[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18619-18620]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               TAX REFORM

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, before she leaves the floor, let me say 
to the Senator from Maine that I very much appreciate her thoughtful 
views. She continually talks about the desire to get folks to come 
together. I think there are a variety of ways to do it. That is 
essentially what I was going to outline this afternoon. I just want to 
assure my good friend from Maine that I am very much looking forward to 
working with her on this issue and thank her again for her kind 
remarks.
  Madam President and colleagues, I think we have a choice.
  We can continue to have this debate at the margins about how to 
extend a thoroughly discredited, insanely complicated, job-killing 
system that we have today or we can find a way, as Democrats and 
President Reagan did back in the 1980s, to come together and put in 
place a reform system that will create, in my view, millions of good-
paying, new jobs, the way Democrats and Republicans in the 1980s came 
together and created more than 16 million new jobs.
  To pick up on this discussion, I think there is a message for 
Democrats and Republicans together on this issue.
  This question of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax legislation has 
almost become a tax version of ``The Emperor Has No Clothes.'' We all 
know this story and have read it to our kids. It's about two swindlers 
spinning a tall tail about magical, invisible cloth. The emperor and 
his ministers and all of his

[[Page 18620]]

subjects get so caught up in the story of the magical and invisible 
cloth that it takes a child to point out what everybody should have 
seen was obvious: The emperor has no clothes.
  The fact is, when we look at extending the 2001-2003 tax laws, what 
we will see at the end of the day is from the standpoint of creating 
good-paying jobs and the opportunity to grow the economy, the emperor 
really doesn't have any clothes. The numbers don't add up.
  When tax policy was partisan between 2001 and 2008, there was only 
2.3 percent payroll expansion, 3 million new jobs, and real median 
income fell by 5 percent. Yet that is what we are hearing on the floor 
of the Senate ought to be extended.
  I say to my good friend from Pennsylvania, his State, as has mine, 
has been pounded by this economy. How can we explain to our 
constituents that we are extending a policy that based on the facts, 
not on political rhetoric, produced such anemic payroll expansion, such 
a modest number of new jobs, and a loss of real median income. I don't 
think we can explain it to folks in Pennsylvania and Oregon.
  What I do think we can explain that gets us away from this ``Emperor 
Has No Clothes'' situation is what happened in the 1980s when a big 
group of Democrats and Republicans came together and changed the 
discussion about taxes. Instead of Democrats and Republicans beating up 
on each other, it became the people against the special interests and, 
in effect, leading Democrats such as Dick Gephardt and Dan Rostenkowski 
and others joined with the President to point out the inequities. And 
we had Democrats then talking about the desire to make sure companies--
companies that hire people at good wages--would be in a position to 
benefit because they would be paying rates that would be competitive in 
tough global markets.
  There are opportunities--because I have been talking to folks in 
labor and folks in business--to do this. Why don't we take away the tax 
breaks for shipping jobs overseas and use that money to lower rates for 
folks who manufacture in the United States, who create good-paying jobs 
in hard-hit parts of Pennsylvania and Oregon. I would like to see our 
companies have a new incentive for green manufacturing which many of 
the companies in Oregon want to do. To do it, why not take away some of 
those tax breaks you get from what is called tax deferral and foreign 
tax credits and use that money to create more employment at home? We 
are not going to be able to do that if we just reup for this 
discredited, broken, insanely complicated tax system.
  Now, I have said to colleagues--and Senator Casey and a number of us 
have talked about it--that if it takes some very short-term extension 
of current law in order to make sure we don't hurt middle-class people 
and we don't hamper economic growth, I would be willing to look at it. 
I would be willing to look at that if we use the opportunity to then 
aggressively pursue bipartisan tax reform; tax reform, for example, 
that would do something about a Tax Code that nobody likes.
  This isn't like the health care issue. I think the Presiding Officer 
and my friend from Pennsylvania understand that part of what happened 
in the health care issue is a lot of folks said: I want to fix health 
care, I want to contain costs, but I sort of like the health care I 
have. There isn't anybody on the planet I can find who makes an 
argument that they like the current Tax Code.
  We spend 7.6 billion hours a year to comply with tax law. It costs us 
almost $200 billion to comply with our tax laws annually. That is the 
equivalent of 3.8 million people working full-time just to comply with 
the Tax Code. At one point in the tax reform discussions, after I got 
on the Finance Committee, I brought just a portion of the books that 
contain the provisions of the Tax Code. And there are thousands of 
pages. In fact, we add thousands of pages every few years. I am 6 feet 
4 inches and just a portion of the books are taller than me. The 
complexity of the code increases exponentially, as Nina Olson, who is 
the Taxpayer Advocate at the Internal Revenue Service, has pointed out.
  So I offer this up--and I know my colleague is waiting to speak--only 
to say if we are asking the country to choose--and that is why I use 
this ``Emperor Has No Clothes'' analogy--between something we know 
hasn't worked--I would note, for example, that the Wall Street Journal, 
not exactly hostile to conservatives, pointed out that George W. Bush 
had ``the worst track record on record for job creation.''
  How do you make the case to the American people, whether you are in 
Pennsylvania or Oregon or anywhere else, that you want to anchor them 
to the same discredited tax system that has failed to create jobs for 
the entire period in which it was in effect?
  So I hope as we get into this debate we look at the fact that perhaps 
we are having the wrong conversation. Perhaps we are having the wrong 
conversation in just debating extending the 2001-2003 tax provisions--
maybe we will extend them for some people and we will not extend them 
for other people. What we ought to be saying is, look at history. Look 
at what happened in the 1980s when Democrats and Republicans came 
together. In fact, back then there was almost a mirror image of what we 
have now.
  Back in the 1980s we had a Republican President and a Republican 
Senate, and Democrats in the House. So we have today almost a mirror 
image of that, and we know when they got together in the 1980s that it 
created millions of new jobs, millions of good-paying jobs. I think we 
can do that again.
  I want to spend 2011 working with my colleagues--the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, the Senator from New Hampshire, and Senator Collins, who 
gave a very eloquent statement on the advantages of real tax reform--I 
want to spend the next year working with colleagues on something that 
shows vastly more promise for creating more good-paying jobs and 
economic opportunity than these choices we are talking about on the 
floor of the Senate that, in my view, literally yoke us to a system 
that we know is not going to produce jobs.
  It would be one thing if the debate was in question; that maybe the 
numbers from the 1980s were a little ambiguous, and when tax policy was 
partisan between 2001 and 2008 the numbers were more encouraging. That 
is not the picture. The picture is crystal clear. When we went at tax 
reform in a bipartisan way in the 1980s with a Democratic effort in the 
Congress and a Republican President, big win: 16 million new jobs. When 
we got partisan with taxes in 2001 and 2008, we just went downhill to 
truly anemic economic growth. The country deserves better.
  I would finally say I think this is exactly the kind of bipartisan 
work that the country was calling for at this last election. Why not 
give it to them rather than serve up yet more that is seen as 
polarizing and divisive when our country is undergoing such economic 
anguish.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, thank you very much. First of all, I wish 
to commend the remarks our colleague from Oregon made. He has great 
insight into our Tax Code. I think he has reminded us yet again we have 
a lot of work to do, and we are grateful for his comments today and his 
charge to us--that we have a good deal of work in 2011 and even as we 
wrap up 2010.

                          ____________________