Congressional Budget For The United States Government For Fiscal Year 2008
Floor Speech
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 -- (Senate - March 20, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I guess, listening to the comments of my distinguished colleague from New York, we know this is about an effort to find the truth and follow the facts wherever they may lead, and I guess we should all be satisfied that this has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that he chairs, because he wants us to believe this is about getting the facts--although the President today offered to produce his former White House Counsel and his adviser, Ms. Miers and Mr. Rove, for an interview to provide information to the investigators, to the Senate Judiciary Committee. But we have just been told now that is unsatisfactory, that we will not be able to get to the truth.
Well, I am as interested as anyone is, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as to what the facts are. But let me tell you, while I have some question as to all the information this investigation might turn up, I am not in doubt about this: President Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys appointed by his predecessor, a Republican President, and that was not about politics. This President has replaced eight U.S. attorneys whom he himself appointed, and that, for some reason, is supposed to be all about politics, all about dirty pool. Well, it just does not stack up. The fact is, this President, just like President Clinton, could replace U.S. attorneys for no cause.
I think the real problem here--and I do agree it has been mishandled--is the suggestion that we somehow ought to be demanding in the public domain whether there are performance-related reasons why these particular U.S. attorneys were replaced that caused them to feel the necessity to defend their reputation in the public arena. Frankly, I do not think they should have to be put to that sort of debate. These distinguished lawyers ought to be able to move on in their careers with their reputations intact.
But because of my colleague, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who is leading the charge in this effort, it, I believe, undermines what should be a legitimate inquiry into the facts.
So I don't think anybody should be under any illusion of what the goal is here. It is not to get the facts or else the Senator from New York would have accepted the offer and said: Sure, we would be glad to talk to the witnesses who have been subpoenaed and who will appear from the Department of Justice. We will be glad to hear what Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers have to say. We will be glad to look at the 3,000 pages of documents produced by the Department of Justice yesterday, and we would be glad to look at the other documents that are being proffered by the White House. Instead, he has already reached a verdict. He has already concluded there is foul play regardless of the facts and regardless of what this information will yield. I think we shouldn't be under any illusion that this is about politics. It is not about a search for the truth.
Frankly, I think this Congress and the Senate deserve better than that. We deserve the ability to conduct an inquiry to find out where the facts may lead without this conflict of interest the Senator from New York has. Senator Specter, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has pointed out that this calls into legitimate question the whole basis for this purported investigation, and while he didn't call on him to recuse himself, he did suggest--and I think he is exactly right--that it undermines the legitimacy of what should be an inquiry into the facts.
I think it is appropriate to point out to our colleagues that this sort of campaign by the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who is using this incident to raise money on the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, of ethics complaints filed against colleagues is inappropriate and unworthy of this institution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment creates a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that raises income taxes on taxpayers. Now, I have served on the Budget Committee, and we have had discussions during the course of marking up this budget resolution in the committee.
The chairman tells me it is not his intention for this budget to reflect a tax rate increase. I say good for him and good for us if that, in fact, is true. The problem is that this budget, over the next 5 years, contemplates a $146 billion increase in discretionary spending. That money has to come from somewhere.
Unfortunately, during the committee's debate on this budget, I offered this amendment, but it was opposed. I am told the chairman may have some different views today after additional clarification and explanation. We will see.
But let me make sure it is clear that this amendment will not hinder our efforts to shut down and close illegal tax shelters or perceived loopholes in the IRS Code. This amendment deals with the tax tables contained in the 1040 form that the IRS annually sends to every taxpayer. It will not--let me be clear--it will not hinder efforts to reform or overhaul the Tax Code. Any tax simplification effort will need bipartisan support in the Senate, and if it is revenue neutral, I am confident it will be forthcoming.
Rather, this point of order is an insurance policy when Congress decides to look at the pocketbook of taxpayers for even more revenue instead of looking for ways to eliminate Government waste, fraud, and abuse. The former Chief Justice, John Marshall, said:
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
The power to tax is the most powerful tool Congress has at its disposal, and my amendment puts it in a place where it will be a safeguard that will protect the pocketbooks of middle-class families, college students, and entrepreneurs. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are advocating that we pull the rug out from our economy and roll back the President's tax relief or simply let it expire on its own. That is the last thing we should do to protect growth policies of this Government that have helped this economy perform well.
Similar to millions of Americans out there, I am very optimistic about where we are headed. Frankly, I am surprised that our numbers, the good numbers that are reported almost weekly and monthly have not made more headlines because we have one of the strongest economies of any industrialized country in the world despite the present-day challenges we experience.
The economy's performance speaks to its resiliency and its strength. We can and we should take pride in this economy's performance and look for optimism toward the future. Earlier this month, the Labor Department reported that almost 100,000 new payroll jobs were created in February and that the unemployment rate remains at a historic low, about 4 1/2 percent.
The progrowth policies we have been working and living under have given rise to 21 straight quarters of growth and 7.6 million new jobs over the past 42 consecutive months--a tremendous accomplishment and a trend we must work to continue as we face significant fiscal challenges ahead. As we move forward, the last thing we need to consider is reversing the policies that have helped bring about this well-performing economy. We need to continue to generate more revenue, not by raising tax rates but by allowing this economy to create those revenues which are unprecedented in our Nation's history, as we allow more Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money.
In fact, I think we should go a step further and make the President's progrowth tax relief permanent, because if we don't, we will not only jeopardize future economic growth but also the financial well-being of millions of Americans--families, small business owners, seniors, all will face higher tax bills beginning in 2011.
Not making this tax relief permanent will result in an increase in taxes to every American taxpayer. For example, a family of four with two children making $50,000 in annual income would see an increase of $2,092 in its tax bills or a 132-percent hike.
The chairman of the Budget Committee argues that his budget does not raise rates to the American taxpayer, and I am hopeful that is the case. Frankly, there is no way the chairman can guarantee this policy assumption will remain, short of my amendment. I see this amendment as an insurance policy when Congress decides to look at the pocketbooks of the American taxpayers for more revenue, which would contemplate applying the brakes on the economy instead of eliminating Government waste, fraud, and abuse.
I have had conversations with the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. He has indicated to me that perhaps there are some questions he has about the import or the impact of this amendment. I would be glad to respond to any questions he may have.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Texas very much. Senator Cornyn is another member of the Budget Committee whom I always look forward to working with and hearing his views; sometimes we agree, sometimes we do not.
But with Senator Cornyn, it is always done in a collegial and professional manner, and I appreciate the attitude he brings to the committee.
I have three questions I wish to ask Senator Cornyn with respect to this amendment. First, would it be the Senator's intent, in any way, that this amendment would preclude a corporation or an individual from paying more if we were to close down certain offshore tax havens?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would answer the Senator's question by saying it would not. The import and the effect of this amendment would be to prevent an increase in the rate of taxes but not to close loopholes on those who are not paying taxes or not their fair share of taxes.
Mr. CONRAD. I have one question related to tax havens, one to tax loopholes, and one to tax gap. So my understanding, from the answer to the first question--which went to the question of tax havens--is that offshore tax havens that certain companies and individuals have been setting up in order to avoid the U.S. taxes, you have no intent in this amendment to preclude us from collecting more revenue from those who were engaged in those practices?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, that is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. The second question would be with respect to the tax gap. Obviously, we have some who are not paying what they legitimately owe under the current Code. I assume it would be the Senator's position that his amendment would not preclude us from collecting more revenue from companies or individuals who are not now paying what they legitimately owe under the current law.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator is also correct. This would not affect collecting taxes from what people are not paying that they do legitimately owe now.
Mr. CONRAD. Final question goes to this more nuanced question of basically tax scams, circumstances such as the one I have described earlier today in which U.S. companies and investors are buying foreign assets--for example, sewer systems or public facilities such as commuter rail or other foreign assets--depreciating them on the books here for tax purposes, and then engaging in lease back of those assets to the communities that paid for them in the first place. Would it be correct to assume there is nothing in this amendment that would preclude us from shutting down those abusive tax shelters?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, there is nothing in this amendment that would preclude the action he described.
Mr. CONRAD. I say to the Senator, based on his answers to me, I would be willing to accept the Senator's amendment. Would the Senator be willing to accept a voice vote on the amendment?
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, my concern is that amendments that are accepted or taken by voice vote are sometimes looked upon by the conferees as having less dignity and likely not to make it out of the conference committee as compared to amendments on which there is actually a rollcall vote. It would be my preference to ask for the yeas and nays and to have a rollcall vote. We can stack it along with other votes we will be having. I don't think it will delay the work of the chairman or the ranking member. That is my preference.
Mr. CONRAD. Let me say, the Senator has that right. I don't think we need to belabor this point. I have received answers to the questions I had. The Senator has been very forthcoming with respect to his answers.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source