John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to begin my comments today by offering my condolences to the family of my friend, Al Hill, Jr. Al was the oldest grandson of the legendary Texas oilman H.L. Hunt, and he passed away last Saturday. Al was many things to many people. We shared in common as alumnus the fact that we both went to Trinity University, but the difference between us is that Al was a star tennis player and I was not. He later popularized the sport as president of World Championship Tennis. During the rest of his career following his education, he worked in the energy industry, was a commercial real estate developer, and most of us knew him as a prominent philanthropist, along with the entire Hill family. Al positively impacted the lives of more people than I can count, including mine, and I simply want to say how much we will miss him. SAFER Program Reauthorization Act Mr. President, the second person I would like to talk about today, and the focus of my remarks, is a Texas woman named Lavinia Masters. Lavinia is not famous in a sense, but she is near and dear to my heart because of her courage. When Lavinia was 13 years old, she was sexually assaulted at knifepoint by a man who broke into her family's home. Her parents were sleeping upstairs and immediately called the police. Lavinia was taken to the hospital in Dallas, where a forensic exam was performed and DNA evidence was collected in a rape kit, but then it sat there. The evidence sat around for 20 years untested, believe it or not. When other victims of sexual assault had similar forensic exams performed, their rape kits were added to Lavinia's, warehoused, not tested, and eventually a backlog began. More than two decades later, in 2005, Lavinia's rapist had not yet been identified. She calls the frustration and anxiety of having to wait year after year ``pouring salt on the wound.'' She didn't know who the rapist was, and she didn't know if he was still around or whether her life was even in jeopardy. One day, Lavinia saw a TV commercial about a new initiative to clear backlogged rape kits. She called the Dallas Police Department, and, fortunately, officers reopened her case. Soon thereafter, her untested rape kit was located. When it was finally tested, it turned up a DNA match for her perpetrator. Well, the rapist was already in jail for other crimes he had committed, but because of the statute of limitations--which bars prosecuting somebody after a certain period of time--she couldn't even press charges, which is a shame. This case, and Lavinia's courage in coming forward and letting us talk about her case, demonstrates the importance of testing these rape kits. It is important not only because the power of DNA testing will allow you to identify whom the perpetrator was, but it will also allow you to exonerate or exclude somebody whose DNA does not match that in the rape kit. All of this illustrates problems inherent in untested rape kits that lie in storage lockers and laboratory counters across this country. These kits contain forensic evidence with the potential to solve a crime. As Lavinia's case demonstrates, frequently, people who commit sexual assault don't just do it once; they are serial offenders, and they will keep going until they are caught. Unfortunately, in Lavinia's case, because of the 20-year interval from the time she was assaulted, it is unknowable how many times her assailant committed similar acts of sexual violence against other people before he was finally stopped. These rape kits contain forensic evidence with the potential to solve a crime, to put a rapist behind bars, and to provide victims with closure and vindication, and society with justice. The good news is, we have made great strides in recent years--not only in my State but the United States--in dealing with this problem. One recent report from the Department of Public Safety indicates that there are still more than 2,000 kits that remain untested in Texas. That is unacceptable, but nationally the problem is even much bigger, with as many as 175,000 rape kits that haven't been analyzed. In other words, Lavinia Masters is not alone. She is joined by other Texas women, courageous women, like Carol Bart, who came forward with her story to help other women and potential victims avoid their fate. Their cases are why the bill I authored earlier this year is so important. It is called the SAFER Program Reauthorization Act. SAFER is an acronym for Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Reporting. Victims of sexual assault--scarred by painful memories and physical trauma--can't afford to wait for more efficient procedures and funding that is easier to come by. They need their stories to be heard and the evidence tested. My bill reauthorizes a program that was created in 2013, which has helped law enforcement reduce the national rape kit backlog. There are many jurisdictions like the city of Houston, for example, which, a few years ago, took this on their own and didn't wait around for the Federal Government or additional funding. It was just amazing how many hits they got on these untested rape kits that matched up to other reported crimes as well. It allowed them to solve not only unsolved sexual assault cases but other crimes by putting people at the scene of the crime who claimed to be somewhere else, for example. My bill reauthorizes this program created in 2013, which has helped law enforcement reduce the national rape kit backlog. I am happy to have the support of my friend and colleague Representative Ted Poe, who is cosponsoring the bill in the House. The original legislation bears the name of the Debbie Smith Act, the name of another brave woman who stepped up and used her personal tragedy for good. We named the Debbie Smith Act after her. It allowed us to then use Federal funds and make them available to test untested rape kits. Actually, that original legislation improved it to 35 percent and required 7 percent of them to be used as audits on existing rape kit programs. The problem is, when we started, we didn't even know how many untested rape kits there were because there was no audit program, and much of the funds that were being used for the Debbie Smith Act were being used for administrative or other purposes and not to test rape kits. These audits are important. They have had the potential to uncover thousands more untested rape kits across the United States, each with evidence to be used to bring criminals to justice. The reauthorization I sponsored goes one step further than the original legislation. It also ensures that pediatric forensic nurses are eligible for training so, once they complete it, they are better equipped to respond promptly and appropriately to children suffering from abuse. Finally, this bill extends the sunset provision of the SAFER Program, which will ensure the longevity of our program with a proven history of success. I am grateful this SAFER Act has enjoyed the support of a broad range of bipartisan supporters in this Chamber, including the senior Senator from Minnesota and the Senators from Nevada and Colorado, each of whom are original cosponsors. Here is the problem. This bill has now passed the Senate but is waiting for action in the House. It is December, and we know the clock is ticking. It is imperative that the House act to reauthorize this program before the end of the year. While I am confident it will, time is running out. We need to make sure this money is allocated for the SAFER Program for the new year and that not only the testing continues but the audits continue so we can find other rape kits, like those of Carol Bart and Lavinia Masters, that need to be tested, perhaps sitting on an evidence locker shelf somewhere in a police department. This week, a coalition of advocacy groups and law enforcement agencies called for the House to pass the SAFER Program Reauthorization Act in a timely fashion. They said the promise of SAFER has yet to be fully realized. They pointed out that the Nation is at a reckoning point when it comes to sexual assault and harassment. They are absolutely right. We have reached a critical turning point. Today, as more and more survivors reach out to report these life- altering crimes, it is certainly not the time to let authorization for SAFER lapse. Fortunately, I know and these law enforcement and victim rights groups know that our colleagues in the House share their beliefs. Like I said, I know we are going to get this done, but time is running out, and I hope our colleagues in the House will take up this legislation--which has no controversy at all associated with it--and get it passed and get it to the President. Thank you. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for our colleagues to vote no on the motion to instruct, unless you happen to believe that 2 percent and below growth is the new normal for the American economy, and we have nowhere to go but down as a country; that people don't react to incentives to keep more of what they earn and businesses invest more in jobs and in pay that people can take home and spend to enhance their standard of living; and unless you are satisfied with the fact that companies are incentivized to keep earnings abroad and not bring them back home and invest in pay and jobs here in America. If you believe there is no better, brighter future for the American people, yes, vote for the King motion to instruct. If you believe we can and will do better under this bill, vote no.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. We are simply noncompetitive, which is why businesses are moving out of America, overseas, to lower taxed countries. If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that is a good idea, then they ought to vote with the distinguished Senator from Michigan, but we think it is a terrible idea to ship American jobs and American investment overseas. We happen to agree, by the way, with Barrack Obama's 2011 State of the Union Message as well as the positions taken by the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Wyden, and the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer. We need to get back in the game, become more competitive, and all Americans will benefit from that. We urge the Congress to maintain the current competitive corporate rate. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Arkansas has some remarks to make, so I will keep mine brief. I want to speak on the introduction of the Security, Enforcement, and Compassion United in Reform Efforts Act, or the SECURE Act, which we will, under the provisions of rule XIV, put on the Senate calendar following the vote on the nomination at 4 o'clock. This bill is a product of a working group formed by Chairman Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee--the committee with jurisdiction over immigration matters. I have been a part of that, as have Senators Graham, Tillis, Lankford, Perdue, and Cotton. I would say to our friend from Illinois, we are all united in the desire to actually come up with a solution to this problem. Our working group had two assignments. The first was to adopt reforms to secure America's borders and enforce our immigration laws. The second was to find a compassionate solution for those individuals who received deferred action under the DACA Program created by President Obama in 2012. When I introduced a border security bill--the Building America's Trust Act--in August, I made clear that the main purpose for that was to create solutions that we could put in place to deal with our porous borders and that throwing money at the problem is not the answer, but it was also contemplating that at some point in the not too distant future, we would need to combine border security and enforcement measures with a solution for the recipients of the deferred action under President Obama, which now President Trump has appropriately sent back to Congress for us to address. Coming from the State with the longest border with a foreign country--the State of Texas--I can tell my colleagues that my understanding and appreciation for border security are multifaceted. It requires boots on the ground, it requires technology, and it requires improvements in aging infrastructure at our ports of entry. But it also requires new authorities and enhancements to existing immigration laws to close loopholes that incentivize people who repeatedly violate our laws. We can all agree that we need to protect America's international borders, whether they be to the north or south. Each day that we fail to put the needed resources and laws in place for border security and interior enforcement, we strengthen the resolve of drug cartels, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations to encroach on our sovereignty with impunity. If we are going to act to help folks who were brought here by their parents, for whom we all have compassion--and thanks to President Obama's insistence on going around Congress in violation of the law, they now find themselves in limbo--prioritizing the resources needed to secure the border is the first step. It is not the last step, it is the first step. If we can demonstrate our ability to deal with a compassionate solution for the DACA recipients and combine that with real border security and interior enforcement, I would propose that we don't need to stop there, but we do need to regain the public's confidence that we are capable of dealing with these issues in a responsible way. The DACA Program was designed to help those who were brought here illegally, but it was not created lawfully. President Trump, as I said, did the right thing when he kicked it back to Congress. So we have now introduced a bill that will address the very issues that our friends across the aisle say they care about the most: a solution for the DACA recipients. This bill provides a framework for a legislative proposal that we can support and that will regain America's trust. I have told both Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, and my friend Senator Durbin from Illinois that I stand ready to work with them on a proposal that includes the four pillars of the GOP framework: border security, interior enforcement, improvements to the E-Verify system, and some limits on chain migration. I hope they will come back to the table and respond to this proposal. I hope they will also quit threatening to shut down the government, which won't solve the problem but, indeed, will make it worse. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we know last Friday night, into the wee hours of Saturday morning, this body did something remarkable, something people said would never happen. We actually got some very important work done and passed a very important piece of legislation-- the first overhaul of our Nation's Tax Code in over 30 years. People said it couldn't be done. It is too hard. With Democrats opposing us at every step on the committee and on the floor, people said there were just too many obstacles in our way, and it was impossible to accomplish. People said there were too many special interests down on K Street that would make it impossible for us to figure out this Rubik's Cube of a tax code, there were too many moving pieces in this giant tome of our tax law. People warned us, if we did this, we would take political flak from all sides. Well, to the cynics and skeptics and doubters, I will say: You were wrong. We did get it done. Families and job creators woke up the next day after the final vote feeling a little bit more confident about our Nation's fiscal future. Now that the bill has passed the Senate, they will be less weighed down by the yoke of government. They can breathe a little sigh of relief knowing we are doing our job. We are doing what we said we would do when they gave us control of the government. Of course, it took no time for our major victory to be mocked, denigrated, or simply misrepresented. Sometimes the false rumor spreading was done deliberately by our friends on the other side of the aisle, which is ironic because Democrats used to support many aspects of this plan, such as lowering taxes for the middle class and eliminating incentives for corporations to ship jobs overseas. I guess we must conclude that they were happy with the status quo, a slow- growing economy, stagnant wages, jobs being shipped overseas because of our self-destructive Tax Code. I guess we would have to conclude they thought that was a good thing. Well, they know it was not a good thing, but they just couldn't stand the possibility that we were going to be able to make this major accomplishment on behalf of the American people. Because they were so mired down in the politics of the day, they lost sight of the forest for the trees. We all know it is easier to criticize than to contribute, such as when many on the other side feigned outrage about small tweaks that needed to be made to the bill. It is interesting. Back in 2010, there was an amendment called the Durbin amendment No. 3989 where, during the course of the debate, it was necessary to make some changes in the bill by handwriting those changes in the bill text. No one thought that was an outrage. Everyone understood this is sometimes what happens when you are making last-minute changes to legislation. Yet our Democratic colleagues acted like this was the first time this had ever been done, and 46 Senate Democrats voted for Senator Durbin's amendment, which included these handwritten changes in the text. Don't forget the tax bill was passed last week through regular order. ``Regular order'' is part of the jargon we use around here, but it means the normal legislative process. Unlike the Affordable Care Act that was written in Majority Leader Harry Reid's office and brought to the Senate floor without going through the Senate Finance Committee. Unlike that process, this tax bill originated in the Senate Finance Committee, was the product of multiyear studies, working groups, white papers, a lot of proposals like the Camp draft, for example, that helped inform our debate. From the bill that had been introduced by the ranking member, Senator Wyden, along with Senator Coats, we were able to glean some of the best elements of all of those prior efforts. Using regular order, giving Democrats and Republicans a chance to contribute to the legislation in the Finance Committee and on the Senate floor, we gave Democrats and Republicans a chance to offer amendments and to get votes on those amendments. That is what we mean by regular order, and that is what our friend from Arizona, the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, rightly called for earlier this fall. There were hearings after hearings. Democrats went to them. Democrats had their opportunities to offer amendments during the committee markup and to offer amendments on the floor. So one simply cannot say, honestly or truthfully, as many Democrats have, that the bill was negotiated in darkness, behind their backs, without their participation. It simply is a false claim, it is not true, and the facts show that. It is not just our Democratic colleagues who have fueled misperceptions about the tax bill we passed late last Friday night, early Saturday morning. There was a big stir raised with the scoring done by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Some of the critics of the tax bill have latched onto the Joint Taxation report, finding that the bill would increase the economy by 0.8 percent over 10 years, not enough for the cuts to pay for themselves, thus adding to the national deficit. That was the claim. I take concerns about fiscal responsibility very seriously, but we have to acknowledge that economic modeling is notoriously difficult and can be done in a number of different ways. Each of these models has its strengths and weaknesses, each provides a range of estimates, and none is perfect. We have not yet been given the gift of perfect knowledge of the future. In the case of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the estimate was that the tax bill would generate enough growth to offset its pricetag from $1.4 trillion to about $1 trillion--a net $400 billion feedback effect. This is pretty interesting listening to our colleagues across the aisle. They make the audacious claim that tax cuts generate no economic growth--none. So when the original Budget Committee budget came out, giving the tax writers $1.5 trillion of deficit spending on a static basis, they claimed that would result in a $1.5 trillion deficit. Well, the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that was not true. In fact, tax cuts can have a stimulative effect on the economy. Incentives can change human behavior, but it is notoriously difficult to estimate with any precision. In any giant complex system like the American economy, the effect of changes is not easy to predict, but even small changes can produce large, far-reaching benefits. In our case, that means changes in our Tax Code can fuel major economic growth, which ought to be our collective goal. Why should we have to settle for anemic economic growth? Why should we have to settle for flat wages? Why should we have to settle for jobs being created overseas because our Tax Code incentivizes that rather than incentivizing investment and job creation in the United States? Well, the fact is, we don't have to settle for that, and we haven't. This tax bill represents our best effort to try to make sure our economy does grow, that wages do go up, and that jobs do come home to the United States because businesses are incentivized to bring that money back home and invest it in jobs and wages back here. I am optimistic that with the reforms we have enacted, the economy could grow by as much as 3 percent, as the Heritage Foundation and the Tax Foundation have said. The President's Council of Economic Advisers and influential economists agree. I am aware of the old saying that if we were to stretch all the economists in the world end to end, we would never reach a conclusion. They call it the dismal science for a reason. It is not rocket science; it is modeling that tries to predict the future, which is notoriously difficult to do. In fact, you can't do it, but we try to come up with the best guesstimate we can. I think it is wrong to just look at the Tax Code when you are looking at our economic future. Coupled with the regulatory relief we have seen under the new administration, along with the Congressional Review Act where we repealed back some of the onerous regulations on the economy, and with consumer confidence at a 16-year high, I think we all have the sense that America is coming back as a leading economic engine in the world, and we need to do that because we need to lead the way for the world economy. We need to make sure that the standard of living in America continues to be something that we can achieve--a better standard of living for our children and grandchildren than the one we ourselves have enjoyed. That is the legacy we have inherited from our parents and grandparents. Yes, we are in a dangerous world. The former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, said that in his 50 years in the intelligence community, he had never seen a more diverse array of threats than he did today. We can't ignore that, which means that we have to use some of that prosperity for our common defense. That is another important thing we are going to have to do before the end of this year; that is, to agree on a top-line spending number for national defense spending, because we have been trying to cash the peace dividend, again, when there is no peace or at least peace is threatened in places around the world, whether it is in the South China Sea, Syria, North Korea, or in Europe, with Russia on the march threatening NATO and our European allies. We need a strong economy so the standard of living can go up, wages can increase, and so we can do the things that we know we need to do as a country. Now, I realize that these positive analyses by groups like the Heritage Foundation, the Tax Foundation, and the President's Council of Economic Advisers don't entirely pacify some of the deficit hawks. I count myself among them. We worry about whether tax reform will add to our debt through cuts in decreased revenue. But even based on conservative estimates, this tax reform could result in $130 billion in new revenue--revenue we would not otherwise have. Here is the problem. Here is the elephant in the room that people simply choose to ignore or have given up on: Revenue isn't our biggest problem. It is our spending addiction. It is the 70 percent of Federal spending that is on autopilot, going up on average about 5.5 percent per year. Now, we have tried to do what we could through the Budget Control Act in 2011 and put a cap on discretionary spending, including defense spending. That has been relatively flat since 2011, but all the while, entitlement spending has gone up because we don't have the political courage to deal with it. The deficit can't be eliminated with tax increases. We can't tax America's producers enough to fill the hole. We have to address mandatory spending, which keeps growing year after year after year. It nearly doubled during the Obama administration, during which time our friends across the aisle never really said much about deficits and debt. But it is real. We ought to go to the root cause of it and not claim that it is making tax cuts to help make our economy more vibrant and improve the quality of life for more Americans. Putting aside the macroeconomic concerns over the tax bill for a moment, it is easy to see how, on a more personal level, families and workers will benefit. Sometimes in accounts about tax reform, this more human focus is simply left out and that is a mistake. For example, in our bill, rates are reduced for everybody. Every tax bracket sees a reduction in their tax rate. The standard deduction for families is doubled. So if you are a married couple filing a joint return, for the first $24,000 you earn, there is zero tax--zero. Then we double the child tax credit. I think that is something we should do because we need to help those families that have children to make sure that their families prosper, and the child tax credit is one way we can do that. The ObamaCare mandate to buy government-approved insurance, which is just a tax on low- and middle-income Americans, is repealed, and I think that is another form of tax relief. There are 6.7 million Americans who had to pay a penalty to their own government because they couldn't afford to buy the government-mandated insurance because of the way that program was structured. Well, we eliminate that entirely. So, hopefully, those families can then use their own resources to buy insurance policies that meet their needs rather than what the government mandates. We also soften the blow of the death tax, something I will continue to work to completely eliminate because I think it is simply a moral issue. Why should we tax income when earned and, then, when families want to pass it on to their children--whether it is the family farm, ranch, or a small business--we tax them again and make that sometimes impossible to do? Usually, if you want to reduce something, you tax it and that doesn't apply to the death tax because death will come no matter what. But it is immoral, I believe--double taxation. That is no reason for Washington to prevent families from passing on the fruit of their labor to their loved ones. The likely result of all of these changes will be that wages will increase by as much as $4,000 for the average family. That is the estimate of the Council of Economic Advisers. Think about that--if we can get the economy growing faster than the 1.9 percent anemic growth of the Obama years. Just think about that. The economy has grown on average at 3.2 percent since World War II. Yet we are being asked to settle for the new normal of the Obama years when the economy grew at 2 percent or less. So if we can get the economy growing faster, we will see wages improve and we will see family income improve. If we can cut their tax burden and relieve them of onerous things like the poverty tax, known as the Obama individual mandate tax, families will be better off. A median family of four will see their tax burden cut by $2,200. Now, I know that in Washington, DC, when we talk about millions and billions and trillions of dollars, $2,200 doesn't seem like a lot of money, but for many families struggling to meet their obligations paycheck after paycheck, $2,200 can make a big difference. It can help them pay off their mortgage or pay college tuition for their children or replace a water heater or get their car fixed or finally take a long-delayed family vacation. Now, the last heedless claim I have heard about our tax bill is that it mainly benefits corporations at the expense of normal, hard-working men and women. Once again, this is a false claim. Some portion of our high corporate tax rates are always borne by labor--by American workers, in other words. Our friends across the aisle and the critics sometimes claim that if you do something for a business, whether it is a passthrough business or a corporation, it has no effect on the people who work for it. Well, that is just demonstrably wrong, because the better off those businesses are, the more people they can hire, the better the wages are that they can pay, and those help hard-working American families. So higher business taxes mean fewer jobs and smaller paychecks, and it means that we are less competitive in a global economy. That is why businesses are moving their headquarters overseas to low-tax countries like Ireland or the United Kingdom. This situation will change under our new bill. In a recent survey of corporate chief executive officers, 82 percent said they would increase capital spending if our bill passed and 76 percent said they would increase hiring. So, yes, it is true that business will benefit, but we want them to because the end result will be less tax dodging and more jobs coming back home and, as I mentioned earlier, apart from businesses, families and individuals benefit too. What is so bizarre about the debate is that this is a concept that former President Obama championed; that the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, has championed; and that the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Wyden, has championed--lower corporate taxes--because they realize this is a self-inflicted wound because it forces businesses overseas and prevents them from bringing their income back and investing it in the United States in jobs and wages. My question to them is this: Have you forgotten? Well, I don't think they have forgotten. Throughout the tax reform process, Members of this Republican Conference on this side of the aisle worked together, and I am grateful for the contribution that each and every one of them made. With the strong headwinds from our opponents on the other side of the aisle who wanted failure, presumably because they liked the status quo rather than success, we knew this was going to be difficult, and it was. We got it done, but we are not finished yet. As we head into a conference with the House of Representatives, the focus has to be on how we can maintain support here in the Senate. I hope our friends across the Capitol understand that the Senate bill was a very fragile compromise and that one or two--well, two or more--Senators who would not support that bill could jeopardize the House-Senate conference. So we have to be very careful. We have to continue to communicate and work together with each other, and we can't undermine our own victory. It is not just our victory. It is a victory for American families and for our country and for our standing in the world. So when we begin our conversations with the House, let's take care to work closely together and continue to communicate. Let's prove that passing tax reform wasn't just a dream or an aberration. It was real. Now with the ball on the 5-yard line, we just have to punch this into the end zone. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as the world knows by now, last Friday night--I guess early in the morning on Saturday--we passed the Senate's version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the first major overhaul of our Nation's tax system in more than 30 years. I want to express my gratitude to Chairman Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who shepherded that bill through the committee. I thank him for his leadership, as well as that of Chairman Enzi, who led the reconciliation process in the Budget Committee. I know it is a complex, convoluted, and arcane process, but we couldn't have done it without both of those gentlemen. I also commend our majority leader, Senator McConnell, and all of our colleagues who worked together for proceeding with final passage and for negotiating in good faith. I have said before, and I will say it again, that one of the differences between this and healthcare reform is that everyone, I believe, on our side of the aisle wanted to get to yes, wanted to find a way to find a solution, and that goes a long way to getting to a solution. Last week, the majority leader rightfully referred to the process as a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and he is right. I am glad we got this bill across the finish line and will soon deliver to the American people the tax relief they deserve. Notwithstanding some of the propaganda that has been disseminated on this, the fact is, this bill benefits Americans of all stripes, including low-income families. Well, let me just start there. This bill doubles the standard deduction, which means a married couple earning up to $24,000 will pay zero tax on that $24,000 of earnings. Above that, we have raised the child tax credit to $2,000 per child. The first $1,000 of that $2,000 is refundable. That means that even if you don't pay income taxes, if you don't make enough money to pay income taxes, you will still get the benefit of at least half of that child tax credit. It also reduces the tax bracket for low-income families as well. The bill lowers the current 15-percent rate and increases the child tax credit, both of which help persons of modest means. This bill also helps the broad middle class. Some of our colleagues ran around like ``Chicken Little'' during the debate on this bill, saying that eliminating certain deductions will disproportionately harm hard-working families, but that is just not true. A family of four earning the median income of about $73,000 will see their taxes cut by nearly $2,200. That may be chickenfeed to some of the folks inside the beltway, but that is real tax relief for hard-working, middle-class families. We also preserve the home mortgage and charitable deductions, and families will enjoy an enhanced child tax credit which, as I mentioned earlier, along with the larger standard deduction, will help them significantly. Finally, this bill effectively repeals ObamaCare's individual mandate. Some have called this a tax on the poor, which it is because 80 percent of the people who pay the tax or the mandate penalty earn $50,000 or less, and that is because they can't afford to buy the government-approved health insurance. So their own government, rather than help them find affordable health coverage that suits their needs that they can afford, mandates they buy a policy they can't afford, and when they don't do it, then taxes them with the individual mandate. We repealed that entirely, which will also ensure more take-home pay for America's families. For America's job creators, this lowers taxes from 35 percent to a much more nationally competitive rate. What that means is, rather than hiring people overseas and keeping that money overseas earned from their labor, they will be now incentivized to bring it back to the United States to build and to hire in America. Right now, we have the highest tax rate in the industrialized world, 35 percent, when the international average for the industrialized world is roughly about 22 percent. We are getting a little below that at 20 percent, and together, with all the other advantages of doing business in America, we believe there will be a flood of money that is repatriated to the United States that is currently parked overseas, along with the jobs and investment that will go along with that. Now that the bill has passed the Senate, we will soon begin to discuss the bill in a conference committee. This is how we reconcile the differences between the House version and the Senate version. I know there are a few items of concern and that the two versions of the bill differ to some extent, but I feel confident that with the help of Speaker Ryan and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Kevin Brady, we can reach an agreement quickly. It is important that we do so, that we reconcile those differences as quickly as we can, because we want to get this bill on the President's desk before Christmas so the people we are targeting relief for--starting from lower income Americans to the middle class, to America's job creators-- can begin to enjoy the benefits of the tax cuts and tax reform right out of the gates in 2018. It is true that our shared goals between the House and Senate are much more important than the small differences in our approaches, and these goals, as we have always agreed on, are increasing the paychecks of American workers and getting the economy working again because, unfortunately, it has become flat and stagnant. The President has called tax reform rocket fuel, and I think that is right. Our economy has already begun to take off. It is amazing what the American economy will do when it is unleashed from overtaxation and overregulation. We have already seen the consumer confidence at a 16- year high; the stock market is hitting historic highs; people are anticipating the results of the rollback of excessive regulation during the Obama administration and the reduction in taxes, creating a much more competitive environment. It is exciting to see it beginning to happen. As I said, the GDP grew 3 percent this last quarter, but over the last year it has been about 1.9 percent--so low that it is really not creating new jobs and certainly not creating new investment here in the United States. This tax reform and tax cut bill will change that. It will keep the American motor running fast and smoothly. Now, it is my sincere hope that those in the driver's seat, the families and companies great and small, will reach destinations that before maybe they only dreamed of because this is really what this legislation is about. It is not about dollars and cents. It is not just about taxes. It is not just about the government's relationship with its own people, the people who are the heart and soul of this great country. This is about America's standing in the world. Will we continue to be the economic leader and the envy of the rest of the world? Will we continue to be able to have the strongest military and the ability to lead and keep the world safe, as opposed to creating vacuums when we retreat? Those vacuums are then filled by the bullies, tyrants, and dictators who certainly don't share our values. I am excited about what we were able to accomplish last week, but we are not done yet. We need to get this bill reconciled with the House and put it on the President's desk so all Americans can enjoy the benefits of this tax reform, whether it is a direct tax reduction from their tax burden or being relieved from the onerous tax on poverty in the individual mandate or enjoying the benefit of America's increased competitiveness in the world and incentivizing businesses to invest, hire, and improve wages right here in America. I am excited and optimistic about what the future will hold once we get this on the President's desk later this month.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up and reported by number: Cruz No. 1852, Kaine No. 1846; further, that following disposition of the Kaine amendment, Senator Manchin be recognized to offer a motion to commit and that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on the motion.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, what our friend from West Virginia is proposing is to make the United States uncompetitive in a global economy. Right now, we have the highest tax rate in the industrialized world, and what we are doing is lowering that tax rate to make us competitive and in so doing, taking the advice of Barack Obama in his 2011 State of the Union message; advice from the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer; and Senator Wyden, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, who has recommended a lower rate than that contained in this motion to recommit. We think we should take the advice of President Obama, President Clinton, Senator Wyden, Minority Leader Schumer, and other prominent Democrats--the advice they have given us over the last few years to lower these corporate rates and make us more competitive so we can bring jobs back home, improve wages, and get the economy growing again so people can pursue their American dreams. I would encourage our colleagues to defeat this motion to commit.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Brown be recognized to offer a motion to commit, which is at the desk, and that there be 30 minutes of debate on the motion; that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote in relation to the motion with no intervening action or debate. I further ask that following disposition of the motion, the majority leader be recognized. I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania for such time as he may use of up to 15 minutes. Mr. President, I take that back.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know that our friends across the aisle have offered a motion to commit to send this back to the Senate Finance Committee, but, as the ranking member knows, as the Senator from Ohio knows, the Senate Finance Committee has delivered a bill that received a vote of the majority of that committee, who considered this tax bill on a bipartisan basis in the committee. So it strikes me as odd, if not just outright fallacious, to suggest that we are somehow keeping them out of a bipartisan process. Just the opposite is true. They are taking themselves out of the process by obstructing, blocking, and doing everything they can to prevent us from actually delivering tax reform and tax cuts to the American people. That is what is happening here. Just as the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the Senator from Oregon, offered a motion to commit last night, just as the Senator from Ohio is offering a motion to commit here today, they are participating in the process while claiming to have no part of the process. The only problem is, they are not contributing anything positive. All they are trying to do is to blow up the process. They must like the fact that we have the highest business tax rate in the world, which forces jobs and investments overseas rather than encourages that money to come back home. They must like the fact that wages in America are stagnant. They must like the fact that working American families have not seen a pay increase because of those stagnant wages. They must like the fact that there are many people who are looking for work who can't find work, because they refuse to consider an alternative that might provide better wages and more jobs to people looking for work. They must think that 1.9 percent economic growth is the best we can do. This is the new normal after the Obama years, since the great recession of 2008, but I will state that the economy has grown at 3.2 percent since World War II. This is not the new normal. We don't have to accept this. We can do better, but we can't do better when your head is in the sand and the only thing you want to do is to blow up our efforts to try to improve the quality of life, the standard of living, the take-home pay, and to reawaken the slumbering giant which is the American economy to restore this country to greatness and leadership in the world economically, militarily, and in every sort of way. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania such time as he requires.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).