[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 207 (Tuesday, December 19, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8083-S8085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          REPUBLICAN TAX BILL

  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  I rise to talk about the tax debate that the Senate is currently 
having. I wish to highlight some of the reasons why I think this bill 
is bad and, frankly, focus on the missed opportunity that we are about 
to embark on when we could have found a much better project.
  Let me tell you a story from when I was mayor. I was mayor of 
Richmond. I know my colleague from Oklahoma was mayor as well. I had a 
city council colleague who introduced a seemingly benign bill. It was a 
bill to limit the number of dogs and cats that anybody could have at 
their residence.
  Now, pursuant to the city rules, we had to post this resolution in 
the newspaper for a couple of weeks so that citizens could read it, and 
we had a public hearing where any citizen who wanted to speak for or 
against the resolution had the opportunity to do so. Then, the city 
council members debated, and then we had a vote. It turned out to be a 
little more controversial than the council member originally 
contemplated.
  When I was mayor, the minor little debate in the Richmond City 
Council about the number of pets you could have at your residence 
received more openness and transparency and discussion and debate than 
the vote that we

[[Page S8084]]

will have within a few hours or days about the entire Tax Code of the 
United States.
  Instead of doing a bill openly and deliberately, with a lot of public 
input, and ultimately reaching for a bipartisan result, we have moved 
hastily, in secret, and in a partisan way. In my view, that is the 
reason why the end product is going to be so discouraging.
  We had a vote in the Budget Committee to move this tax bill forward. 
It was interesting. We actually voted before we discussed it. The bill 
was on everybody's desk. The chair decided that we would vote, and only 
later would we talk about it. That would never have been done at a 
Richmond City Council meeting.
  We had a full audience of citizens who wanted to be heard, and they 
were not given an opportunity. That would not be done at a Richmond 
City Council meeting. Some of the citizens started to sort of protest 
and get angry, get mad, and shout. When that happens in a committee 
meeting, I cringe because it is a violation of the decorum I expect. 
But what choice do they have? This is only a tax reform that affects 
the entire American economy, every American family, and every American 
business, and they feel shut out of the process.
  The first version of this bill that was live was released to the 
public in the Senate on Thursday, November 9. The current version, 
which is the fifth version of the bill, was only released last Friday 
night, 4 days ago. So this bill to completely rework the U.S. economy 
moves from introduction to passage over just 41 days with multiple 
versions, often with handwriting in them and handed out at the last 
minute before votes.
  The last time this body did comprehensive tax reform in 1986, the 
Senate had 36 days of public hearings over 10 months. This plan has had 
zero--zero public hearings. When the Finance Committee refuses to allow 
a hearing, when the Budget Committee forces a vote before the members 
even have a chance to express their opinions, is this really what the 
Senate wants to be known for? The stakes couldn't be higher.
  I think in the end it is highly unlikely, but I still hope at the end 
we might decide to do this the right way and not the wrong way, because 
when you approach the process the wrong way--quickly, secretively, in a 
partisan way, without public input or hearings--you get a bad bill. 
This bill, in my view, is a bad bill.
  The benefits in this bill overwhelmingly accrue to folks who are at 
the top end, who frankly don't need your help. Eighty-three percent of 
the tax plan's benefits go to the top 1 percent earners in this country 
because of giveaways like increasing the estate tax threshold and 
altering the alternative minimum tax.
  If you make over $1 million, you will get a collective tax cut of 
$36.9 billion just in 2019. Those who make over $1 million will see 
their taxes go down by that much.
  Massive tax cuts go to foreign individuals who own stock in American 
companies. Just in the first year, about $48 billion go to foreign 
individuals because of their ownership of stock in American companies. 
To the contrary, millions of middle-class people are hurt.
  By 2027, on average, every income group below $75,000 will face a tax 
increase, and 92 million households--the combined population of 
probably 20 States--earning under $200,000 will face net tax increases 
in this bill. That is over half of all households in the country.
  The working poor get hurt especially. The working poor who have the 
most to lose and the least margin will get hurt. By 2025, this bill 
would reduce the after-tax incomes of households with incomes below 
$40,000, while it would boost the after-tax incomes of households with 
incomes over $1 million.
  I want to assume in charity that the hurting of the working poor and 
the helping of folks at the top is a result of haste rather than 
design. We could take the time and get this right.
  These analyses that I just indicated are done by the nonpartisan CBO, 
whose director is from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 
which is widely known as a very conservative economics department, and 
also by the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Tax Policy Center. All 
of the analyses come to virtually the same conclusion: The bill 
dramatically increases the deficit to the tune of $1.4 trillion over of 
the next 10 years. It will lead to millions of people falling into the 
ranks of the uninsured. The CBO says 13 million.
  For my own Commonwealth, there are a number of provisions that are 
particularly harmful. We are one of the top five recipients, or 
claimants, of the deductibility for State and local income taxation. 
Virginians are going to be hurt because of the reduction of the 
historic tax credit.
  Why couldn't we work together? Why couldn't we work together to try 
to do something that would be right, as President Reagan and Congress 
did in 1986?
  Now, 16 Democrats and 1 Independent stood up a few weeks ago, and we 
said: We are ready to work with Republicans on tax reform. You have 
former Governors who have done bipartisan tax reform. You have former 
tax commissioners who have worked on tax issues. We said: We are ready 
to work with you to make this better.
  Every one of us in that group has worked on bipartisan tax reform. I 
have done it as a mayor, and I have done it as a Governor. I know how 
to do it, and I have ideas, but nobody was interested in a single one.
  The late Friday night that we voted here, I put an amendment on the 
table to show my Republican colleagues our good faith and saying: We 
will work with you. I stood up, and, of course, I was only given a 
minute to make an amendment. The process said that even though it is 
the entire American economy, you only get 1 minute. I stood up, and I 
said: I can't fix the bill in 1 minute, but I can do a couple of 
things. I can reduce the deficit impact by $1 trillion, and I can make 
every middle-class tax cut that is temporary in this bill permanent. I 
can do those two things--permanent middle-class tax cut and reducing 
the deficit by $1 trillion--if you will agree with me to do the 
following: Don't touch the AMT or top individual rates and reduce the 
corporate tax rate, not to 20 percent but to 25 percent--from 35 to 25.
  Thirty-four Democrats voted for tax reform for the reduction of the 
corporate tax rate from 35 to 25, making middle-class tax cuts 
permanent, and reducing the deficit by $1 trillion, but not a single 
Republican--not a single one--would vote to make the middle-class tax 
cuts permanent and reduce the deficit. We still want to work on it. We 
could still make it better.
  As I conclude, I will just note, again, that it was notable that when 
President Reagan did tax reform as President in 1986, this didn't get 
50 votes or 50 votes plus a tie-breaker--51 votes. In this body, the 
greatest deliberative body in the world, the Reagan-era tax reform got 
97 votes because they took the time to have the hearings and hear from 
the public, and they took the time to incorporate great ideas no matter 
the party of those who offered it.
  President Reagan said, as he was embarking on that: ``It should not 
be a partisan debate, for the authors of tax reform come from both 
parties, and all of us want greater fairness, incentives, and 
simplicity in taxation.'' He was right then, and that remains true, and 
yet this is a process that is not incorporated--either the thoughts of 
the public or the thoughts of the Democratic minority.
  I will say this, as I close. The GOP is not measured by who it says 
its hero is. Most of my GOP friends have posters of President Reagan or 
pictures of President Reagan. They talk about him as a personal hero, 
but you really are not measured by who you say your hero is. You are 
measured by whom you act like. This is not a President Reagan-era tax 
reform. This is not the way President Reagan would have done tax 
reform.
  This is a President Trump bill. A last-minute change in this bill--a 
very important last-minute change that only came in at the very end--
would directly benefit President Trump and his family by further 
exploiting a loophole to give real estate developers more money. This 
was on top of giving him relief on the estate tax and the alternative 
minimum tax. At the last minute, there was one last change made that 
was specifically designed to help President Trump make even more. No, 
this is not a Reagan-era tax reform

[[Page S8085]]

bill. This is purely a product of President Trump.
  It follows what he does: Say one thing and do another. Claim to help 
the middle class but actually hurt them. Say it is not going to help me 
or wealthy people when it actually does. I am not surprised by the 
President, but I am surprised at many of my colleagues here because we 
could have worked on something and not have missed an opportunity that 
would have been far better for the American economy. It is still my 
hope that we will.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. First of all, Mr. President, as to my very good friend 
from Virginia--and he is a very good friend--I think he needs to reread 
this bill.
  Now, I am older than he is and most of the people around here, but I 
do remember the Reagan tax cuts. This is a Reagan tax cut.
  I listened to the other side and a lot of the liberals on the other 
side, because there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans, 
and we understand that. But they come out and say: Oh, it is always 
class warfare. It is always that they are doing this for the rich. The 
rich are going to get richer. Well, that is not the way this worked 
out.
  There is a group called the National Tax Foundation. The National Tax 
Foundation did an analysis of this, and they did it State by State. In 
my State of Oklahoma, the average family of four will get an increase 
in their take-home pay of $2,000. Now, where does it come from? There 
is the standard deduction, for example. The Senator talked about this 
being for the rich. This isn't for the rich. The standard deduction 
actually goes from $6,000 to $12,000. If you are married, it is from 
$12,000 to $24,000.
  There is the child tax credit. We are all concerned about the child 
tax credit. Several Republicans wanted to do even more than that. Right 
now, as the law is, it is $1,000, but it is going to be increased after 
this is over, after we vote. After we have a major tax reduction, that 
child tax credit will go from $1,000 to $2,000 per child. That is a 
huge thing. That is not for the wealthy.
  I listen sometimes when they talk about how this is going to increase 
the deficit. I have to tell you, though, that I remember very well. In 
fact, I remember so well. I have given speeches over time. Reagan 
reduced taxes twice. One was in 1981 and one in 1986. In 1986 and 1981, 
the total amount of revenue that came into the Federal Government was 
$469 billion. He had a huge reduction in rates. Yes, the top rate went 
down from 70 percent to 50 percent, then the others went down in 
accordance with a similar percentage.
  Now, what happened to that was that, while the total amount that came 
in before the tax cuts was $469 billion, afterward, it was $750 
billion. The same thing happened in 1986. In 1986, the total revenue 
that came into the Federal Government was $569 billion. At the end of 
that period of 10 years that they were measuring, it was $1 trillion.

  Now, the problem is, the other side is always saying that our 
deficits increased during that time period. Yes, they did, but I have 
to say this: It was not because of Ronald Reagan, it was because the 
House and the Senate were run by liberal Democrats, and as fast as the 
increase in revenue came in, they were spending not just the increase 
but even more.
  So that is one of the differences now. I anticipate that we are going 
to have a conservative House and Senate for the years to come, and we 
will just have to wait and see what is right.
  I do agree with my friend from Virginia, though, in one respect; that 
is, he and I both had the hardest job in the world. You never know what 
a hard job is until you are mayor of a major city. There is no hiding 
place, and if they don't like the trash, it ends up in your front yard.

                          ____________________