took office, we have seen a spike in prices by 14.9 percent. Real wages have declined by 3.5 percent and interest rates have increased more in the past year than in the prior 15 years combined.

The American people are demanding something to be done about all of this. Let's pass this legislation and put the interests of workers, families, farmers, and small businesses first and foremost. Let's do as Congress has done before and address the debt ceiling with policies that also address the Washington spending habits that got us here.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of comments just recently about tax provisions that helped the wealthy, the well- off, and the well-connected. Let's point out the Democrats' tax policies that we are ripping out from the roots are helping the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record analyses from the Joint Committee on Taxation, showing that big corporations with more than $1 billion in sales receive over 90 percent of all special interest electricity subsidies, and that financial institutions receive three times more benefits from these tax credits than any other industry where the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected benefit. Congress of the United States Joint Committee on Taxation, Washington, DC, March 31, 2023. From: Robert Harvey. Subject: Distribution Data.

This memorandum is in response to your request of March 28, 2023, for data on the distribution of claims for certain energy credits by the gross receipts of the taxpayer. Below we report the tentative claims for credit under Code section 45, the credit for electricity produced from certain renewable resources, and the tentative claims for credit under section 48, the energy investment credit, by C corporations for the 2019 tax year and 2020 tax year. The amounts reported are the tentative claims for credit before any limitation that the taxpayer might face and before any audit adjustment that might occur. For each of section 45 and section 48 we report the dollars of credit claimed categorized by gross receipts reported on line 1c of Form 1120, U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return. TENTATIVE SECTION 45 CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN RENEWABLE RESOURCES [Tax years 2019 and 2020, millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2019 2020 --------------------------------------------------- Gross Receipts Category Amount of Percentage Amount of Percentage Credit Share Credit Share ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Less than $1 billion........................................ 349 5.5 231 3.1 $1 billion-$25 billion...................................... 2,538 40.2 2,560 34.6 More than $25 billion....................................... 3,432 54.3 4,619 62.3 --------------------------------------------------- Total................................................... 6,319 100.0 7,409 100.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TENTATIVE SECTION 48 ENERGY CREDIT [Tax years 2019 and 2020, millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2019 2020 --------------------------------------------------- Gross Receipts Category Amount of Percentage Amount of Percentage Credit Share Credit Share ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Less than $1 billion........................................ 571 10.3 558 7.9 $1 billion-$25 billion...................................... 2,731 49.4 2,740 38.9 More than $25 billion....................................... 2,222 40.2 3,748 53.2 --------------------------------------------------- Total................................................... 5,524 100.0 7,047 100.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. Congress of the United States, Joint Committee on Taxation, Washington, DC, March 31, 2023. From: Robert Harvey. Subject: Tentative Energy Credits by Industry.

This memorandum is in response to your request for data on claims for certain energy credits by industry, including credits claimed by management companies. Below we report the tentative claims for credit under Code section 45, the credit for electricity produced from certain renewable resources, and the tentative claims for credit under section 48, the energy investment credit, by C corporations for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. The amounts reported are the tentative claims for credit before any limitation that the taxpayer might face and before any audit adjustment that might occur. For each of section 45 and section 48 we report the dollars of credit claimed by industry using the North American Industrial Classification System (``NAICS'') code level. Presenting these data at a finer level of detail potentially would create concerns of disclosure of information specific to taxpayers. For example, for section 45 we removed 2020 data for the wholesale and retail trade industry as the sample size became too limited. TENTATIVE SECTION 45 CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN RENEWABLE RESOURCES [Millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NAICS Code 2018 2019 2020 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 22 Utilities........................... 1,138 989 1,263 221100 Electric Power Generation, 571 460 578 Transmission and Distribution..... All other utilities................ 567 529 684 31 Manufacturing....................... 515 266 188 41 Wholesale and Retail Trade.......... 760 990 na 52 Finance and Insurance............... 943 877 871 524 Insurance...................... 461 407 420 All other finance and insurance.... 482 469 451 55 Management of Companies (Holding 1,909 2,880 3,385 Companies)............................ 551111 Bank Holding Companies...... 1,898 2,839 3,354 551112 Other Holding Companies..... 11 41 31 All Other Industries................... 317 318 1,704 -------------------------------- Total.......................... 5,581 6,319 7,410 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TENTATIVE SECTION 48 ENERGY CREDIT [Millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NAICS Code 2018 2019 2020 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and 13 10 na Hunting............................... 22 Utilities........................... 1,127 1,118 1,191 221100 Electric Power Generation, 999 906 1,063 Transmission and Distribution..... All other utilities................ 128 212 128 23 Construction........................ 36 67 39 31 Manufacturing....................... 342 245 247 42 Wholesale Trade..................... 81 175 147 44 Retail Trade........................ 271 299 547 52 Finance and Insurance............... 658 657 1,372 522110 Commercial Banking.......... 120 19 202 522120 Savings Institutions, Credit 31 54 51 Unions............................ 524 Insurance...................... 403 389 539 All other finance and insurance.... 104 194 581 53 Real Estate and Rental Leasing...... 31 17 20 55 Management of Companies (Holding 2,231 2,749 3,169 Companies)............................ 551111 Bank Holding Companies...... 2,216 2,729 3,144 551112 Other Holding Companies..... 15 20 25 All Other Industries................... 102 187 316 -------------------------------- Total.......................... 4,891 5,524 7,047 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

We note this analysis is based on income tax returns filed by C corporations where taxpayers report the industry in which they are primarily engaged, identifying the industry by the code numbers established under the NAICS. This is self- reported, and the Internal Revenue Service does not necessarily verify the accuracy of the classification stated by the taxpayer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this JCT analysis from 2022, suggesting that the total costs of the special interest tax credits for the rich in the Inflation Reduction Act would be $271 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record yesterday's CBO score, which shows that the cost has more than doubled to $570 billion, and it is growing every day. The wealthy and politically connected corporations will receive hundreds of billions of dollars more than advertised. ESTIMATED BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE REVENUE PROVISIONS OF TITLE I--COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, OF AN AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 5376, ``AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR RECONCILIATION PURSUANT TO TITLE II OF S. CON RES. 14,'' AS PASSED BY THE SENATE ON AUGUST 7, 2022, AND SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON AUGUST 12, 2022 Fiscal years 2022-2031 [millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Provision Effective 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2022-26 2022-31 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TITLE I--COMMITTEE ON FINANCE SUBTITLE A--DEFICIT REDUCTION Part 1--Corporate Tax Reform-- tyba 12/31/22........ - - - 34,679 34,258 22,039 17,702 18,699 20,798 22,756 24,658 26,659 108,678 222,248 Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax. Part 2--Excise Tax on rosa 12/31/22........ - - - 5,697 7,875 8,070 8,581 8,882 8,838 8,603 8,500 8,641 30,223 73,686 Repurchase of Corporate Stock. Part 3--Funding the Internal DOE.................. Estimate to be Provided by the Congressional Budget Office Revenue Service and Improving Taxpayer Compliance-- Enhancement of Internal Revenue Service Resources. SUBTITLE A--DEFICIT REDUCTION...... - - - 40,376 42,133 30,109 26,283 27,581 29,636 31,359 33,158 35,300 138,901 295,934 SUBTITLE B--PRESCRIPTION DRUG - - -................ Estimate to be Provided by the Congressional Budget Office PRICING REFORM--LOWERING DRUG PRICES THROUGH DRUG PRICE NEGOTIATION. SUBTITLE C--AFFORDABLE CARE ACT tyba 12/31/22........ Estimate to be Provided by the Congressional Budget Office SUBSIDIES--IMPROVE AFFORDABILITY AND REDUCE PREMIUM COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE FOR CONSUMERS (sunset 12/ 31/25). SUBTITLE D--ENERGY SECURITY Part 1--Clean Electricity and Reducing Carbon Emissions 1. Extension and modification fpisa 12/31/21 & - - - -1,562 -2,183 -3,317 -4,822 -6,428 -7,677 -8,232 -8,329 -8,511 -11,885 -51,062 of credit for electricity ftcowba DOE & fpisa produced from certain 12/31/22. renewable resources (sunset 12/ 31/24) [1]. 2. Extension and modification generally ppisa 12/31/ - - - -2,140 -1,559 -2,458 -5,367 -2,359 -48 -38 -9 15 -11,523 -13,962 of energy credit (sunset 12/31/ 21. 24) [1]. 3. Increase in energy credit 1/1/23............... Estimate Included in Items 1. and 2. Above for solar facilities placed in service in connection with low- income communities. 4. Extension and modification foepisa 12/31/22 & - - - -42 -303 -469 -495 -463 -429 -388 -343 -296 -1,309 -3,229 of credit for carbon oxide cocadoa 12/31/21. sequestration (sunset 12/31/ 32) [1]. 5. Zero-emission nuclear power epasa 12/31/23 - - - - - - -2,188 -3,524 -3,710 -3,838 -3,960 -4,050 -4,279 -4,452 -9,421 -30,001 production credit (sunset 12/ itybasd. 31/32) [1]. Total of Part 1--Clean - - - -3,744 -6,233 -9,768 -14,394 -13,088 -12,115 -12,709 -12,961 -13,243 -34,138 -98,254 Electricity and Reducing Carbon Emissions. Part 2--Clean Fuels 1. Extensions of incentives for [2].................. - - - -2,776 -1,780 -1,015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5,571 -5,571 biodiesel, renewable diesel and alternative fuels (sunset 12/31/24). 2. Extensions of second qsgbpa 12/31/21...... - - - -24 -20 -10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -54 -54 generation biofuel incentives (sunset 12/31/24). 3. Sustainable aviation fuel FSOUA 12/31/22....... - - - -10 -25 -14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -49 -49 credit (sunset 12/31/24). 4. Credit for production of [3].................. - - - -131 -362 -610 -918 -1,251 -1,627 -2,082 -2,667 -3,518 -2,021 -13,166 clean hydrogen (sunset 12/31/ 32) [1]. Total of Part 2--Clean - - - -2,941 -2,187 -1,649 -918 -1,251 -1,627 -2,082 -2,667 -3,518 -7,695 -18,840 Fuels. Part 3--Clean Energy and Efficiency Incentives for Individuals 1. Extension, increase, and [4].................. ......... -1,887 -1,348 -1,324 -1,345 -1,327 -1,277 -1,301 -1,314 -1,327 -5,904 -12,451 modifications of nonbusiness energy property credit (sunset 12/31/32). 2. Extension and modification ema 12/31/21 & ema 12/ ......... -459 -1,021 -2,692 -2,770 -2,850 -2,935 -3,019 -3,092 -3,185 -6,942 -22,022 of the residential energy 31/22. efficient property credit (sunset 12/31/34). 3. Energy efficient commercial tyba 12/31/22 & ppisa - - - -62 -50 -46 -42 -38 -35 -32 -30 -28 -200 -362 buildings deduction. 12/31/22 ityeasd. 4. Extension, increase, and duaa 12/31/21........ - - - -273 -193 -203 -216 -230 -241 -240 -229 -217 -887 -2,043 modifications of new energy efficient home credit (sunset 12/31/32). Total of Part 3--Clean - - - -2,681 -2,612 -4,265 -4,373 -4,445 -4,488 -4,592 -4,665 -4,757 -13,932 -36,879 Energy and Efficiency Incentives for Individuals. Part 4--Clean Vehicles 1. Clean vehicle credit (sunset generally vpisa 12/31/ - - - -85 -451 -557 -681 -854 -1,024 -1,155 -1,303 -1,429 -1,775 -7,541 12/31/32) [1]. 22. 2. Credit for previoiusly-owned vaa 12/31/22......... - - - -99 -96 -120 -132 -146 -162 -179 -197 -215 -447 -1,347 clean vehicles (sunset 12/31/ 32) [1]. 3. Credit for qualified vaa 12/31/22......... - - - -189 -177 -228 -298 -388 -469 -539 -607 -687 -892 3,583 commercial clean vehicles (sunset 12/31/32. 4. Alternative fuel refueling ppisa 12/31/21....... - - - -138 -128 -145 -164 -184 -207 -231 -257 -284 -575 -1,738 property credit (sunset 12/31/ 32). Total of Part 4--Clean - - - -511 -852 -1,050 -1,275 -1,572 -1,862 -2,105 -2,365 -2,615 -3,689 -14,209 Vehicles. Part 5--Investment in Clean Energy Manufacturing and Energy Security 1. Extension of the advanced 1/1/23............... - - - -1,463 -1,377 -915 -926 -614 -442 -280 -196 -42 -4,681 -6,255 energy project credit [1]. 2. Advanced manufacturing cpasa 12/31/22....... - - - -1,755 -2,503 -2,691 -3,165 -3,563 -3,938 -4,534 -4,562 -3,921 -10,115 -30,632 production credit (sunset 12/ 31/32) [1]. Total of Part 5--Investment - - - -3,218 -3,880 -3,606 -4,091 -4,177 -4,380 -4,814 -4,758 -3,963 -14,796 -36,887 in Clean Energy Manufacturing and Energy security. Part 6--Reinstatement of Superfund. 1/1/23............... - - - 902 1,230 1,271 1,304 1,336 1,368 1,402 1,436 1,470 4,707 11,719 Part 7--Incentives for Clean Electricity and Clean Transportation 1. Clean electricity production fpisa 12/31/24....... - - - - - - - - - - - - -12 -45 -571 -1,864 -3,497 -5,215 -12 -11,204 credit [1]. 2. Clean electricity investment ppisa 12/31/24....... - - - - - - - - - -39 -57 -6,575 -10,315 -10,742 -11,264 -11,865 -97 -50,858 credit [1]. 3. Cost recovery for qualified fappisa 12/31/24..... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -26 -83 -134 -171 -211 - - - -624 facilitites, qualified property, and energy storage technology. 4. Clean fuel production credit tfpa 12/31/24........ - - - - - - - - - -641 -791 -1,177 -337 --- --- --- -1,432 -2,946 (sunset 12/31/27) [1]. Total of Part 7--Incentives - - -................ - - - - - - - - - -680 -860 -7,823 -11,306 -12,740 -14,932 -17,291 -1,541 -65,632 for Clean Electricity and Clean Transportation. Part 8--Credit Monetization and tyba 12/31/22........ Estimates Contained in Relevant Items Above Appropriations--Elective Payment for Energy Property and Electricity Produced from Certain Renewable Resources, etc., and Transfer of Credits [1]. Part 9--Other Provisions 1. Permanent extension of tax [6].................. - - - 103 135 131 130 130 131 132 133 134 498 1,159 rate to fund Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. 2. Increase in research credit tyba 12/31/22........ - - - -16 -13 -15 -16 -18 -21 -22 -23 -24 -60 -168 against payroll tax for small businesses. 3. Limitation on excess tyba 12/31/26........ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17,666 26,198 9,453 -274 -284 - - - 52,759 business losses of noncorporate taxpayers extended for two years. Total of Part 9--Other - - -................ - - - 87 122 116 114 17,778 26,308 9,563 -164 -174 438 53,750 Provisions. SUBTITLE D--ENERGY SECURITY........ - - -................ - - - -12,107 -14,412 -19,631 -24,493 -13,243 -8,101 -28,076 -41,076 -44,091 -70,646 -205,231 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NET TOTAL.................. - - -................ - - - 28,269 27,721 10,478 1,790 14,338 21,535 3,283 -7,918 -8,791 68,255 90,703 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Joint Committee on Taxation NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. The date of enactment is assumed to be September 1, 2022. Revenue provisions as stated in statutory language 117SAHR5376. Legend for ``Effective'' column. cocadoa = carbon oxide captured and disposed of after cpasa = components produced and sold after DOE = date of enactment duaa = dwelling units acquired after ema = expenditures made after epasa = electricity produced and sold after fappisa = facilities and property placed in sevice after foepisa = facilities or equipment placed inservice after fpisa = facilities placed in service after fsoua = fuel sold or used after ftcowba = facilities the construction of which begins after itybasd = in taxable years beginning after such date ityeasd = in taxable years ending after such date ppisa = property placed in service after rosa = repurchases of stock after qsgbpa = qualified second generation biofuel production after tfpa = transportation fuel produced after tyba = taxable years beginning after vaa = vehicles acquired after vpisa = vehicles placed in service after [1] Estimate contains the following outlay effects: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2022-26 2022-31 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extension and modification of credit for electricity produced from certain renewable resources (sunset 12/31/24)................ Negligible Outlay Effect

Extension and modification of energy credit (sunset 12/31/24).. Negligible Outlay Effect

Extension and modification of - - - 20 145 225 238 222 206 186 165 142 628 1,550 credit for carbon oxide sequestration (sunset 12/31/32)..

Zero-emission nuclear power - - - - - - 1,050 1,692 1,781 1,842 1,901 1,944 2,054 2,137 4,522 14,401 production credit (sunset 12/31/ 32)..............................

Credit for production of clean - - - 59 149 244 364 498 657 851 1,086 1,410 815 5,317 hydrogen (sunset 12/31/32).......

Extension of the advanced energy project credit................... Negligible Outlay Effect

Clean vehicle credit (sunset 12/31/ 32).............................. Negligible Outlay Effect

Credit for previously-owned clean vehicles (sunset 12/31/32)....... Negligible Outlay Effect

Advanced manufacturing production - - - 842 1,201 1,291 1,519 1,710 1,890 2,176 2,189 1,882 4,853 14,699 credit (sunset 12/31/32).........

Clean electricity production - - - 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 26 credit...........................

Clean electricity investment credit........................... Negligible Outlay Effect

Clean fuel production credit...... Negligible Outlay Effect ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [2] Effective for fuel sold or used after December 31, 2022, for biodiesel and renewable diesel, and December 31, 2021 for alternative fuels. [3] Effective for hydrogen produced after December 31, 2022, for property placed in service after December 31, 2022, and, for any property the construction of which begins prior to January 1,

2023, only to the extent of the basis thereof attributable to the construction, reconstruction, or erection after December 31, 2022, and for fuel sold or used after December 31, 2022. [4] Applies to property placed in service after December 31, 2022. Extension of credit shall apply to property placed in servie after December 31, 2021 and identification number requirement

shall apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2024. [5]The temporary increase in the amount of tax on coal terminates for sales after December 31, 2025. [6] Applies to sales in calendar quarters beginning after the date of the enactment.

TABLE 1.--CHANGES IN CBO'S BASELINE PROJECTIONS OF H.R. 2811, THE DEFICIT UNDER THE LIMIT, SAVE, GROW ACT OF 2023, AS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES ON APRIL 19, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal year, billions of dollars-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2023-2033 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Increases or Decreases (-) in the Projected Deficit Caps on Discretionary Funding a........................ 0 -129.0 -201.8 -243.7 -279.7 -314.0 -342.8 -373.1 -404.3 -436.2 -469.9 -3,194.5 Student Loan Programs.................................. -387.0 -6.2 -6.7 -7.2 -7.7 -7.7 -7.6 -7.6 -7.5 -7.4 -7.4 -460.0 Energy Tax Provisions (JCT estimate) b -13.1 -35.5 -49.9 -63.2 -68.1 -66.1 -62.9 -55.6 -53.3 -54.0 -47.9 -569.5 Funding for the Internal Revenue Service and Related -0.7 3.4 8.4 11.8 14.3 16.2 17.6 17.4 17.3 8.8 5.3 119.7 Agencies.............................................. Work Requirements...................................... 0 -0.6 -5.6 -8.5 -11.8 -12.8 -13.9 -15.1 -16.1 -17.2 -18.5 -120.1 Rescissions of Funds Provided in Six Laws Enacted From -13.8 -9.7 -3.8 -1.4 -0.6 -0.1 -0.1 0 0 0 0 -29.5 2020 to 2022.......................................... Energy Leasing and Permitting Provisions............... -0.4 -2.0 -4.3 -5.7 -4.3 0.3 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 0.8 -3.4 Debt Service c......................................... -0.5 -4.2 -11.9 -20.7 -30.9 -43.1 -55.6 -70.4 -85.8 -102.5 -121.4 -547.0 Total Change in the Projected Deficit.............. -415.4 -183.7 -275.6 -338.6 -388.8 -427.3 -462.7 -501.4 -546.5 -605.2 -659.0 -4,804.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sources: Congressional Budget Office, staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. Budgetary effects are relative to CBO's February 2023 baseline projections and include updates to incorporate new information about certain programs. a This estimate incorporates the assumption that future appropriations will match the proposed caps, where applicable, and that funding that would not be constrained by the caps (such as

funding designated as an emergency requirement) will match amounts in CBO's baseline projections. Deficits could be larger or smaller, depending on whether the amounts appropriated are

larger or smaller than the amounts that CBO projects in this analysis. b Estimates provided by JCT are preliminary and subject to change. c Changes in CBO's estimates of public debt for the 2023-2033 period under the bill are driven primarily by changes to estimated annual budget deficits. However, changes to the government's

cash flows associated with the federal student loan program (not shown in this table) also affect CBO's estimates of public debt and of the interest required to service that debt.

TABLE 2.--CHANGES TO CBO'S PROJECTIONS OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING UNDER THE CAPS SPECIFIED IN H.R. 2811, THE LIMIT, SAVE, GROW ACT OF 2023, AS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES ON APRIL 19, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal year, billions of dollars-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2023-2033 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Projections of Discretionary Spending CBO's February 2023 Baseline: Budget Authority................................... 1,823.7 1,906.6 1,952.0 1,995.3 2,045.7 2,093.6 2,143.5 2,195.1 2,247.4 2,300.3 2,356.1 23,059.5 Outlays............................................ 1,741.2 1,864.4 1,955.4 2,004.9 2,063.1 2,119.0 2,159.1 2,215.0 2,266.4 2,319.2 2,380.2 23,087.8 With Proposed Caps on Discretionary Budget Authority: a Budget Authority................................... 1,823.7 1,677.9 1,696.4 1,712.8 1,732.4 1,752.1 1,769.8 1,789.9 1,807.7 1,827.6 1,847.3 19,437.9 Outlays............................................ 1,741.2 1,735.4 1,753.6 1,761.2 1,783.4 1,805.0 1,816.3 1,841.9 1,862.1 1,883.0 1,910.3 19,893.3 Effect of Proposed Discretionary Caps Relative to the February 2023 Baseline: Budget Authority................................... 0 -228.7 -255.6 -282.5 -313.3 -341.5 -373.7 -405.2 -439.7 -472.7 -508.8 -3,621.6 Outlays............................................ 0 -129.0 -201.8 -243.7 -279.7 -314.0 -342.8 -373.1 -404.3 -436.2 -469.9 -3,194.5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Congressional Budget Office. Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. a The bill specifies caps on most discretionary budget authority for fiscal years 2024 through 2023. Appropriations designated for certain categories of spending would result in adjustments,

and limits would apply to some of those adjustments. The caps would not apply to funding for certain programs under the 21st Century Cures Act or to certain funding from the Harbor

Maintenance Trust Fund.

TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUE EFFECTS OF H.R. 2811, THE LIMIT, SAVE, GROW ACT OF 2023, AS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RULES ON APRIL 19, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By fiscal year, billions of dollars-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2023-2028 2023-2033 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Increases or Decreases (-) in Direct Spending Federal Student Loans: Student Loan Cancellation: Estimated Budget Authority......... -319.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 -317.6 -315.6 Estimated Outlays.................. -319.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 -317.6 -315.6 Income-Driven Repayment Plan: Estimated Budget Authority......... -43.3 -6.0 -6.5 -7.2 -8.0 -8.1 -8.1 -8.1 -8.1 -8.3 -8.4 -79.1 -120.1 Estimated Outlays.................. -42.8 -5.2 -5.8 -6.4 -7.0 -7.1 -7.1 -7.2 -7.2 -7.3 -7.4 -74.3 -110.5 Interactive and Other Effects: Estimated Budget Authority......... -24.6 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.5 -0.4 -30.6 -33.9 Estimated Outlays.................. -24.6 -1.4 -1.3 -1.2 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -0.8 -0.7 -0.5 -0.4 -30.6 -33.9 Subtotal, Federal Student Loans: Estimated Budget Authority......... -387.5 -7.0 -7.4 -8.0 -8.7 -8.7 -8.6 -8.5 -8.4 -8.4 -8.4 -427.3 -469.6 Estimated Outlays.................. -387.0 -6.2 -6.7 -7.2 -7.7 -7.7 -7.6 -7.6 -7.5 -7.4 -7.4 -422.5 -460.0 Energy Tax Provisions (JCT estimate) a: Estimated Budget Authority......... -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.7 -1.0 -1.3 -1.3 -1.9 -2.6 -3.3 -4.1 -3.5 -16.7 Estimated Outlays.................. -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.7 -1.0 -1.3 -1.3 -1.9 -2.6 -3.3 -4.1 -3.5 -16.7 Funding for the Internal Revenue Service and Related Agencies: Estimated Budget Authority......... -71.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -71.5 -71.5 Estimated Outlays.................. -2.4 -2.8 -4.1 -5.6 -7.3 -9.2 -11.4 -14.0 -14.6 0 0 -31.4 -71.5 Work Requirements: Community Engagement Requirement for Medicaid: Estimated Budget Authority......... 0 0 -4.4 -7.3 -10.6 -11.6 -12.7 -13.9 -14.9 -16.0 -17.3 -33.9 -108.7 Estimated Outlays.................. 0 0 -4.4 -7.3 -10.6 -11.6 -12.7 -13.9 -14.9 -16.0 -17.3 -33.9 -108.7 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Estimated Budget Authority......... 0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -5.4 -11.4 Estimated Outlays.................. 0 -0.6 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -5.4 -11.4 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Estimated Budget Authority......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * * * * 0 * Estimated Outlays.................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * * * * 0 * Subtotal, Work Requirements: Estimated Budget Authority......... 0 -0.6 -5.6 -8.5 -11.8 -12.8 -13.9 -15.1 -16.1 -17.2 -18.5 -39.3 -120.1 Estimated Outlays.................. 0 -0.6 -5.6 -8.5 -11.8 -12.8 -13.9 -15.1 -16.1 -17.2 -18.5 -39.3 -120.1 Rescissions of Funds Provided in Six Laws Enacted From 2020 to 2022: Estimated Budget Authority......... -55.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -55.5 -55.5 Estimated Outlays.................. -13.8 -9.7 -3.8 -1.4 -0.6 -0.1 -0.1 0 0 0 0 -29.4 -29.5 Energy Leasing and Permitting Provisions: Estimated Budget Authority......... -32.2 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.3 -0.1 -24.4 -16.6 Estimated Outlays.................. -0.4 -2.0 -4.3 -5.7 -4.3 -0.6 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.2 0.3 -17.3 -9.8 Total Change in Direct Spending: Estimated Budget Authority..... -546.8 -6.3 -11.7 -15.5 -20.1 -21.3 -22.1 -23.6 -25.1 -26.6 -31.1 -621.5 -750.0 Estimated Outlays.............. -403.7 -21.5 -24.9 -29.1 -32.7 -31.7 -33.0 -36.9 -38.8 -25.7 -29.7 -543.4 -707.6 Increases or Decreases (-) in Revenues Energy Tax Provisions (JCT estimate) *. 13.0 35.3 49.6 62.5 67.1 64.8 61.6 53.8 50.7 50.7 43.8 292.3 552.9 Funding for the Internal Revenue -1.6 -6.2 -12.5 -17.4 -21.6 -25.4 -29.0 -31.4 -31.9 -8.8 -5.3 -84.7 -191.2 Service and Related Agencies.......... Energy Leasing and Permitting 0 0 0 0 0 -0.9 -1.3 -1.4 -1.2 -1.1 -0.5 -0.9 -6.4 Provisions............................ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Change in Revenues........... 11.4 29.1 37.1 45.1 45.5 38.5 31.3 21.0 17.6 40.8 38.0 206.7 355.3 Net Decrease (-) in the Deficit From Changes in Direct Spending and Revenues Total Change in the Deficit........ -415.1 -50.6 -61.9 -74.2 -78.2 -70.2 -64.3 -57.8 -56.4 -66.5 -67.7 -750.1 -1,062.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sources: Congressional Budget Office, staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). Components may not sum to totals because of rounding, * = between -$50 million and zero. Budgetary effects are relative to CBO's February 2023 baseline projections and include updates to incorporate new information about certain programs. a Estimates provided by JCT are preliminary and subject to change.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Tenney).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article detailing how Ford is using a loophole in the IRA to partner with CATL, a major Chinese battery company, on a project intended to harvest EV battery tax credits. Chinese companies are lining up to cash in on Democrats' green corporate welfare that we are rescinding in this bill. [From Forbes, Feb. 13, 2023]

Ford To Build $3.5 Billion Lithium Iron Phosphate Battery Plant in Michigan Using CATL Technology (By Sam Abuelsamid, Senior Contributor)

Ford plans to build a $3.5 billion factory in Marshall, Michigan, which will produce 35 gigawatt-hours of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) cells annually for electric vehicles starting in 2026. The move comes after the automaker said it would use LFP batteries in the Mustang Mach-E from mid-2023 and F-150 Lightning from early 2024. However, those batteries will be sourced from CATL in China, the leading cell manufacturer in the world and one of the leaders in LFP production. Ford will license CATL technology but it will own the new factory and operate it, rather than creating a joint venture.

While Ford will start using CATL LFP batteries later this year, shipping them from China won't help the company reach its sustainability goals. Batteries are heavy and bulky and the emissions associated with shipping them halfway around the world will significantly cut into the gains from eliminating the tailpipe from these vehicles. Those vehicles also will not qualify for any clean vehicle tax credits.

This is why Ford and other OEMs are moving so aggressively to localize battery production to wherever vehicles are built and sold. Ford previously announced a joint venture with Korea's SK ON for three cell plants in Kentucky and Tennessee that are already well under construction. Those plants will produce nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) cells.

Nickel-rich cell chemistries such as NMC (also referred to as NCM), nickel-manganese-cobalt aluminum (NMCA, which GM uses for its Ultium cells), nickel-cobalt-aluminum (NCA, which Tesla uses) have a higher energy density than LFP. However, Nickel and cobalt are much more expensive than iron and phosphorus and also more volatile. When there is an internal short circuit in a nickel-rich cell, it is much more likely to experience thermal runaway. LFP cells are inherently more stable and are nearly impossible to experience thermal runaway or fires.

Despite LFP having a lower energy density than nickel-rich cells, much of that can be offset by adopting cell-to-pack or structural battery pack designs rather than the modular designs that are typical today. In addition to lower cost, LFP cells have much longer charge cycle lifetimes. A typical nickel cell can do between 500 and 1,000 charge cycles before it loses enough capacity to be no longer useful in a vehicle. LFP cells can withstand thousands of cycles and some manufacturers, including CATL, have claimed EVs with LFP can go 1 million miles.

The added stability of LFP cells means they can better withstand charging to l00% without degrading. Nickel-rich cells typically have to leave unused buffers to prevent overcharging. Thus some of the energy density disadvantages can be safely recovered.

The decision to structure the new operation as a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford rather than a joint venture is likely driven in part by the content requirements in the Inflation Reduction Act. Since China is a foreign entity of concern, batteries and materials from that country do not qualify for clean vehicle credits. Thus the Mach-E and Lightning with Chinese-sourced batteries won't be eligible. Limiting the equity stake of CATL in this deal and only licensing some technology along with local sourcing of most materials will probably enable Ford to claim its cells meet the domestic content requirements.

``This is how we look at the recipe to create one of the lowest cost, U.S.-produced batteries when this plant comes online in 2026 and this helps us contribute to Ford's goal of an 8% Model E EBIT in 2026,'' said Lisa Drake, Ford VP of EV industrialization. ``It strengthens our domestic supply chain and helps us ramp production, getting more EVs to more customers sooner.''

As with the Mach-E and Lightning, the new LFP batteries will likely be used mainly in standard range and lower cost EVs and many of the commercial vehicles Ford sells. Most of those commercial vehicles, such as Transit vans used for everything from last-mile deliveries to plumbers and electricians, rarely go outside of a limited geographical area and don't need more than 100 miles of range. With more availability of domestic LFP batteries, future electric versions of vehicles like the compact Maverick pickup and Escape crossover are likely at prices that more consumers can afford.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a March 8, 2021, Politico article titled: ``Biden's welfare flip-flop,'' which points out that President Biden was once an ardent supporter of commonsense welfare reforms, including work requirements. [From POLITICO, March 8, 2021] West Wing Playbook--Biden's Welfare Flip-Flop (By Alex Thompson and Theodoric Meyer with help from Allie Bice)

Joe Biden, the young senator, would be surprised at Joe Biden, the elderly president.

When he first ran for president in 1988, 44-year-old Biden was one of the Democrats challenging what he called ``liberal orthodoxy'' on issues like welfare.

``Our handouts are not enough,'' Biden said at Princeton University in a May 1987 speech meant to beef up his policy profile ahead of a June campaign launch. ``Government subsidy is not the ultimate answer to the problems of the poor.''

In November 1988, he penned a column in his local Newark Post: ``We are all too familiar with the stories of welfare mothers driving luxury cars and leading lifestyles that mirror the rich and famous,'' he wrote, parroting Republican critiques of the program. ``Whether they are exaggerated or not, these stories underlie a broad social concern that the welfare system has broken down--that it only parcels out welfare checks and does nothing to help the poor find productive jobs.''

In 1996, Biden was one of 24 Democratic senators who voted for the welfare reform bill that President Bill Clinton signed, but which progressives and much of Clinton's Cabinet opposed. ``The culture of welfare must be replaced with the culture of work,'' Biden said on the Senate floor. Bruce Reed, who's now Biden's deputy chief of staff, was an architect of the legislation. He helped coin Clinton's pledge to ``end welfare as we know it.''

And yet, the first piece of major legislation Biden is poised to sign as president represents the largest expansion of the welfare state in decades. It even undoes some of the reforms Biden, the senator, helped enact.

The 1996 bill, for instance, imposed time limits and work requirements on money sent to parents to support their children. Biden's American Rescue Plan would at least temporarily resume sending money directly to impoverished parents without any strings attached--and some Democrats are already pushing to make the aid permanent.

The bill would also send poor and middle-class parents checks of up to $300 per child each month--a provision that the Biden team believes could dramatically cut child poverty.

The legislation won't recreate the welfare system that Biden voted to reform in 1996. Instead, it will expand the existing child tax credit for poor and middle-class families alike. The credit starts phasing out at $75,000 a year for single parents and $150,000 a year for married couples.

Part of Biden's evolution on welfare spending is tied to the pandemic and the massive economic hole that it has caused. But another part of it reflects the evolution the Democratic Party has undergone in recent years.

Once fearful of race-baiting rhetoric on supposedly lazy ``welfare queens,'' the party now is largely unapologetic about spending money to strengthen the social safety net.

``One of the side effects of the pandemic has been to change the profile of poverty in America,'' said Robert Reich, Clinton's Labor secretary who clashed with people like Reed over the welfare reform measure. ``It's no longer just `them,' people of color, people who conservatives accuse of taking handouts. It marks a huge shift in public policy from quite punitive welfare to giving needy families money.''

White House spokesperson Michael Gwin emailed a statement saying, ``As a Senator, Joe Biden worked to make welfare reform more progressive by supporting childcare and maintaining funding for children's health and safety, and as President, Joe Biden is meeting the unique crises we face by giving children and families a financial lifeline, reopening schools safely, and securing the resources we need to defeat the virus.''

Reed declined to comment.

Donald Trump, during his presidency, seemed to usher in a Republicanism that was more comfortable with spending more money on things past Republicans would have bashed as handouts. But so far Republicans in the Biden era are making a different calculation. They unanimously voted against the plan and are betting that the pandemic hasn't changed perceptions around welfare programs so completely.

On the Senate floor last Friday, Sen. Mitch McConnell blasted the welfare provisions in the package for paying ``people a bonus not to go back to work when we'll be trying to rebuild our economy.''

He added that: ``There's an effort to create a brand-new, sprawling cash welfare program--not the one-time checks, but constant payments--that ignore the pro-work lessons of bipartisan welfare reform and which the White House has already stated they want to make permanent.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Biden was one of 24 Democrat Senators who voted for the 1996 welfare reform bill that President Bill Clinton signed.

That bill imposed time limits and work requirements for welfare recipients. In fact, Biden's Deputy Chief of Staff was a key architect of the 1996 welfare reform bill and helped coin Clinton's pledge to end welfare as we know it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a New York Times article titled: ``Poverty, Plunging,'' from September 14, 2022. [From the New York Times, Sept. 14, 2022] Poverty, Plunging: Child Poverty in the U.S. Has Fallen by More Than Half Since the Early 1990s (By David Leonhardt)

When President Bill Clinton signed a bipartisan bill tightening the rules around welfare eligibility in 1996--and making many benefits conditional on work--critics on the political left predicted terrible effects.

A few members of the Clinton administration quit in protest. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned of devastating increases in child poverty. The New Republic proclaimed, ``Wages will go down, families will fracture and millions of children will be made more miserable than ever.''

A quarter-century later, these predictions look very wrong. As my colleague Jason DeParle wrote this week:

``A comprehensive new analysis shows that child poverty has fallen 59 percent since 1993, with need receding on nearly every front. Child poverty has fallen in every state, and it has fallen by about the same degree among children who are white, Black, Hispanic and Asian, living with one parent or two, and in native or immigrant households''

How did this happen? The 1996 welfare law turned out to be a case study of different political ideologies combining to produce a result that was better than either side would likely have produced on its own.

Some conservative critiques of the old welfare contained an important insight, Jason told me. Poor single mothers (the main beneficiaries of welfare) were better able to find and hold jobs than many liberals expected. Over the past few decades, increased employment among single mothers has been one reason for the decline in child poverty, according to the study, which was done by Child Trends, a research group.

But the biggest cause was an expansion of government aid. And progressives were the main force behind this expansion. With welfare less generous, Democrats (sometimes in alliance with Republicans) pushed for policies to help low-income workers, such as expansions of the earned-income tax credit and food stamps. Increases in state-level minimum wages also played a role.

``I don't know where I'd be right now if I didn't have that help,'' said Stacy Tallman, a mother of three and a waitress in Marlinton, W. Va., referring to Medicaid, tax credits and food stamps.

After welfare reform, the focus of the government's anti- poverty efforts shifted from people who weren't working to people who were--and, thanks partly to the generosity of the new programs, child poverty plummeted. The size of the decline, Dana Thomson, a co-author of the study, said, ``is unequaled in the history of poverty measurement.''

Dolores Acevedo-Garcia of Brandeis University pointed out that 12 million additional children would be poor today if the poverty rate were still as high as it was in the 1990s. The reasons to cheer this development are both immediate and longer term: Children who spend even modest amounts of time in poverty earn less money and are less healthy as adults on average, research has shown. Hiding in plain sight

I am guessing that many readers are surprised to hear about the big drop in child poverty since the 1990s. I'll confess that I was and I have been covering economics for much of the past two decades. As Jason told me, ``It is odd that such a big decline in child poverty has gone almost completely unnoticed.''

In part, the lack of attention stems from a theme I've mentioned before in this newsletter: bad-news bias. Journalists and academic experts are often more comfortable reporting negative developments than positive ones. We worry that we come off as blase or Pollyannaish when we report good news.

The poverty statistics add to the confusion because there are so many different versions. The measure that the Census Bureau calls ``official'' does not include government aid, which is bizarre, as Dylan Matthews of Vox has noted. And every measure has limitations. The one that Jason used in his story overestimates the impact of the earned-income tax credit and underestimates the impact of the food stamps, for technical reasons. (Neither alters the basic conclusion, as Robert Greenstein, a longtime progressive policy adviser, says.)

Still, I understand why many people are reluctant to focus on the poverty decline. The U.S. has not solved poverty. More than 20 million Americans are poor today, and many others above the poverty line also struggle to afford a decent life. As successful as President Biden has been in passing many parts of his agenda, Congress failed to pass several of his anti-poverty proposals. Those measures would have expanded access to child care and increased the child tax credit, among other things.

Despite these caveats, the decline in poverty deserves to be a major news story. For one thing, it's legitimately surprising: Even Jason--who has spent more time writing about American poverty than almost any other journalist-- acknowledges that welfare reform did less damage than he expected, in part because of the subsequent expansions of aid.

At a time of deep cynicism about government, the drop in poverty is an example of Washington succeeding at something big. ``The decline in child poverty is very, very impressive,'' Greenstein said, ``and it is overwhelmingly due to the increased effectiveness of government programs,''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, this article found that child poverty in the U.S. has fallen by more than half, 59 percent, since the early 1990s. When President Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform bill implementing time limits and work requirements, the far left predicted terrible effects. Twenty-five years later, these predictions have been proven wrong.

The simple fact is work requirements worked. Caseloads dropped, and families moved into the workforce and left the cycle of dependency.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the other side numerous times today say that we need to just pick up and pass a blank-check debt limit increase.

The United States Senate, which is controlled by the Democrats, couldn't even pass what President Biden and the House Democrats have been suggesting on this floor. If they could, they would have already passed it. Even Democrat Senators on the other side of the building said they will not support an absolute blank-check debt limit because they are concerned about the fiscal state of America.

Today, the contrast could not be clearer.

On the one hand, we have President Biden and Washington Democrats who have proposed zero solutions for getting America's fiscal house in order or addressing the inflation crisis. For months, they have delayed and denied real discussions while they fought to preserve special interest tax breaks for big banks, corporations, and the Chinese Communist Party.

On the other hand, Republicans stand with working families. We have an actual plan that will rein in runaway spending to fight inflation. It will save taxpayer dollars by canceling handouts to the wealthy and big corporations, and it will grow the economy.

The American people are sick and tired of business as usual in Washington. With today's vote, we are sending a message to the President: It is time to stop your reckless behavior and negotiate and stand up and talk with Congress and deliver for the American people. The American people are demanding it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source