[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 194 (Wednesday, November 29, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7377-S7379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               TAX REFORM

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who are on the Senate

[[Page S7378]]

Finance Committee and the Senate Budget Committee for getting us to the 
point we are at today. I think we are approaching a vote to move to a 
full debate on the tax bill, which is absolutely amendable with every 
idea that has anything to do with taxes and raising money, so people 
will have every right to be heard.
  It has been a process that has gone on for a long time. But what we 
have seen happen over the last three decades--after an incredible 
effort in 1986 to simplify the Tax Code, to bring it up-to-date and 
make it competitive, what we have seen is a tax code that gradually has 
become more and more complicated.
  There are too many loopholes that don't seem to be fair to everyone 
involved. Sometimes, it is not as much the tax rate you are paying, as 
your understanding that somebody else has figured out--in a competitive 
business or not even the same business--how to find that tax loophole, 
which meant they weren't paying their fair share of taxes.
  Our Tax Code depends on a sense of fairness. It depends on a sense of 
equity. The out-of-date Tax Code means that some of the rates--
particularly in international competition that might have been just 
fine 30 years ago--simply aren't fine today. Other countries have 
continued to reduce their taxes. They understand, as many of our States 
do in this country, that a tax policy that works means an economy that 
grows. Many of our competitors have figured that out. Right now, we 
have a chance to join them and figure it out as well.
  There is a chance here to make a generational change that will last, 
I would hope, at least for a generation, as the structure. We can do 
that by lowering corporate rates. In 1986, 35 percent was kind of in 
the middle of the countries we compete with. In 2017, it is at the very 
top of the tax structure of the countries we compete with. Even though 
they are well below us now in terms of the tax burden they put on 
companies that compete with us, they are lowering their corporate rate 
already. Even the middle will soon be the top, as it turned out to be 
in the last three decades. At least this gets us back to the middle.
  We will shift to a territorial system where, if you make money in 
another country, there is no penalty to bring it back here. There is no 
doubt that we will bring hundreds of billions of dollars back to the 
U.S. economy if we pass this bill. Some of the estimates say that we 
may bring $2 trillion back.
  We have had a stimulus plan in the past decade in which every family 
got $100 or something like that and thought that was a big stimulus. So 
a $1 trillion stimulus or $2 trillion stimulus is unbelievable. That 
money has been sitting someplace else; companies have wanted to invest 
it here but weren't going to bring it back under the old tax system. If 
they had brought it back, their shareholders would probably have 
removed them from leadership in the company because it simply would not 
have been good business. It will be good business to bring that money 
back if we pass this bill.
  We are also going to allow immediate expensing that says: I am going 
to spend the money now and get credit for it now. Those kinds of things 
grow the economy. It will make us more competitive worldwide. It will 
grow investments. When those two things happen, higher paying jobs have 
always followed and will follow here.
  We have been stuck for 8 or 9 years now with no growth in family 
income for hard-working families. The way to change that, No. 1, is to 
take some of the tax burden away right now, and we are doing that in 
this bill. But, No. 2, we need to be sure we create more competition 
for the hard work and skills that workers take to the workplace every 
day.
  We know that growth stemming from tax reform will have a positive 
impact on voters, and they will see a share of what is happening in the 
economy that, frankly, they haven't seen in the past. Families in your 
State and families in my State need this kind of opportunity, and job 
creators need this kind of relief.
  Just last month, the Council of Economic Advisers estimated that the 
average household income would increase by $4,000 annually, based on 
reducing the corporate rate to 20 percent. The economy, of course, will 
grow in response to that.
  Another study by a Harvard professor and former Reagan adviser, 
Martin Feldstein, found a 20-percent corporate tax rate would deliver a 
wage boost of about $3,500. So whether it is $3,500 by one estimate or 
$4,000 by another estimate, that makes a real difference to families 
who haven't seen an increase in their pay in a long time.
  This bill is supported by a majority of small businesses--the real 
engine that drives the economy. There is a section called 179 
expensing. Any time you start talking like a CPA, you are in trouble. 
But that 179 expensing for small- and medium-size businesses, family 
farms, and others, lets you expense immediately when you have added to 
investment--when you have bought a piece of farm equipment, something 
like that. All of that is enhanced in this bill.
  I don't think accounting is the most exciting thing to talk about in 
the world, but this allows for the kinds of accounting measures that 
businesses say they need to really simplify how they report and how 
they do business. And that is right here.
  There are some specific Missouri examples, just as there are in every 
one of our States. Jim Sheldon owns a business called DT Engineering, 
which is a manufacturing company in Lebanon, MO. They produce 
industrial automation systems. When Jim was interviewed by the National 
Association of Manufacturers and asked what tax reform would mean to 
his company in terms of investment, hiring, and growing his business, 
he said:

       More business! Bringing work back to the [United States] 
     will increase order rates, inventory, and development. This 
     will create growth for DT Engineering.

  Jim also said that benefits from tax reform will allow him to 
``reinvest to reinvent.'' Spending more money in what they are doing 
and figuring out ways to do it better is how to compete.
  Mike DeCola, who owns a business called HBM Holdings in St. Louis, 
was interviewed by NAM. Remember, this is the National Association of 
Manufacturers; these are people who make things, and any time we get 
into that economy and strengthen that economy, we strengthen take-home 
pay. But he was interviewed by NAM. He was asked what this tax reform 
would mean to his business, and he said: ``Tax reform will unleash 
investment not just for us, but for our customers.'' That is where his 
quote ends, but that is a really important point to understand. When 
everybody is doing better, whatever you are doing is likely to get 
better as well. Not only does the business get better for you, but, 
suddenly, the people to whom you sell things are more interested in 
also innovating, investing, and improving.

  The Senate bill also recognizes a couple of tools that really help us 
go in and revitalize areas that are not doing so well. One is called 
new market tax credits. New market tax credits have provided an 
effective incentive for the private sector to invest in communities 
outside the economic mainstream. These are usually communities that 
already have the water system, the electrical system, the sewer system, 
and the sidewalks, but they have buildings that no longer serve the 
purpose they used to serve, and the new market tax credits look at 
those buildings and other areas.
  In our State of Missouri, the new market tax credits have financed a 
sauce manufacturer in Hazelwood; a heating system manufacturer in Cuba, 
MO; a plumbing fixture manufacturer in Kansas City; a training center 
for sheet metal workers in St. Louis; the first grocery store in more 
than a generation in Pagedale, MO; and a lot more things beyond that. 
This bill recognizes that.
  It also acknowledges the importance of historic tax credits. I was 
talking with Patt Lilly from St. Joseph about that. He made the point 
that St. Joseph is an older community, a historic community. The 
western movement and the wagon trains outfitted there 150 and 175 years 
ago. The Pony Express started there. The stockyards thrived after the 
Civil War.
  Those old buildings--many magnificent buildings--didn't have the kind 
of uses they used to have, but over the past 10 years, historic tax 
credits have leveraged almost $100 million in redevelopment in those 
older buildings.

[[Page S7379]]

Housing developed there. Businesses developed there. They restored and 
revitalized distressed areas of the city.
  A recent example is the restoration of the German American Building 
by Mosaic Life Care in the St. Joseph downtown area. That is a building 
that wouldn't have been able to be saved without some special 
assistance, which was made available because of historic tax credits. 
Again, not only was the historic building saved, but all of the 
services that were already there and served that building that wasn't 
being used now serve a building that is being used, and they don't have 
to be replaced.
  The bottom line is that this is a bill that will create a better 
future for American families and a better future for American jobs. 
This is an opportunity to do something that is hard to do, and it only 
gets done once every 25 to 30 years. This is the moment. It is time to 
do this.
  We will have a debate on the floor that allows everybody to make 
every reasonable amendment. I don't mean reasonable in that it might be 
reasonable to do it, but reasonable in that it deals with taxes and you 
figure out some way to pay for it. So you do something here, and you 
add something there. That is what this debate will be. We have talked 
about this topic now for years and intensely for months. It is time to 
get this job done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The Senator from Michigan.

                          ____________________