Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 187 (Wednesday, November 15, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 187 (Wednesday, November 15, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7234-S7242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Tax Reform

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, for 8 years, working families have seen
their wages stay pretty much exactly where they were and, in some
cases, they have seen their wages go down and their income go down.
I will say again that the goal of this tax proposal should be to
immediately do what we can to see an increase in take-home pay for
those families and to do everything we can in the Tax Code to make us
more competitive, to see that they have better jobs to start with and
more competition for the good work they do.
Our Tax Code clearly is broken. It is taking money out of the pockets
of hard-working families and standing in the way of stronger economic
growth, and we can and should and must do something about that. That is
why the Senate is moving toward the passage of a bill that will address
that Tax Code from both ends--more take-home pay now, better jobs with
more pay to start with, and more take-home pay later.
According to the Tax Foundation, under the Senate's proposal, middle-
income families in Missouri will see an estimated increase of about
$2,400 in their aftertax income. When we consider the fact that nearly
6 in 10 Americans say they don't have enough savings to cover a $500
emergency or a $1,000 emergency, $200 a month really matters. There may
be people talking about how the Tax Code doesn't do enough of this and
enough of that, and at the higher end we should do more or we should do
less, but no family who is working hard every day in the middle range
of income in our country doesn't think that $200 a month makes a
difference to them. At another level--at the $50,000 level--I think for
that family, it is about $1,100 a year, so $100 a month makes a
difference as well.
This proposal would make our Tax Code simpler and easier to
understand by just simply cutting out all of the deductions that only a
few people are able to take advantage of so everybody looks at the Tax
Code and has more reason to believe that everybody is not only going to
be treated fairly, but everybody is being treated the same.
There are deductions in this bill we should keep where they are.
There are deductions like the child tax credit that we should increase.
In fact, the Senate proposal that that committee will start, with the
opportunity to amend further tomorrow--the Senate proposal doubles the
child tax credit to $2,000 per child.
Senator Klobuchar, my friend from Minnesota and the cochairman of the
adoption caucus, and I were on the floor yesterday, pleased to be
talking about tax credits, and certainly I am pleased to see that the
adoption tax credit continues to be in this bill.
The new mark also reduces individual rates. The current rate of 22.5
goes lower. The 25-percent rate goes to 24 percent, and the 32.5 goes
to 32 percent. What does that mean? That is all very complicated, but
what people know, or at least their accountant knows, is that everybody
sort of pays the same percentage on the first amount of income and then
they pay a little higher percentage if they make it into the second
bracket and a little higher if they make it into the third bracket.
When all of those percentages go down, the total tax benefit for
taxpayers is impacted by that.
There are direct benefits in this bill but also benefits that
continue to encourage small business. The estimation for small business
is that 97 percent of all business in Missouri are small businesses,
and the average tax cut for those businesses would be about $3,000 a
year. These small businesses are the engines that drive the economy.
They are the engines that drive growth. This bill understands that.
This bill understands working families who haven't had a break in
their paycheck in 8 years now, and it is time for them to be able to
take home more of the money they earn.
It is also time for us to do everything we can to see that they are
going to have more competition for the good work they do in the future.
More competition and more ability to compete with other countries and
other companies mean better jobs. That is what this is about. It is a
tax bill about families and jobs.
I look forward to everyone in the Senate having a chance to amend the
bill on the floor and to watch what I think has been a significant
improvement in the bill as the Finance Committee has had a chance to
look at it. They will have a chance to amend it.

[[Page S7235]]

Then we have a chance--those of us not on that committee--to look at
what they have done and see what we can do to make it even better
before we go to conference with the House and put a bill on the
President's desk. We will do that. I am confident we will be successful
here, and successful this year, in a way that matters to working
families.
I see my colleague from Colorado is here.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to join in a
colloquy with my freshmen colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I want to talk about the last time we did
tax reform, in 1986. In 1986, I was in the sixth grade. I had just come
back from Camp Cheley, from sixth grade camp. I think the Atari 7800
was the popular model that we all wanted for Christmas. I believe the
Ford LTD station wagon was rolling off the assembly lines that year.
``Top Gun'' was No. 1 at the box office.
That was 1986. It is important because that is the last time we did
tax reform in this Chamber. That is the last time we enacted
meaningful, comprehensive tax reform.
This Congress has an incredible opportunity before us today. Our
colleagues have an opportunity to grow this economy, to get wages
growing again, and to create opportunity for the American people that
they haven't seen in far too long.
Over the past decade, Americans have been working harder than they
ever have before, but they have watched as the haves have more and the
have-nots have less, and they are tired of it. We have seen stagnant
wages and work hours growing. That is what this debate is about. It is
about people who want to stand up for Coloradans and people around this
country to make sure we grow this economy so people can stop working
two or three jobs that they have to now just to try to make ends meet,
so they can finally start to see wages grow.
I am going to be joined throughout this afternoon's debate by the
class of 2014, Members of the Senate who were elected in 2014 as a
result of a message of economic opportunity--Senators from Georgia and
North Carolina and West Virginia and Arkansas elected because we
believed in an America that was growing again. We believed in an
America that didn't have to settle for second place, it didn't have to
settle for mediocrity or decline, but an America that with the right
economic policies, the right tax policies, we could lift the burdens
off the backs of the American people, off the backs of American
businesses, and get this country back to work. That is what this debate
is about.
Over the past several weeks, we have heard a lot of debate about what
the Senate bill is going to be, what the House bill is going to be.
Over the past several years, the Senate Finance Committee has held over
70 committee hearings on the issue of tax reform, countless reports,
paperwork done, economic models to show what this tax reform needed to
look like. We have had open debates from both sides of the aisle, a
chance to say how do we reduce the tax burden on the American people
and get this economy moving again.
What the Senate has come up with is a package that is estimated to
create 1 million jobs across this country--1 million jobs across this
country--according to the Tax Foundation. In Colorado, that means a
$3,000-plus increase in average aftertax income. If you don't think
$3,000 is a heck of a lot of money to people, look at the statistics.
The statistics show that the average American family--a significant
percentage of them; percentages of American families--don't have 24-
hour access to just a few hundred dollars. They can't find--they don't
have access to just a couple hundred dollars in a 24-hour time period.
One-third of Americans, if they had to come up with $500 today, it
would be a fiscal crisis for their household.
We are talking about an opportunity to grow wages. In fact, the Tax
Foundation says a 4.4-percent increase in average aftertax income will
occur as a result of the Senate bill.
I will yield to my colleague from Georgia. We are going to get this
easel out of his way, but first I want to show one chart that shows how
wage growth can happen.
If you look across the world and you see nations that have low
statutory tax rates and you see nations that have high statutory tax
rates, you will see that those nations that have the lowest statutory
corporate tax rates see the highest wage growth. People who work in
these countries with low statutory tax rates, they see the highest
average wage growth. Countries with high statutory tax rates--this red
line right here--their wage growth is less than 1 percent. Do you know
where the United States falls? The United States falls as the highest
statutory corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Our wage
growth is at the bottom.
Low tax rates result in high wage growth. This fight is for the
middle class of America. This fight is for hard-working American
families. This fight is to grow wages across the State of Colorado,
from the Eastern Plains to the Western Slope, and around the country. I
hope all of us will be engaged in this fight.
I am going to turn this debate over to our colleague from Georgia who
has experience in business and who understands how taxes work and who
understands how to make sure he is providing for the people of Georgia.
Mr. PERDUE. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from
Colorado. I will not tell him what I was doing in 1986, the last time
we adjusted the tax rate, but I just want to remind our colleagues
today that we are in a moment of crisis in the United States.
Today we have a national debt crisis. I have been to this floor many
times, and many of my colleagues have as well, to talk about this debt
crisis. It affects our ability to do the things that we know are right
to do--to deal with the victims of hurricanes, with national security,
and with our healthcare situation.
Folks, we are losing the right to do the right thing.
To solve this national debt crisis, we have to do many things. But
one of the ways we can deal with this debt crisis--and one of the first
things we have to do--is to grow our economy. The way to grow the
economy is to roll back regulations, unleash our energy potential, and,
yes, finally, once and for all, fix this archaic tax system, which
keeps us from being competitive with the rest of the world.
In 1986, we had the third lowest corporate tax rate in history, in
the world, and over the next 15 years we benefited from that. But at
the same time, the more our economy grew, the lower the tax rates were
taken in the rest of the world. Today, American businesses are taxed at
one of the highest rates in the developed world: 35 percent. Meanwhile,
for example, Japan's statutory corporate rate is just 23 percent;
Germany is at 16 percent; Mexico is at 30 percent; the U.K. reduced
theirs in 2009 from 30 percent to 19 percent, and they are about to go
to 17 percent as we speak. As a matter of fact, the average rate in
Europe is just 18 percent, while in Asia the average corporate tax rate
is 20 percent.
Why is the corporate tax rate so important to an American worker? The
corporate tax rate we have in America is the greatest burden the
American worker has today. Why? Because it makes that American
corporation less competitive with the rest of the world. It also makes
that American corporation vulnerable to foreign acquisitions of U.S.
companies and then the moving of those headquarters and factories and
jobs offshore.
The No. 1 thing we can do for the American worker is to become
competitive from a tax standpoint with the rest of the world. I have
lived this. I have lived in Asia; I have lived in Europe. I have worked
here most of my career, and I know when this gets out of balance, and
it is out of balance today. We are penalizing the American worker
because of it.
It is no secret, a lower corporate tax rate would make us more
competitive globally. Our tax plan fixes this. We are one of the last
countries that still has a tax on unrepatriated earnings. In other
words, if we have a U.S. company that makes money overseas, it pays
taxes over there; when they bring it over here, they have to pay tax
here. We are the last country in the world that really has double
taxation. We need to end that repatriation tax so

[[Page S7236]]

that we can free up almost $3 trillion of U.S. profits overseas and
bring them back and invest in training, in plants, in facilities, and
in research and development. Our plan makes that happen.
We have an individual tax code that is 2.4 million words in length.
Let me say that again: 2.4 million words in length. Wasn't that the tax
simplification law of 1986? I think it was. It is 2.4 million words in
length. That is ridiculous, and it is entirely too complex. We all know
that. Our plan will fix this.
It is also estimated that, if we can get it enacted, this tax plan
will create over 1 million new jobs because of the changes that we are
enveloping into this Tax Code right now.
In addition, it is estimated that the GDP growth will be more like
3.7 percent, instead of the 1.9 percent we have become used to over the
last 8 years. Frankly, I believe there is no reason it can't be
significantly more.
We are getting closer to getting this done, but I realize there is a
lot more to do. It is more important now than ever that we don't get
bogged down in this Washington dysfunction and gridlock.
Last week, I mentioned that many Democrats supported the changes we
are talking about in the Tax Code, right up until President Trump took
office. In fact, over the last several years--in fact, over the last
several decades--many Democrats on the other side of the aisle and
people in their place before agreed.
This is not a partisan issue. This is about national security, if you
want to get right down to it. It is about making America competitive
again. Who would be against that? There are decades of quotes from
Democrats and Republicans about this issue. This should be a bipartisan
issue.
In 1963, a very famous American made this quote:

A tax cut means higher family income and higher business
profits and a balanced federal budget.
Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left
over after taxes. . . . Every businessman can keep a higher
percentage of his [or her] profits in his [or her] cash
register or to put it to work expanding or improving his
business, and as the national income grows, the Federal
Government will ultimately end up with more revenues.

That noted American was President John F. Kennedy, in 1963. If he
were here today, I think he would admonish all of us to put our
partisan bickering aside and get something like this done for the
American people.
Another quote:

I think [the corporate rate] should be lowered. We should
try to get it as close to the international average as we
can, so we'll [once and for all] be competitive.

That was Bill Clinton last year, 2016.
Another quote:

Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use
the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first
time in 25 years.

That was President Barack Obama in 2011, believe it or not. This is
not a partisan issue.
There are more minority party leaders in the House and the Senate who
have also come out and spoken on this point:

Today, 28 OECD countries and every other G-7 country has
adopted some form of territorial tax system--and all these
countries have lower corporate tax rates than the United
States. This means that no matter what jurisdiction a U.S.
multinational company is competing in, they are competing at
a disadvantage.

That was the current Senate minority leader in 2015. This is not a
partisan issue.
Another quote: ``It is long past time for tax reform that would lower
the corporate tax rate.''
That was House Minority Leader Pelosi last year. This is not a
partisan issue.
This tax bill is being done under regular order, including a
committee markup this week, with plenty of amendments, and it will go
to the floor as soon as we can get it there for debate and more
amendments.
I urge all my colleagues: Let's put partisan politics aside once and
for all and collaborate through the amendment process to do something
historic, something that American workers deserve, and that is to
become competitive with the rest of the world again. Renew your support
for the same tax changes your party has supported for years.
I want to close with another quote from an individual I have long
admired, President John F. Kennedy, in 1962.

I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut
deficit and a budget surplus. It is between two kinds of
deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted
result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a
temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut
designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and
achieve, I believe--and I believe this can be done--a budget
surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and
weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.

Again, these are words from President John F. Kennedy, while he was
President, in 1962. This is not a partisan issue.
Our tax plan is an investment in our future, just as John F. Kennedy
said. It is an investment that will help all Americans.
I know there is a lot of disinformation going on: This is only a tax
break for the wealthy, and so forth. When the facts come out--and they
have already come out; four Pinocchios have been given to those
comments. Our tax plan will prove that when we get into the details.
Equally important, getting this tax plan done to help all Americans
is a critical part of developing a long-term plan to solve the national
debt crisis.
I am proud to serve here with my colleague from North Carolina,
Senator Tillis. I think, in North Carolina, they actually did this, and
they had the results we are talking about here.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia and my
colleague from Colorado for their comments--and the future comments of
some of my colleagues who are in the class of 2014.
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to talk a little bit about facts and
fiction and some of the things we will observe here. In fact, I think
probably the Kennedy Center is the only place you can go to see a
bigger theatrical performance than what you are going to see on this
floor over the next couple of weeks, because they are simply not
consistent with what we are trying to do here, and I want to talk a
little bit about it. Let's start with some of the fiction.
I was just presiding before I came off the dais about 30 minutes ago,
and I heard a 30-minute speech from someone who said that they haven't
seen the bill, said that it had been passed in the dark of night, that
it is not being discussed in committee. But then they went on to have a
30-minute description of why the bill is bad
How could you not have seen something and have such a definitive
position on the provisions of the bill? To me, it is just curious.
Here is something that is even more curious. There are so many
Members--many of them friends--on the other side of the aisle who are
simply making a false claim that we are somehow going to raise taxes on
working families, the middle class. Why would that make sense? What on
Earth would the voters of the United States and my voters in North
Carolina do to me next year if I came out and declared victory because
I raised taxes on middle-income and working families? It doesn't make
sense, and it has been proven to be false.
The Washington Post has a rating system they use. They call it the
Pinocchio system. One Pinocchio means you are probably stretching the
truth a little bit; four Pinocchios means there is not a shred of truth
in what you are saying. These claims about raising taxes on working
families and middle-income families earned four Pinocchios; they are
fiction.
What we are trying to do is provide a tax break to the people who
need it the most--to the people who are trying to pay their bills,
struggling to go to school, actually struggling just to pay the rent.
That is what this tax bill is about. This tax cut is about getting the
economy back on track so that we can also drive up wages.
Not only do we want to provide you with more money in your pocketbook
and in your wallet at the end of the month by reducing your tax burden,
but we also want to make it more likely that you are going to make more
money, you are going to get a better job, and you are going to have
more income at the end of this process. I firmly believe that it will
work.
Let's talk about the facts of this plan. The facts are that we have
to have tax relief. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in
the world. There is no way the greatest economy that has ever existed
should

[[Page S7237]]

be one of the least welcoming and least hospitable to job growth. That
is why we have to reduce the corporate tax rate.
We also have to reduce the tax rate on small businesses. Eighty
percent of all jobs created in North Carolina are created by small
businesses. The people whom the gentleman from Colorado referred to as
``the rich people'' are small business owners who actually file their
taxes through their individual income. So perhaps they have a fair
amount of revenue, but a lot of it has to go to pay for the business,
and a little bit is left behind for them and their families and their
employees. We have to reduce the tax burden on small businesses so that
they can create more jobs and, hopefully, some day, become very large
businesses--hopefully, corporations--creating more and more jobs and
more opportunities for more workers.
At the end of the day, the middle-income tax break is going to be
somewhere between $1,500 and $2,000 a year. It will vary a little bit
from State to State, but that is a lot of money in these very difficult
times. More important than that are the opportunities that will be
created through economic growth. That is what I will leave you with. I
have seen this happen.
First, I have seen the false claims before. They were waged against
me when I was the speaker of the house in North Carolina, and we had
the courage in the middle of a fiscal crisis to cut taxes and grow
jobs. We had all the liberal media, and we had some of my good friends
on the other side of the aisle whom I agreed with on many other issues
but who disagreed with us on tax reform. But in North Carolina, no one
is complaining about the tax reform results. In fact, we have one of
the fastest growing State economies in the United States today, after
being in the fourth quartile just 5 or 6 years ago. We have seen our
median incomes go up, and we have seen a number of people lifted out of
poverty at high levels. I know it works.
It is not easy, but it is a promise we made to the American people
last year, and it is a promise we are going to keep--this Congress is
going to keep--in the coming weeks. When we do this, then we can start
working on an economy that can pay down the debt and make sure that
these young people who are pages here and the young people here in the
gallery right now--you may not know this, but you owe about $70,000, on
average, to the Federal Government. That is your share of the national
debt. I don't want you to have to pay it back.
I want an economy that is growing, that can ultimately resolve our
debt problem. But you can do it only by producing growth, you can do it
only by becoming economically competitive, and you can do it only by
lifting the tax burden on businesses and working families so that money
can flow back through the private economy and out of the coffers in
Washington.
I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this bill. I look
forward to voting for the bill. I know it is going to produce a result
because I have seen it produce a result in my experience as speaker of
the house. It will work for America. It will be one of the great things
we are going to do in this Congress.
At this point, again, I thank my colleagues. I am going to pass it
off to the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it does not take a genius to see that
something is stalling the American economy. The economy has been better
lately, I think, frankly, in anticipation of the Congress's passing
these tax cuts. The fact remains that 2016 was the 11th straight year
that our economy--the greatest economy in the history of the world and
the strongest economy in the history of the world, even when it has the
flu--failed to achieve 3 percent annual growth, which has been our
average every year since 1960.
Something is wrong. The experts I have talked about tried everything.
They tried monetary policy, changing interest rates. They tried deficit
spending. Do you remember President Obama's stimulus program? The
Federal Reserve has tried quantitative easing out the wazoo. The
experts have tried everything except what they should have done first;
that is, to let the American people keep more of the money they earn,
because they can spend that money they earn better than the government
can.
We have two groups of policymakers in Washington, DC. I am sorry, but
this is what it has come down to. I am not talking about liberals or
conservatives. I am not talking about Republicans and Democrats. The
two groups I am talking about are as follows. We have one group of
policymakers in Washington who believe in more freedom, and we have
another group of policymakers in Washington who believe in more free
stuff.
I am not criticizing policymakers for wanting to help people who are
less fortunate than us. The fact of the matter is that the U.S.
taxpayers at the State and the local levels spend $1 trillion a year
helping people less fortunate than us. That money didn't just fall from
heaven. We thank heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets. We
spend $1 trillion a year in our country helping people who are less
fortunate than us. In our country, if you are homeless, we house you.
If you are hungry, we feed you. If you are too poor to be sick, we will
pay for your doctor. I am very proud of that. I am not criticizing. In
fact, I join my colleagues in wanting to help people who are less
fortunate than us. The fact of the matter is, it takes money, and that
money is generated by the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer is
not generating very much because the American taxpayer is not making
very much.
Let me talk to you about the middle class.
I can talk about the business side of this bill, and this is going to
help every business in America. It is going to help C corps, LLCs, Sub
S corps, family farms, and single proprietorships. It is going to help
large businesswomen and businessmen, and it is going to help small
businesswomen and businessmen.
But I want to talk about the personal income tax side. This bill will
give a tax cut to just about every American. Our opponents can probably
find one or two people under certain circumstances who aren't going to
get a tax cut, but the fact remains, if you look at the numbers of the
joint committee on the budget, if you make between $20,000 and $30,000
a year on average, you are going to get a 10-percent tax cut. If you
make between $50,000 and $70,000 a year, you are going to get right
around a 7-percent tax cut. If you make $1 million or more a year, you
are going to get roughly a 5-percent tax cut. As for the middle class,
we can debate what the middle class is, but I consider the middle class
to be somewhere between $30,000 and $100,000 a year. You can pick your
own definition. They are the ones that I am concerned about the most--
not exclusively, but the most. Let me tell you what this bill is about
in terms of the middle class: this, the wallet--their wallet--because
the middle class is angry in this country, and they ought to be angry.
Every day, they say: Kennedy, I get up every day. I go to work. I
obey the law. I pay my taxes. I try to do the right thing by my
children. I try to teach my kids morals. I try to save for retirement.
But I am getting fed up.
They tell me: Kennedy, I look around, and I see a rigged economy. I
see too many undeserving people at the top getting bailouts, cutting
corners, and making deals. I see too many undeserving people at the
bottom getting handouts. I am in the middle, and I get stuck with the
bill. I can't pay it anymore, Kennedy. My health insurance has gone up,
thanks to the Affordable Care Act, and my kids' tuition has gone up. My
taxes have gone up. I will tell you what has not gone up--my income.
These are the American people, the middle class. They are busy
earning a living. They may not read Aristotle every day, but they are
smart and they get it. They know the median household income today is
basically the same as it was in 1999, and for that, every policy maker
responsible for that fact in Washington, DC, and elsewhere ought to
hide their heads in a bag.
This bill is going to fix that, and that is why it is so incredibly
important that we pass it. Yes, it is important for our business
community. Yes, it is important for the large corporations. Yes, it is
important to repatriate those trillions of dollars. But at the end of
the day, it is important primarily for ordinary people, you and me--the
people

[[Page S7238]]

who get up every day and go to work, obey the law, pay their taxes, and
made this country great. They have hurt long enough.
Mr. President, I yield to my colleague from Colorado. We call him a
silver-tongued devil because he is so eloquent.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Louisiana for
that, and I recognize the Senator from West Virginia for comments on
why this is important to the country.
Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Colorado for his
leadership in bringing us, the class of 2014, to the floor to talk
about the commonsense tax reform measure that we have, the opportunity
of decades to make a difference--a big difference--in many of the lives
of the people we represent. I would even say most lives.
This is about the sixth time I have been to the floor to talk about
what I think is the best tax reform package I have seen in my time here
and also the different aspects of tax reform that I think are great for
the country and great for my State. I represent a small State, the
small State of West Virginia.
I have talked about small businesses and families and what it means
for them--simplification and creating a competitive environment. But
there is nothing like going home and talking to people, whether we are
at the grocery store or, as in this past week, when we were all in
Veterans Day parades. People are generally so respectful and very happy
at a Veterans Day parade. I can't say the same for every parade, but I
will say that for the Veterans Day parade, they are generally pretty
happy. I was really surprised because I had several constituents--not
just one or two but several--say to me: Pass this bill; we want tax
relief.
It was totally unsolicited. So West Virginians are paying attention
to what we are doing in the Senate.
Right now, our colleagues on the Finance Committee are working to
advance this bill as early as tomorrow. We are very hopeful that we
will be able to consider this bill on the floor of the Senate the week
we get back from Thanksgiving, as our colleagues in the House are
passing their bill this week. Do you know what? It has been
disappointing to me and really to everybody, I think, involved in this,
as tax reform has become a partisan issue, an exercise. We have shared
goals. We all want to go to the same place in this country--a
prosperous place where everybody can thrive and succeed--but to turn
your back on what I think is a well-thought-out, much studied plan on
tax relief, I think, is to turn a blind eye to every working American,
every American business, and every American family, and, personally, I
don't think it is fair.
Our goals are shared by many Americans, regardless of their party,
because we want to grow small businesses. I am in a State where 95
percent of our businesses are small businesses. We want to allow those
small businesses to make the decisions to grow employment opportunities
or raise wages. We want to make our bigger companies competitive
globally.
People say: You know, what is a big company really going to do for
me, working and living here in West Virginia?
I think if we looked at the major companies that are invested in our
State, we know that making those companies more competitive will result
in those companies creating more jobs, investing more capital, buying
more products, and raising wages for workers. So making our companies
competitive globally is exceedingly important.
I have heard many of my colleagues say that statistics show that many
American families can't even come up with $400 for an emergency
expenditure in their family. That is almost a flat tire and the towing
expense to get your car fixed so you can go to work or take your kids
to school or get to your job and get to your church. I think the tax
reform bill in the Senate meets many of these objectives.
The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has found that the bill
would provide tax relief to Americans in every single income category,
with the largest percent--and this was after working the bill over
several months--going where it should go, which is to the middle-income
earner.
The Tax Foundation has also found that with the Senate bill, as many
as 925,000 new jobs can be created. That is significant. That is
significant because, I believe, some of those jobs--and I would hope a
great deal of them--would land in the great State of West Virginia.
In West Virginia, the studies showed that the average middle-income
family would gain $1,952 in after-tax income, and the job creation for
the State of West Virginia would be 4,784 jobs in our State. For some
people, that might not sound like very much, but in our State, that is
significant. It is almost 5,000 more jobs. I will take them. We will
take them, and we will provide good workers for them, too. And $1,900
more from your taxes is a major infusion of cash into a family, to make
the decisions they want, which they make around their kitchen tables,
not the decisions that we are making here on the floor.
Yesterday I heard from members of the West Virginia Chamber of
Commerce. Steve Roberts, who is the president of that group, said that
the current system is full of ``negative consequences'' and reduces a
business's ability to hire new workers, invest in inventory and
equipment, and boost employee pay.
These are the hallmarks. What he is saying here is that the
``negative consequences'' are the hallmarks of what we are fixing and
what we are reforming in this bill. He noted:

Employers are eager to grow, reinvest and reward employees
with better wages. We hope Congress will act quickly to
reduce and simplify taxes ensuring a stronger [and] more
economically vigorous nation.

This is something I don't think we talk about, either. If we had
economic security in our families and economic security in this
country, we would be stronger in a lot of ways that go beyond being
stronger economically. In your family, if you have a decision that you
have to make and you have to come up with some emergency funds, if you
have to borrow or try to figure out a way to make ends meet, it makes
you feel weaker. If you can do it yourself, you are stronger. That is
what we are doing in this bill.
Also, I want to talk about the transparency here. We are hearing
criticisms that this is coming in the dead of night, that nobody has
ever heard of it. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Finance
Committee alone has held 70 hearings on this since the year 2011.
Senators from both parties have had the opportunity to weigh in,
experts from both inside the Capitol and outside the Capitol. Right
now, it is undergoing a full markup in committee, and the House has
gone through the same procedure. This has been done in the total light
of day. This is how legislation is made. So I am very pleased that
these tax reform principles in this bill are moving through our Senate.

We know that the President is very enthusiastic about this. He will
sign a bill that will grow our economy and benefit whom he wants it to
benefit and whom we all want it to--middle-income families.
Each Senator has a choice here. We all have our choices. My friends
from South Dakota and Oklahoma and Louisiana and Colorado, who are on
the floor with me, as well as the Presiding Officer, who is from
Arkansas, have choices every day. You can either cling to the status
quo and say that, yes, everything is working well or you could really
grab this and say that this is good--this is good policy; this is good
politics; it will make our country stronger and our families stronger.
This will help our small businesses thrive, create more jobs, and raise
wages. Above all else, this will benefit our families. I think that it
allows for more growth and more opportunity.
The people whom I represent want this. They want to have more of
their money at the end of the day to be able to make their own
decisions. They want their good, hard work rewarded. They want to see a
country that grows and is optimistic and is strong and powerful.
Economic strength can give us that.
I just heard from a 70-year-old postal worker from Wheeling, WV. He
wrote to me: ``The Senate needs to get these tax cuts and tax reform
done.'' That is the simple way that most people communicate in this
country. I understand that. I hope our friends on the other side of the
aisle understand that.

[[Page S7239]]

It would be great to have us join together as a Senate, as a country,
to do something we know is going to have the right consequences and the
right results of growing this country and providing the relief that
people want with a well-studied process, with well-researched data, and
with the power of the American people behind us.
Thank you.
I now yield to my colleague from Colorado and thank him again for
leading this.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
I ask unanimous consent that at 2:50 p.m., Senator Rounds be
recognized as the leader of the colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, our economy has been stuck between 1.4-
and 1.9-percent growth over the last 10 years. Compare that to the 10-
year cycles before that, over and over again, all the way back to the
Great Depression. Every group in a 10-year block was at 3 percent or
more growth. Literally, we have had half the growth in our economy over
the last 10 years than we have had in any 10-year time period, going
all the way back to the Great Depression. We have to be able to deal
with that.
I hear people over and over again say that regulations are choking
our businesses and are driving up the cost of products for consumers.
Yet our Tax Code is full of loopholes, and it is full of confusion. It
is complicated. When I go through to fill out my individual taxes, it
seems as though there are deductions for everybody else but for me, and
people want to get that fixed. Quite frankly, no one likes paying
taxes, and everyone wants to make sure that whatever taxes they pay are
spent efficiently and are the lowest possible. I cannot tell them that
right now because the spending is not on track and is not efficient. I
also cannot tell them that they are as low as possible. We need to fix
that.
The tax reform that we are discussing in the Senate right now deals
with some very basic things. It begins with more take-home pay for
individuals. You can either be paid more by an employer or you can be
taxed less by the government. Either one of those increases the take-
home pay. This solves the ``tax less'' by the government so that
individuals can have more take-home pay--around $100 a month. That is
serious money for most Oklahomans to have going back to their families.
The way that happens is by starting with the standard deduction that
doubles, which is $24,000. To say it flat, if you make between zero and
$24,000 as a family, you wouldn't have any tax at all on that first
$24,000. That is a great help. Your tax does not even begin at all
until after $24,000. You would be in that zero percent bracket.
We double the Child Tax Credit. For families who are raising kids, it
is exceptionally helpful for them to have a larger tax credit.
Then we take out the individual mandate in ObamaCare.
We have already had folks who have asked: What does ObamaCare have to
do with tax policy?
Let me tell you, very simply, that the individual mandate is a tax.
That is what the Supreme Court labeled it as, and that is what
individuals understand it to be. If you don't buy the type of insurance
of which Washington, DC, approves--and you may sign up for different
insurance--you will get an additional tax penalty on your taxes.
Who pays for that?
In Oklahoma, 81 percent of the people who pay the individual mandate
tax penalty make $50,000 or less a year. It is a tax aimed directly at
the middle class.
I think that this is unfair. We want to remove that tax penalty from
the middle class and say that they do not have that penalty and that
they are allowed to buy insurance they can actually afford.
What does this mean for jobs?
If small businesses have a better Tax Code and their passthroughs,
then they are able to hire additional people. That means more jobs.
Based on where our economy is right now, the unemployment rate has
continued to drop over the last several years. At the spot it is right
now, that means that there is more competition; there is more hiring;
and more people have to compete for those jobs. That means that
employers have to pay a little bit more money to get the people to be
able to do it. That raises wages for people all around the country and
means additional people who are not working will actually get back to
work. With more people working and actually paying taxes, it pays for
itself.
Getting a growing economy going is essential to us. The way you do
that is you take care of the Tax Code for small businesses, and you
take care of the Tax Code for corporate businesses.
I have had folks who have asked me: If you drop the corporate rate
from 35 percent to 20 percent, what does that really do?
Again, it allows those big companies, as well as the small companies,
to hire more people, to engage in more investment, to build more
factories, and to buy more machinery. That is what it allows them to be
able to do to grow their businesses. Yet, on the international stage
right now, our Tax Code is 35 percent. Compare that to those in other
countries that are somewhere around 22, 23, 24 percent. Some of them
are less than that.
Let me make this simple. If you are going online to buy a shirt and
if you can see that shirt for $20 on one website or $35 on another
website, where do you buy the shirt? It will probably be from the one
that is selling it for $20. If you are starting a business or founding
a business, and you can go to one spot where the tax rate is 20 percent
or to another spot where it is 35 percent, guess where you will found
the business. It will be where it is lower.
We are the higher rate right now. If we don't fix that, businesses
are going to continue to move overseas. We can make fun of them in the
news. We can yell at them and tell them that they are un-American, but
they are going to continue to move where they pay less, exactly as
every American does with his online shopping. That is fixable.
In the middle of all of this, we have to deal with the debt and
deficit. We cannot ignore that reality. The things that I am still
going through in the proposal that we are working through right now are
the things that are unrealistic in the proposal because, at the end of
the day, we have to get the economy growing again, but we have to deal
with half a trillion dollars in overspending from this government right
now. We can do both. We have to be able to do both.
I am encouraging this body to take seriously a proposal to be able to
deal with how we get our economy going again. Let's figure out how to
get it done, and then let's actually solve this for the American
people.
I yield to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Oklahoma for
his remarks.
Once again, he has talked about some commonsense solutions to our tax
challenges in the United States today.
At this time, I recognize Senator Cassidy, of Louisiana, for his
thoughts concerning what we have to do to fix our tax challenges within
our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, the last 8 years were really hard for a
lot of families. They have seen their wages stagnate and their benefits
not go up. Indeed, what they have been paying for health insurance and
flood insurance and many other things has risen even though their wages
have not. So the goal of this bill is to decrease taxes on those
middle-income, working families in order to give them the opportunity
to have better wages, better benefits, and to bring relief to
situations that are peculiar. Are they peculiar to Louisiana? No, they
are not peculiar to Louisiana, and I will elaborate on that in just a
second.
What could middle-class families in Louisiana do with better wages?
They could pay off debt. They could provide more for their children.
They could just live life a little bit more robustly and not have to,
perhaps, move out of one home and into another because they can no
longer afford the mortgage on the first. The goal of this is, first, to
bring tax relief to working families and middle-class families. It is
all part of an effort to cut taxes particularly for them.
Now let's talk about raising their wages. Folks want to have more
money in their take-home pay after taxes, but

[[Page S7240]]

they also want to have higher wages and better benefits. This bill
definitely creates that.
Our current Tax Code encourages companies to move overseas. When they
earn money overseas, they keep it there and build plants and factories
in other countries. They employ folks in other countries but do not
bring that money home, employ Americans, or raise wages or give better
benefits to those Americans. This changes that. Not only do we have tax
cuts for the middle class, for working families, but we also encourage
businesses to invest here, to create better paying jobs here.
I have heard some say: Well, wait a second. Unemployment is low now.
Why does it matter?
Now is the time when workers most benefit if there is investment that
creates more opportunity for those here in the United States. If there
is a worker who is a welder and if he can either work here or there,
businesses are going to bid for his services. They are going to pay
more to get him to work. As they do that, just from supply and demand,
wages will go up for the average American worker, for the average
American family. Benefits will rise for those families, and the
children of those families will have more opportunity. This is what
that is about.
There is another way in which we bring relief to those middle-income
families. Part of what we are doing here is repealing the mandate of
the Affordable Care Act. Americans hate the government's telling them
what to do. Yet, as part of the ObamaCare mandate, it tells someone:
Even if you cannot afford that insurance, even if you don't buy it, we
are going to make you pay a fine.
In 2015, more than 100,000 folks in Louisiana paid a fine for not
having health insurance, and 37 percent--almost 40 percent--of those
folks had an adjusted gross income of less than $25,000; 78 percent had
less than $50,000. Think about this. The families who report incomes of
$50,000 or less cannot afford insurance, and they are having to pay a
fine because they have not. They are not millionaires or billionaires.
These are families who are trying to make ends meet, who make a
decision because the exchange policies are too expensive for them to
buy, and now they are getting fined. This is part of the relief we are
bringing to those working families by getting rid of that mandate.
Lastly, there is another form of relief. Louisiana had its great
flood of 2016, which was similar to Maria, Irma, and Harvey, but this
was an unnamed storm that affected tens of thousands of people. Through
this bill, we bring disaster relief to the folks in Louisiana. They
will be able to deduct their losses from their incomes, which will
allow them to rebuild their homes and allow them to rebuild their
businesses. As they rebuild those businesses, it will allow them to
employ those who need jobs so that they may rebuild their homes and
their lives.
This bill will cut taxes for those families. It will increase their
wages and bring relief not only from economic stagnation but also from
a natural disaster that was one of the most expensive storms in our
Nation's history.
I am very pleased that this bill is advancing, and I look forward to
it being passed. I look forward, most of all, to the increased wages,
lower taxes, and the relief that it will bring to those families in
Louisiana.
I now yield the floor to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cassidy for his words.
Senator Cassidy is also a Member of what we call our bear den, the
class of 2014. He came here with the idea of getting things done.
Another Member of the class of 2014 who is with us today is the
Senator from Alaska, Mr. Sullivan. Senator Sullivan comes with a fine
and distinguished career in his having worked in the U.S. military, but
he also has a strong interest in seeing economic development in the
United States continue. He recognizes the need for tax relief.
At this time, I turn to Senator Sullivan.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Rounds, and I appreciate
all my colleagues coming down to the floor. A lot of my colleagues are
from the class of 2014.
Mr. President, there has been a theme in this colloquy. We have been
talking about economic growth and about this challenge of what I have
been referring to as a lost decade of economic growth. When talking
about tax reform, we have to go back through the history and see what
is meant by a lost decade.
I have been coming down to the floor for a couple of years now with
this chart. This chart says a lot. This chart looks at the history of
the United States and where we have been with regard to economic
growth. It is bipartisan--Democratic and Republican administrations--
showing decade after decade, starting with Presidents Eisenhower,
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and what this chart states is that right now,
something is wrong.
When we talk about GDP growth, GDP growth is a proxy for the health
of the economy. Unfortunately, we have had a sick economy. GDP growth
is a proxy for the American dream, and unfortunately I think that a lot
of people over the last 10 years started to worry about whether it was
something that can be obtained.
Let's look at the chart. Every administration, Democratic or
Republican, shows strong levels of growth. My colleagues were talking
about at least 3 percent or higher since the Great Depression. Some of
these years, during Kennedy and Johnson, right here, the red line is at
3 percent, which is not great, but it is pretty good. Looking at Reagan
and Carter, there were years in which we were growing at 4, 5, 6, and 7
percent.
The pages are looking at this chart, and they don't even know what
that means. They don't know what that means because of what has
happened over the last 12 years. Boom. Look at this. Everything is
under 3 percent for the entire Obama administration years. It never hit
3 percent GDP growth--not once.
We want to talk about what makes America great. If we want to see
what makes America great, look at these years of growth. It doesn't
matter whether it was Democratic or Republican--3, 4, 5, 8 percent
during the Johnson administration. Now look--3 percent.
What is surprising to me is that nobody talks about this issue.
Nobody talks about this issue of a lost decade of growth. Certainly,
unfortunately, my colleagues--I have been here 3 years. I don't think I
have heard my colleagues once come down to the Senate floor and say:
Holy cow, we have to fix this lost decade of growth, this sick economy.
The proxy for the American dream is going away, and nobody talks about
it.
Former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently wrote
a book titled ``What Happened.'' Well, I think what happened is that
there has been no growth for over 10 years, and nobody was talking
about it. I think a lot of people in this country said: I am not going
to throw away the American dream.
I believe in the American dream. The American dream means we have to
start growing at traditional levels of U.S. economic growth, at least
above this depicted red line of 3 percent. I am optimistic because
right now, for the first time in a long time, this body is very focused
on this issue with policies that will hopefully get us there, including
tax reform, regulatory reform, taking advantage of our huge energy
opportunities, and many other measures. That is why this discussion and
this debate we are having now with regard to tax reform is so
critical--tax relief for middle-class families, tax relief for small
businesses. And this bill, as we have heard, has many provisions that
we think are going to help jump-start this economy and get us back to
at least 3 percent growth, at least this number where the red line is
that we haven't seen in well over a decade.
The kinds of policies that we are pursuing now, that the White House
is focused on--tax reform, energy, permitting reform--I would think and
hope that every Member of this body views this as probably the most
important thing we can do--growing the U.S. economy with policies that
have widespread support across the country. They certainly have support
in my State of Alaska.
I am also optimistic because the Trump administration is off to a
good start. This chart goes to the end of the Obama administration, and
we can see that we never came even close to 3 percent. But the last two
quarters of 2017,

[[Page S7241]]

we actually hit 3 percent--3.1 percent and 3 percent. We are off to a
decent start.
But this body must do much more, and I am hopeful that my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle will come down and talk about how
important this is because every American agrees with this. Growing the
economy again and tax reform are going to be critical components of
getting us there.
I say to Senator Rounds, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few
words on this important topic. We will be down here again, but growth,
growth, growth has to be what we are focused on.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank Senator Sullivan from Alaska. Once again, he comes in from the
class of 2014.
We have a specific request to basically talk about what we see as
being the appropriate way in which we create a healthy economy.
I see that our colleague from Iowa has arrived, and if our colleague
from Iowa, Senator Ernst, would care to speak, we would love to have
her do that as well.
Part of what Senator Sullivan has shared with us today is the move to
get back to a growth of 3 percent, and in doing so, not only does that
begin to move back into what most Americans would consider to be a
healthy economy in which they can actually see their own families doing
better, but we will also see better movement in terms of shortfalls in
revenues coming into the Federal Government.
With that, let me welcome to the floor Senator Ernst of Iowa, who
also is a Member of the class of 2014.
Senator Ernst.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mrs. ERNST. Mr. President, thank you very much.
Mr. President, I appreciate the point made by the Senator from South
Dakota, and I am glad to join in this conversation this afternoon.
About a decade ago, the worst economic recession since the Great
Depression devastated our middle class households and families across
the country. In its aftermath, our economy consistently underachieved.
Last year, the United States saw less than a 2-percent increase in
the amount of goods and services we produce. The reason is our stagnant
economy, which suffers from an outdated tax system that stifles
economic growth through high tax rates and an unreasonable compliance
burden. Small businesses, which I am partial to because they make up
about 97 percent of employers in Iowa, are taxed as much as 44.6
percent on their profits. Every year, these job creators spend over $18
billion just to comply with Federal tax laws and regulations.
Middle-class families and individuals around this country need some
relief. By streamlining our cumbersome tax system and eliminating
loopholes that primarily benefit the wealthy, Congress has an
opportunity to lower tax rates for middle and lower income wage
earners. Likewise, by creating a more competitive tax system for
businesses, we can foster greater growth and investment in the United
States and boost wages for more Iowans.
Tax reform also provides Congress with an opportunity to lead by
example and offer up its own unnecessary tax break. That is why I
introduced the Stop Questionable, Unnecessary, and Excessive Allowances
for Legislators Act, also known as the SQUEAL Act. This legislation
would eliminate a provision of the Tax Code that allows Members of
Congress to deduct up to $3,000 annually in living expenses that they
incur while in Washington, DC. As we seek to achieve the ultimate goal
of lowering rates for families and small businesses, Congress should
start by eliminating handouts to our politicians.
It is long overdue for our country to pursue a simpler tax code that
provides much needed relief for hard-working Iowans and that puts our
economy back on track. I look forward to working with my colleagues on
a path forward that reduces the burden of a complicated tax system--the
burden that is placed upon our families, our hard-working individuals,
and our small businesses.
With that, I will turn the floor back over to the distinguished
Member from South Dakota, and I thank him for accommodating the Members
of our class. We are hopeful that we will be able to move forward with
smart, effective tax reform.
Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
express my appreciation to the Senator from Iowa for her remarks. Once
again, we call this midwestern common sense.
Let me finish this colloquy today with a few thoughts.
First of all, we want tax reform, but what we want first is a
healthier economy. That is what the people of the United States want.
They want the ability to compete. Over the last 10 years, there have
been 4,700 businesses that have left our shores and moved overseas. The
reason is that they can survive better by leaving our country and going
someplace else because of the tax consequences of doing so.
When we talk about the direction in which we want to go in this
country, we want the people of America to understand that our goal with
this entire package is to make things better for the American public.
That means a healthier economy for them. It also means, by doing so,
that they will see the bottom line in their own pockets--more money
that they can spend that otherwise would go to the Federal Government.
At the same time, businesses that may have left and taken their jobs
and the opportunities to invest their dollars--we want them back in the
United States again, hiring more people and paying better wages. We
think that over the last 10 years, the American public hasn't seen
those higher wages because the competition for jobs has moved offshore
into other parts of the world where there is a more competitive tax
climate.
There is something else we have to point out. We recognize at the
Federal level that we have a deficit and that we have not been able to
break that deficit.
Today we have a deficit that is in excess of $500 billion. Out of the
$4.1 trillion in total payments that are out there, that we spend on an
annual basis, our omnibus bill, as we call it--that is for the defense
and nondefense discretionary side of the formula--we vote on $1.1
trillion of the $4 trillion. There is about $3 trillion that is
automatic, that is on auto pilot--Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,
interest on the debt.
If we want to close that gap, then we have to see an economy which is
growing, an economy which can support the programs that we believe are
necessary, the safety nets that we in America have decided are very
appropriate for those who have no place else to go. If we want to close
the deficit, we need to have more revenues coming in. The only way we
can pick up more revenues is by having an economy that is strong enough
to support that.
By actually reducing taxes, we bring in more businesses, and those
businesses will make more profits. We are able to lower the rate of tax
on profits, and that is returned to the American people in a number of
ways--a lower tax burden through lower personal income taxes and
through subchapter C and S corporations, through lower business taxes.
Finally and just as importantly, in terms of how we support the
operations of government, we support that because with a growing
economy, the revenue coming from that growing economy can be utilized
to eliminate the debt, which is a threat to our national defense.
Mr. President, at this time, I thank my colleagues who have patiently
worked their way through this process. I also thank the Senator from
Colorado for beginning this colloquy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I was very pleased to be here for the
remarks of my colleagues and friends, and I would just respond by
saying that we are all for growth. We are all for growth of the
American economy. I think, on this side, we are just a little bit less
sure that you grow the economy by growing the share of the economy that
goes to the superrich and to big corporations or that you grow the
economy by growing benefits to corporations that move jobs from America
overseas, and I am pretty confident that on our side we don't believe
the

[[Page S7242]]

solution to the deficit is a tax bill that raises the deficit.