[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 158 (Tuesday, October 3, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6270-S6271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Tax Reform

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I mentioned how our colleagues 
across the aisle and, of course, some groups outside of Capitol Hill 
have predictably started attacking tax reform, actually a plan that 
doesn't even yet exist in legislative language. With the fall season 
now upon us, they have decided to shoot arrows at a straw man.
  One would think, given their effusive support for tax reform in the 
past, our Democratic friends would at least wait to review the 
legislation before they pounce on it. I had hoped that they would work 
with us to come up with a bipartisan plan, but I guess I am not 
entirely surprised. That has never stopped them before from pillorying 
smart policy when it served a political end.
  Yes, they are already piling on, spreading misinformation, and 
assuming the worst because that is the easy and politically expedient 
thing to do. The problem is that many of the criticisms of our 
framework have been misleading and counterproductive. Worse, some 
Members seem more content to misconstrue a plan than to understand it 
and give it a fair hearing.
  Allow me to clarify the record for just a moment. What is most 
striking is that the new framework unveiled by the so-called Big 6 
shares many of the core features of previous plans that were widely 
embraced by Democrats--not only that, but many of the folks who are now 
critical of the new plan came out in support of these provisions as 
recently as this year. The senior Senator from Oregon is typical in 
this regard. In response to our framework, he said that ``this is a 
far-right Republican scheme to endow future generations of the mega 
wealthy and leave what amounts to crumbs for the middle-class behind.'' 
That is kind of a breathtaking allegation. Those are indeed strong 
statements, but the American people are smart. The American people 
realize that the plan our colleague from Oregon is criticizing is 
similar to the one he sponsored and promoted in 2011.
  Let's get the facts straight. The Senator from Oregon had previously 
sponsored a plan in 2011 with our former colleague, Senator Coats of 
Indiana, called the Wyden-Coats plan. Here on the left is the Big 6 
framework that he described.
  Let me read that again. He said that ``this is a far-right Republican 
scheme to endow future generations of the mega wealthy and leave what 
amounts to crumbs for the middle-class behind.''
  Well, here is the framework he was criticizing by the language I just 
provided, and here is his plan in 2011. Each of these plans--the Wyden-
Coats plan from 2011 and the one we are considering now--is based on 
three individual tax rates. Both the plan the Senator from Oregon once 
supported and the one we are now discussing, the framework, would 
collapse seven tax brackets in the current system down to three, vastly 
simplifying the Tax Code and the burden of complying with that Tax Code 
by ordinary Americans. Each plan would also eliminate the alternative 
minimum tax. It vastly increases the standard deduction. The Wyden-
Coats plan would have tripled it. The Big 6 framework, which he 
criticized, doubles the standard deduction, making it so that a married 
couple who earn $24,000 or less would be essentially in a zero tax 
bracket.
  So my question is, What has changed, other than the political party 
of the President in office? These changes to our Tax Code used to be 
noncontroversial, and certainly not partisan.
  The Big 6 plan isn't just similar to the Wyden one, though. It also 
shares key features with the so-called Simpson-Bowles plan from 2010, 
which not long ago was embraced by a number of Democrats, including the 
current minority whip, the Senator from Illinois.
  Here is a comparison of the so-called Big 6 framework and the 
Simpson-Bowles plan. As you can see, there are a lot of similarities: 
seven brackets collapsed into three, eliminating the alternative 
minimum tax, and eliminating a number of itemized deductions or so-
called base broadeners. It enhances the child tax credit, and it lowers 
the corporate rate.
  These proposals were once a no-brainer for Republicans and Democrats 
alike. So why the change in tune? Our Democratic colleagues used to 
think these reforms were long overdue. They were right then, and they 
are wrong now.
  None other than the Senate minority leader, our colleague from New 
York, has said: ``To preserve our international competitiveness, it is 
imperative that we seek to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 
percent.'' That was the Senator from New York in 2012. He said: ``This 
will boost growth and encourage more companies to reinvest in the 
United States.''
  He was absolutely correct in 2012. He is entirely wrong now to change 
his view and suggest that this is somehow a wrong way to approach 
getting the economy growing again and encouraging businesses that have 
earned money overseas to bring that money back home and invest it in 
businesses and jobs and pay for American workers here at home.

  We do need to change incentives, and we do need to spur growth. That 
is why the new framework we are considering will create a new tax 
structure for small businesses, allowing them to better compete.
  Once upon a time, none of this was particularly partisan, and many of 
our colleagues across the aisle got the picture. Our colleagues from 
Ohio, Minnesota, and Missouri have all said in recent years that we 
should lower the corporate tax rate, not because we love corporations 
but because we recognize that provides incentives for them to stay here 
and invest in jobs and businesses in America rather than overseas. But 
it also makes it more likely that hard-working Americans will be able 
to find a job and that the jobs they hold will actually pay better 
wages. Thanks to our reduction in individual tax rates, they will 
actually have more take-home pay. As some have pointed out, this 
literally would raise their standard of living and make it possible for 
them to provide for their children's education, maybe buy a reliable 
car so that they can go back and forth to their job every day, maybe 
buy a home, or perhaps save for their retirement.
  There is nothing partisan about wanting an updated and more 
competitive tax code that will incentivize businesses to keep jobs on 
American soil. That is what the so-called reduction in the corporate 
rate will do.
  Right now, we have the highest corporate rate in the world, so many 
businesses have simply picked up their roots here in America and have 
moved overseas to countries that have lower tax rates because they 
simply can't rationalize to their shareholders, to whom they have a 
fiduciary duty, paying higher taxes and remaining in the United States. 
So they take it overseas.
  Even for those who stay behind--because of our extraordinarily high 
tax rate and the fact they literally would have to pay double taxes for 
income earned abroad and brought back to the United States--they pay 
the tax rate in the country where the money is earned, bring it back to 
the United States, and have to pay twice. So they pay 35 percent on top 
of whatever they have to pay in the countries where the money is 
earned.
  Is it any wonder, for example, that IBM--I read this last weekend--
actually has more jobs in India than it does in the United States? Let 
me say that again. IBM, the global computer company, has more jobs in 
India today than it does in the United States. I have no doubt that has 
to do with certain incentives the country will pay to companies to 
invest and to build their business in their country, and, no doubt, it 
has to do with access to skilled labor. That certainly has to be a part 
of it, but there can be no doubt that our Tax Code is simply 
encouraging companies like IBM to shift more of their work overseas. 
Even if they wanted to bring the money they have earned overseas back 
to the United States, they would have to pay twice. So what do they do? 
They simply invest in their workforce, they simply invest in their 
business in another country, much to our detriment.
  If something is broken, which our Tax Code is, it needs to be fixed, 
not

[[Page S6271]]

avoided. Our Democratic colleagues need to once again acknowledge this, 
as so many of them did when it came to our outdated Tax Code, as I 
pointed out. There is no reason why tax reform can't be bipartisan, and 
if our colleagues just returned to some of their statements, which I 
have highlighted here--if they returned to those policies in a 
bipartisan fashion and worked with us, we could change our Tax Code for 
the better. We could make it simpler. We could make sure individuals 
have lower tax rates so they could have more take-home pay from the 
wages they earn and, in the process, improve their standard of living 
for themselves and their families. Finally, we could become more 
competitive in a global economy where the highest tax rate in the world 
does not serve American interests well. It doesn't serve the interests 
of American businesses well, and it doesn't serve the interests of 
American workers or taxpayers either.
  We can do this. All it takes is political will. All it takes is 
approaching this in a fashion that benefits all Americans on a 
nonpartisan basis. I hope our colleagues will listen.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.