[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 160 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6332-S6333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Tax Reform

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, not too long ago--I believe this was 
2011--a President came to a joint session of Congress and before the 
American people, he said what needed to be said about our Tax Code. He 
was pretty blunt. He said that our Tax Code is ``rigged.'' He said: 
``It makes no sense, and it has to change.'' Of course, you can 
imagine, that was met with bipartisan applause in the House Chamber and 
across the country.
  The same President called on Democrats and Republicans to ``simplify 
the system, get rid of the loopholes, and . . . lower the corporate tax 
rate''--one that, I might add, ranks among the highest in the 
industrialized world.
  That President, like the rest of us, knows that our business tax rate 
is a self-inflicted economic wound because businesses figure out, How 
can I move money offshore and my headquarters offshore, and if I earn 
money overseas, how can I avoid bringing that back to the United States 
for better wages and more jobs and to build the business? That is all 
because of our self-destructive Tax Code.
  But the President's name--and I gave it away by saying the year the 
speech was given. The President's name might surprise you, given the 
nature of the current debate in Washington. It was Barack Obama who 
said that, and the straight talk came from his 2011 State of the Union 
address.
  Let's fast forward a few years. We have a new President from a 
different party beating the same drum. President Trump has called our 
Tax Code a relic and a colossal barrier standing in the way of 
America's economic comeback. He is right, of course, but so was 
President Obama.
  Tax reform doesn't have to be partisan. In fact, it shouldn't be 
because the ramifications are much more important than just the 
politics and the scorekeeping of the day. The job creators in my State 
of Texas are the ones who really understand what is at stake because 
they are living it. They are the ones who are getting slammed by our 
current system.
  Take Lisa Fullerton, for example, who owns a small retail business in 
San Antonio, my hometown. Ms. Fullerton is an accountant with 33 years 
of experience, who used to handle her own business's tax compliance in-
house. Eventually, though, the code became too complex, and enforcement 
became too punitive, and she couldn't take that risk anymore. She said 
that her outsourcing of tax and employment functions now costs her 
small business roughly $280,000 more per year than it did in 2000.
  Lisa is far from the only one who is frustrated. Kurt Summers is the 
President of Austin Generator Service, a small residential power 
company in the Texas capital. For him, a lower tax rate would mean the 
difference between his company turning a profit or

[[Page S6333]]

a loss. It would literally make the difference between being able to 
keep the doors open or have to lock them up permanently. He explained 
that any extra profits realized through tax savings might enable his 
company to grow more aggressively. To him, the need for change is very 
simple. It means more hiring and more jobs.
  So Texans, like Alaskans and like all Americans, get the picture. But 
the picture is pretty messed up, and it doesn't make any sense.
  Greg Brown, President of W.W. Cannon, an industrialized storage 
company in Dallas, says that compliance has gotten to be a truly 
herculean tax. It has gotten so difficult that he has had to outsource 
that to a CPA--again, because it is so complex and people don't want to 
risk the burden of not doing it right because of the punitive nature of 
the penalties.
  Darryl Lyons, CEO of PAX Financial Group, has done the same thing. He 
is harmed each year by the passthrough taxes on his small business 
income, which impair his ability to save for business emergencies, as 
well as to pay off his company debt.
  Lastly, in terms of my stories here, Andy Ellard, the owner and 
general manager of a machine company in Dallas, regularly purchases 
expensive computer numerical controlled equipment to stay competitive 
in his industry. I have no idea what that is--computer numerical 
controlled equipment. He said that the tax ramifications of every 
purchase have to be considered. Almost every day, he asks: Can we 
expense it? Do we have to depreciate it? And if we do, over how long?
  Mr. Ellard isn't shy with his words. He calls the complicated 
deduction scheme for business expenses ``chaos.''
  Clearly, something needs to change. As I said at the outset, that has 
been acknowledged on a bipartisan basis by the current President and 
the past President. I even brought out some quotes yesterday or the day 
before from the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, making exactly the 
same argument. The ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the 
Senator from Oregon, said that lowering the corporate tax rate will 
make America more competitive globally and will bring money back home 
for jobs and investment in our country. So it is important for us to be 
consistent and, unfortunately, they haven't been.
  Things are starting to change. Last week, the so-called Big 6--led by 
Speaker Ryan; Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin; Kevin Brady, chairman 
of the House Ways and Means Committee; and the Finance Committee 
chairman, Orrin Hatch--released a unified framework that contains core 
principles for reform. Among them are a simplified rate structure, the 
elimination of the alternative minimum tax, and many itemized 
deductions and incentives for companies to keep jobs on American soil. 
Perhaps most importantly, the framework recommends what is widely 
agreed upon as overdue, which is lowering our uncompetitive corporate 
rate, which puts American employers and workers at a disadvantage.
  Today, it is sad but true that we are divided on many issues in 
America. But as President Trump and President Obama have suggested, tax 
reform does not have to be one of them.
  I listened to our friend the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, this 
morning, calling for bipartisan tax reform. They are going to have a 
chance to do that because, after we pass a budget resolution, I 
anticipate that in the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Hatch will 
call up a base bill known as the chairman's mark, which will be open 
for amendment in the Senate Finance Committee. That is what people have 
been asking for, a chance to participate in the writing of the 
legislation in the committee and then to have it come to the floor for 
open debate and amendment. It is what we call regular order around 
here. But what I am hearing from our Democratic colleagues is, yes, 
they want bipartisan legislation, but they don't want to participate in 
the process of writing. It strikes me as pretty hypocritical. This 
shouldn't be partisan, as President Obama and President Trump have 
demonstrated and as Democrats and Republicans alike have said time and 
again.
  We in Washington have no magic wand that will make our Tax Code 
suddenly disappear, but that doesn't excuse us from working to make 
taxes and tax compliance a little less painful.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.