neubig. mr. heenan, you're recognized for five minutes. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> thank you for inviting me today. i appreciate it. i'd like to just start by commending you chairman for tackling -- and the rest of the committee for tackling this important topic of tax reform. we support the efforts and appreciate the time to talk about it here today. i'd like to just start to give a little bit of a background about praxair, not maybe a household name. we sell air. we sell the components in air. we have a diverse customer mix. we can sell to a food and beverage company for the nitrogen in your potato chip bag, the fizz in your soda. we also sell to big companies, steel companies who use tons and tons of gases. so very, very diverse customer group. we have about $11 billion in sales worldwide. we're the largest industrial gas producer here in the united states. importantly, we spend about $2 billion a year on new capital investment. we go through a very rigorous process. we sit at the ta

neubig. in congress we measure by looking at cash stackses over a ten-year period without using a discount rate. and that's very different from how public companies calculate under gaap and very different than how public companies calculate cash flow benefits. if this committee succeeds in designing a program that's revenue-neutral over a ten-year period the way congress measures it but in the aggregate, increases company's book earnings, do you think that such a tax reform package would lead to more economic activity being located here in the united states? and therefore, more jobs for american workers? >> i guess the main thing i would say to that is if you would, you know, remove the mitigating effect of financial accounting, there seems to be no negative effect that would come from that so to the extent doing the tax side of the it would increase jobs and investment releasing it from mitigating effect from accounting could only help those incentives. >> mr. neubig? >> i think the companie

neubig, do you have a comment?>> well, again, i think this is another example of where oftentimes the economists don't give lower corporate tax rates the full benefit that would happen if there was a broader base and lower corporate tax rate, that uncertainty, complexity and how lower corporate tax rates affect so many business tax decisions is really very powerful. so when people talk about the bang for the buck in terms of, you know, a lower corporate tax rate, sometimes they worry about, you know, lower corporate tax rate applying to old capital but i really think they are missing so much of the power of a lower tax rate that would be simpler and more predictable. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and if i just may make one final comment? >> yes. >> there are very few of us. what i i continue to think about as we look at the complexity and the cost of the business, i think the business and the product -- the cost of the service or the product is raised because of this complexity. and how ultimately it's the end user t

neubig, do you have a comment? >> again, i think this is another example of where oftentimes the economists don't give lower corporate tax rates the full benefit that would happen if there was a broader base and lower corporate tax rate. that uncertainty, complexity, and how lower corporate tax rates affect so many different business decisions really is very powerful. so when people talk about the bang for the buck in terms of a lower corporate tax rate, sometimes they worry about lower corporate tax rate applying to old capital. but i think they really are missing so much of the power of a lower corporate tax rate that would also be simple and more predictable. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and if i may make one final comment? >> yes. >> since there are very few of us. what i continue to think about as we look at the complexity and the costs of the business, i think about how the service or the product, the cost of the service or the product is raised because of this complexity. and how ultimately, it's the end user

neubig has been recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my team to mr. tiberi. >> thank you. very interesting comments. i do want to point out just for the audience and for the record, one former chairman mentioned nobody's talking about getting rid of the charitable contribution. that actually in the president's prior three budgets, the president has capped the deduction on the charitable contribution at 28%. i just wanted to remind the gentleman from new york regarding the president's last three budgets and what he proposed. obviously it wasn't adopted by the congress. but there is one person in washington who has talked about the issue in the context of reducing that charitable contribution. i wish mr. lewis were here, because he and i as the chairmen of the philanthropy caucus have both opposed that as co-chairch of the philanthropy caucus. to the witnesses, starting on the left, those of you who are vice presidents for companies dealing with tax issues, can you tell me who your major competitor is and how the current tax code causes you to make deci

neubig, please? >> i guess two points. phasing down the corporate tax rate is what has been done in canada and the united kingdom. i guess if the alternative is not doing a lower corporate tax rate, i think phasing down would be much preferable. in the case of the united kingdom, they have a parliamentary system. and they have announced that they are going to get to a 23% corporate tax rate by 2014-'15. one interaction in terms of the financial accounting rules is my understanding that they have not officially enacted the 23% rate. they are doing the reduction from 28 to 26 and now to 25 in the current year on an annual basis. and part of that is an interaction with the book accounting, because when you lower the corporate tax rate, there are effects in terms of deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities. it's a benefit in terms of the companies with deferred tax liabilities. the majority of the top 50 companies have deferred tax liabilities. so they would benefit there are some companies that have deferred tax asset