John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Thank you very much.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the Finance Committee. I know we have other Senators who are ready to speak. Since the Senator believes that the Joint Committee on Taxation's dynamic score of our tax bill is entirely accurate, would he agree with me that the score demonstrates that there is economic growth generated by tax cuts and, really, what we are just talking about is how much economic growth is generated?

Mr. CORNYN

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week we are engaged in what is perhaps the most momentous subject that we haven't dealt with in recent times, and that is, after 30 years, updating and reforming our Nation's convoluted, complex, and self-destructive Tax Code. Those who are interested in getting to yes and who will cast a ``yes'' vote, I believe, will be casting a vote for growing the economy, voting for more jobs, voting for higher wages, and voting for more take-home pay. Those who vote against this endeavor are really saying yes to stagnant wages, less jobs, and a lower standard of living. They are willing to accept the reality that American jobs are going overseas because our country has the highest Tax Code in the civilized world, and bringing the money earned overseas back home basically means having to pay double taxes. So what people do is they do what you would logically do, and they spend the money overseas and hire foreign workers in foreign countries rather than Americans and make things stamped ``Made in America.'' Simply stated, this bill is about the dreamers and the doers, the small businesses and the hard-working American families who need tax cuts and tax reform. This is about helping the middle class. Actually, what this bill does--the Senate version of the bill--is it reduces the tax burden on every tax-paying cohort. In other words, all of the tax rates come down. In order to do that, both on the personal side and the business side, we had to eliminate a lot of what I call the underbrush, which are the tax deductions, the tax credits, and the other subsidies that have made our Tax Code so incomprehensible to everybody other than accountants and lawyers. That is one reason people are so frustrated with our Tax Code--it costs them so much money just to comply with their legal obligations. It has been a long time since we took up this important topic, and I know the reaction is, well, this is just another going-through-the- motions effort, but I assure you that is not the case. These reforms are not only possible, they are very important because they will positively impact real people's lives. Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute has said that ``some believe that taxation is a dry topic with no moral significance, but nothing could be further from the truth.'' For example, by doubling the standard deduction, we will limit the number of people who have to itemize their tax deductions in order to claim the full legal deduction. That means that now only 1 out of every 10 taxpayers will have to itemize and 9 out of 10 will just claim the standard deduction, which will now be doubled. We are also going to double the child tax credit, which will help working families provide the things they need in order to take care of their growing families. It will mean that more people will have more money left over after paying Uncle Sam to spend on their own families, to invest in their children's education, maybe to even take the first vacation they have taken in 10 years or more. Mr. President, $2,200 is what a median family of four will save in taxes under our proposal. Maybe they want to get their pickup truck fixed. Maybe they want to build a little financial cushion because they have been living paycheck to paycheck. I can't remember the precise statistic, but the number of people in America who could not meet their financial needs if they experienced an unexpected $400 cost--maybe your car broke down, or maybe your house flooded, whatever the case may be. We need people to be able to keep more of what they earn and build a cushion so they don't have to live with the anxiety of living paycheck to paycheck, knowing that if the unexpected happens, it could put them in deep trouble. That $2,200 a year could mean a couple hundred dollars each month to put toward your mortgage, to pay down your mortgage, or to provide a little breathing room. This plan is also designed to increase wages, and it is estimated that the combined benefit of this bill, together with the economic growth we are anticipating, could mean as much as $4,000 in additional income. So it not only lowers the tax burden, but it raises the income levels. Frankly, as I mentioned a moment ago, our Tax Code incentivizes American businesses to send jobs overseas. Why in the world wouldn't we want to incentivize them to bring those jobs back home and invest here? Not only can we make this Tax Code better, but I want to emphasize why we should. We have a historic opportunity, and we shouldn't squander our chances to take a bit of the pressure off of frustrated workers and struggling families who are trying to make ends meet. This country has long been a leader in the world, with the strongest economy and the strongest people, but the reality is, our Tax Code is no longer a world leader. As I indicated earlier, we have one of the highest tax rates in the world, particularly for businesses. So what happens when countries like Ireland or the United Kingdom lower their tax rates for businesses? Well, those businesses move to those countries. People who want to start a new business say: Well, if I have a choice where to start that business, why should I start that business in a country that punishes us with the highest tax rate in the world? The current tax system penalizes success by taxing American ingenuity and hard work at rates that are uncompetitive, and it discourages our free enterprise system. What I mean is that it sends messages to Americans like, don't work so hard because, you know what, you are not working for yourself, you are working for the government. We ought to be sending the message that by working harder, you can keep more of what you earn and spend it the way you see fit. Companies, of course, have no particular loyalty to our country, so they don't really have a need to stick around because they are going to go to countries where they can make the most profit, where they can keep more of what they earn. My basic point is that the messages our convoluted and archaic Tax Code is sending are counterproductive. They are counterproductive to workers who are looking for jobs, they are counterproductive to workers who are looking for a little more in their paychecks, and they are counterproductive to families who want to save and provide for their own future. In 2016, the Tax Policy Center projected that almost 44 percent of Americans will pay no or negative individual income tax for 2017 under current law, and some smaller number even get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes. We need to make sure that everybody participates in our government. One thing I have heard a lot during this tax debate is that America is horribly in debt. Sadly, that is true. But it is not because of our Tax Code. It is not because Americans aren't taxed enough. It is not because we spend too much money defending our country against threats here at home and abroad. It is because we have a spending problem. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues, who suddenly got religion when it comes to deficits and debt after doubling the national debt during the Obama administration, want to use this as a reason not to cut the taxes for hard-working American families, and I think it is terribly misplaced. Is the deficit important? Is debt important? Yes, it is, and we know what we need to do to fix that. But denying the American people and hard-working American families the tax relief they need and deserve and failing to get the economy growing again is the wrong way to do it. Let me quote from Arthur Brooks again. He said: ``If income tax rates are 100 percent, income tax revenue will be zero. Why? Because with a 100-percent tax rate, nobody will bother to work. And companies won't produce'' either. On corporate taxes, we are seeing a lot of hypocrisy from our friends across the aisle who had previously championed some of the very provisions we have included in this legislation. For example, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, our Democratic friend from Oregon, had previously championed a 24-percent corporate rate because he recognized that a 35-percent corporate rate chased companies, businesses, and jobs overseas. Now he calls our reduction in corporate taxes a giveaway to corporations. You could consider the statements made by President Barack Obama in 2011 when he said to a joint session of Congress--he said that one of the things Republicans and Democrats need to do together is to work on lowering the corporate tax rate because he, too, recognized that this was self-destructive, that it was chasing jobs overseas, that it was preventing the U.S. Treasury from collecting its taxes, and frankly that it was hurting the bottom line for American families who maybe couldn't find work or whose work was not rewarded with fatter paychecks and more take-home pay. For corporate taxes, economists have said that actually lowering the corporate tax rate will bring more investment and more jobs back home. If it were lowered, expanded production and investment would increase domestically. Even though it might seem a little counterintuitive, Barack Obama; the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden; and the minority leader, Senator Schumer from New York, were correct when they called for lowering the corporate rate, and it is unseemly to now try to demagogue this issue by calling it a giveaway when it is not. We are doing what they said we should do years ago. When it comes to these corporate rates, some of my colleagues have raised concerns about passthrough businesses. It is true that a number of businesses operate here in America not as corporations but as passthrough entities, meaning that they pay their business income on an individual tax return. These concerns are legitimate, and we have worked hard to try to address them. Earlier, we were working with the National Federation of Independent Business, which is one of the largest trade associations in the country representing small- and medium-sized passthrough businesses. We were able to come up with a solution which addressed their concerns and which benefits those passthrough businesses. We still have some more work to do, but that demonstrates what we can do when working together to try to answer the concerns people have raised along the way during this legislative process. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, which I mentioned a moment ago, and nearly all major small business advocacy groups support this legislation. We had a press conference here in the Senate, just off the floor, earlier this morning, and it was uniform--everybody said this is good for small businesses. And small businesses are what create the vast majority of jobs in America. I know that those who have continued questions or issues about the legislation have had productive discussions with all of us and today with the President, who came to visit us. I am confident that if we keep working at it in good faith, we can come up with a way to address the remaining issues so that we are all satisfied as much as possible. There is an expression: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you are waiting around for perfection, particularly here in the legislative process, you are never going to get anything done. That is not an excuse for not making it as good as it can possibly be, I believe, working together, preferably on a bipartisan basis. But if our Democratic colleagues refuse to participate, as they have done so far, then we have no choice but to do it ourselves. So in the end, a vote against tax reform is a vote for economic stagnation. It is allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The Wall Street Journal, as they said yesterday--the question we need to ask ourselves is not whether the tax bill is perfect but whether it is a net benefit to the United States. I think it clearly is, and I think that, with the policies embodied in this bill, we can restore America's economic vigor. America must continue to prosper if it is to remain the economic beacon of the world, and we need to remain a strong country economically so we can defend ourselves and our friends and allies abroad. The rest of the world--it is true--is just waiting for a sign that America's best days are ahead, and passing this important tax legislation is an indication that it is the case that America's best days still lie ahead. It is time to awaken the slumbering giant of the American economy. By lightening the load on workers and companies alike, we can make sure new opportunities abound for those just coming into the workforce. We will make everyday drivers of the economy excited once again about our country's future. The President noted today, when he was with us at lunch, that consumer confidence is literally at an alltime high. People have seen the stock market go up and their retirement funds that are invested in pension funds or in their IRA or elsewhere skyrocket since the Trump administration came into office. I think that is because people are sensing we are on the verge of a great economic recovery. Accepting a stagnant, anemic recovery is not something we have to do. We know what we need to do to rev up the engine of the American economy and get it moving again to benefit all of us. Through tax reform, let's show that the American dream of allowing men and women to work hard and earn success isn't just a bygone notion, and it is not just a figment of our imagination. We can do it if we pass this tax reform bill this week, which we intend to do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the Senator from New York is my friend, and we have worked together on a number of occasions, but I must disagree with a number of things he said today. First of all, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a partisan creation by Democrats during the Obama administration that had virtually no Republican support. What they did is that they created a modern-day emperor, somebody immune from congressional oversight and the appropriations process. Now that Mr. Cordray is leaving, following the election of a Republican President, they are taking exception to the fact that this President has the authority under the law to appoint his successor. Instead, they are insisting that somebody chosen by Mr. Cordray--this modern-day financial emperor--should be able to make a choice and foist that on this administration when, clearly, this administration was elected to office in part in response to the overreach of the previous Obama administration. This is a perfect example of how nimble my colleague can be with the facts. The fact is that he comes here and complains about the fact that this tax bill we will be taking up is not partisan enough for him, when Senate Democrats have made it clear that they don't want to do anything that would give any credit to this administration or the Republican majority. Rather than taking the opportunity to find common ground and govern, they, essentially, have taken up the resistance, leaving the results of the election last November basically unresolved, in their minds, at least, even though the American people have clearly moved on and expect this administration, which was elected to office, along with a Republican majority in the House and the Senate, to actually govern. I remember days and times when, after we had elections, we actually figured out that we needed to govern and weren't focused then on the next campaign. Apparently, our colleagues across the aisle have simply forgotten that. That is the bad news. The good news is that it is not too late for them to change their ways and join us and bring historic tax reform to the American people. This week, we will be considering the Senate's version--voted out of the Senate Finance Committee last Thursday night--of our Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which is the first major overall of our Nation's Tax Code in more than 30 years. It cuts tax rates across the board, reducing the burden on American job creators and middle-class families alike. Under our proposal, it has been estimated that folks back in my home State of Texas will see more than 76,000 new jobs created. After-tax income for middle-class families should rise by nearly $2,600. Now, that may be chump change here inside the beltway; our friends across the aisle may turn their nose up and say: Who would want to do this for $2,600 additional tax savings. But I can tell you, my 28 million constituents in Texas don't believe that $2,600 in tax savings for a family of four is chump change. They think of that as ways to increase their take-home pay, improve their standard of living, prepare for retirement, and help their children go to college. That is what that means to them. This bill will also reduce the tax burden on small businesses and put American companies on a level playing field with their foreign competitors, ultimately growing our economy here at home. Ironically, we heard some of the same old tired rhetoric in the Finance Committee, where we were talking about corporate giveaways and things like that, only to remind our colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee that they themselves had proposed similar tax cuts for American businesses so they could get more competitive in an international global economy. We had to remind them, after they derided this idea that we would want to be more competitive in the global economy, that it was Barack Obama, in 2011, who called for Democrats and Republicans to come together to cut the corporate tax rate because it was the highest one in the world and it was causing businesses to invest abroad--indeed, to leave the United States to set up their headquarters abroad just to avoid the highest tax rate in the civilized world. There has been a lot of disinformation and misinformation out there, which I would like to take the opportunity to correct on a couple of accounts. One major reform we have included in the latest version of our tax reform bill is the repeal of ObamaCare's individual mandate. Make no mistake, the individual mandate penalty is literally a tax on low- income Americans. It is a tax because Chief Justice Roberts and the U.S. Supreme Court called it a tax. Democrats have made two arguments: first, that repealing this mandate is a tax increase. Only in the parallel universe known as Washington, DC, would cutting the tax be called a tax increase. Second, they said the repeal kicks people off their insurance coverage, which is demonstrably not true. But let's start with the first argument, that the repeal somehow represents a tax increase on the poor. It is a pretty strange thing to say that eliminating a financial obligation simultaneously entails an additional fiscal burden; in other words, that a tax cut is really a tax increase. Only here in the parallel universe of Washington, DC, could that possibly be true. It defies all logic. What actually happens under our plan is that certain low-income individuals do get a tax cut. If they voluntarily decide not to buy ObamaCare coverage, they will receive an additional tax cut because they will no longer be penalized by their own government for failing to buy an insurance policy they can't afford. It is worth noting that, in 2015, 80 percent of people paying the ObamaCare individual mandate tax made less than $50,000 each year. Eighty percent made less than $50,000. There were 6.7 million people in 2015 alone that paid this additional tax mandate because they couldn't afford to purchase the government- mandated coverage. If the mandate is repealed, these folks would have more money to spend, and they will benefit from income tax rate reductions in addition. If our colleagues across the aisle would work with us, these same people would find more affordable coverage that suited their needs rather than have to buy a one-size-fits-all policy that prices them out of the market. But that is another story. The second ridiculous argument is one you may recall the minority leader saying shortly before Thanksgiving. He made the statement that we are kicking 13 million people off of their health insurance. But that is just not true, and it doesn't tell the whole story. First of all, no one is being kicked off of their health insurance coverage. Instead, people will no longer be fined by their own government for not buying government-approved health insurance. That is based on the correct view that people shouldn't be coerced by their very own government to buy something they may not want and can't afford. Like I said, in a more rational world, Democrats and Republicans would work together to come up with an alternative that would provide people with more choices at a better price. Democrats might say: Well, what about premiums? Will they not rise if the mandate is eliminated and people drop out of the market because of this problem? This is one of the problems created by the Affordable Care Act at its very beginning. But the issue of rising premiums is significant. A recent proposal offered by the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, along with Senators Alexander and Murray, would attempt to stabilize the health insurance marketplace. It would reduce the risk for insurance companies by providing funds to insurers for high-risk enrollees. Their bipartisan stabilization proposal would appropriate money for something called cost-sharing reduction subsidies, and these payments could provide short-term certainty to insurers and prevent premiums from rising. In fact, premiums would go down. It has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as reducing the deficit by $3.8 billion over the next 10 years. That is why this proposal deserves our serious consideration, and I hope we will turn to it following our debate and vote on the Senate's tax reform bill. Apart from the repeal of the mandate, there are other parts of the plan I would like to highlight. One involves another popular myth that certain provisions of our proposal are just disguised corporate welfare. I alluded a minute ago to the hypocrisy of some of our Democratic colleagues, claiming that this is corporate welfare or a giveaway, when they themselves supported a similar provision in previous proposals. This claim is completely and deliberately misleading. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out last week, the irony is that this bill would do more to stop corporate tax gaming than anything done by the Obama administration during the previous 8 years. First, if we cut corporate taxes, the incentive for companies to game the system and move capital, income, and intellectual property abroad is reduced. The bill institutes a territorial system that also includes so-called base erosion rules. These are safeguards against abuse that prevent companies from shifting domestic income through foreign affiliates to lower tax jurisdictions and then bringing the profits home without paying taxes. Our Senate bill would impose an effective 10 percent rate on intangible property of U.S. multinationals held overseas. That is on a one-time basis. In return, companies would be able to repatriate their future income from those places tax-free. In other words, they would be taxed once rather than twice. This lower rate will help to prevent the erosion of our corporate tax base and so will other provisions regarding patents and intellectual property, which will prevent the flight of intellectual property abroad and will entice foreign companies to move their patents to the United States, along with the associated economic activity and jobs. In sum, as I said earlier, this bill changes incentives, making it less likely that businesses will try to game the system and move capital to foreign, lower tax jurisdictions. We need to look at this proposal as a whole--not just one provision in isolation--because you can't judge the merit of the plan without considering it as a whole. Two days ago, we got a letter from nine world-class experts on tax policy and economics. They sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. In that letter, they praised the plan's objectives to enhance the prospects of both increased economic growth and household incomes-- more take-home pay. Not only that, but they said that, based on their analysis, our plan is likely to achieve those objectives, too. The signatories include a former Treasury Secretary, as well as a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and distinguished economists from Harvard, Columbia, and Stanford. I think that all agree with the bottom line, which is that the Senate bill cuts taxes for every income group and that it will increase economic growth and keep jobs and American companies here at home, all while making America more competitive. Those who argue otherwise, I think, are resigned to the status quo, which is a stagnant economy characterized by slow growth and wages that will never rise. That is what we have had for the last 11 years. Under no circumstances should we stand by idly and permit it to continue. Historically, the United States has seen growth of the economy hover around 3 percent since World War II, but right now it is roughly 1.9 percent. What that slow economic growth means is fewer jobs, lower wages, and less competitiveness for the United States in the global economy. If we get back to 3 percent growth or higher, we can begin to solve multiple problems at once. For example, we can do something about our lackluster defense spending. It is something the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, and others--including people like me and the Presiding Officer--care an awful lot about. We have simply tried again and again to cash the peace dividend when there is no peace, when, in the words of Gen. James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, he said: The array of threats is more profound than he has seen in 50 years in the intelligence service of the United States. We can't spend the amount of money we need to keep America safe to fight our Nation's wars and to defend our shores at home unless we meet that need. We can't do it when our economy doesn't grow. Not only will economic opportunities increase for Americans of all stripes, we will also have additional revenue to address our national debt. If we can get our economy growing again, we can actually pay down that debt, but this debt is not a product of tax cuts and defense spending, as some would lead you to believe. It is a symptom of our inability to pass entitlement reform. In other words, we have a spending problem; we don't have an inadequate taxing problem. Indeed, during the 8 years of the Obama administration, when the national debt doubled, I didn't hear one peep out of our colleagues across the aisle on the national debt. It is refreshing to hear that they are concerned about that, once again, but we have a partial answer to that, which is getting the economy growing again so the Treasury will increase its returns, and we can begin to pay down some of those deficits and debt. To regain our standing in the world, we need to get our financial house in order. The first step is to pass this tax reform package, which will show our seriousness and determination in jump-starting our economy as a way to address our fiscal challenges. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting the Senate's version of this bill because America's future prosperity partially depends on our ability to get this done. What kind of country do we want? Do we want one that is vibrant and dynamic and full of energy or do we want one that simply putters along? A lot is on the line this week as we debate and vote on the Senate's tax reform bill. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter I referred to from nine prominent economists, which was published on November 26 in the Wall Street Journal, called: ``How Tax Reform Will Lift the Economy.''

Mr. CORNYN. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

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. Madam President, 2 days ago, I visited the community of Sutherland Springs, TX, which is a small, rural community about 35 miles from San Antonio, TX. We all remember the terrible shooting that occurred there just over a week ago at the First Baptist Church, an event that those in Sutherland Springs and across Texas and maybe even across the Nation will never forget. I hope we never forget it because I believe that those events were, by and large, preventable, and I will explain more about that in a moment. What I saw during my visit and what I found to be so remarkable is that the community has already started the healing process. Already, the church building that was riddled with bullets and the bodies of people who were killed and injured has been turned into a memorial which will forever mark the terrible events of that day and honor the lives of those who lost their lives. After an excruciating trial that the rest of us cannot even begin to comprehend, the attitude in Sutherland Springs is incredibly hopeful and resilient. First Baptist held its Sunday service just 7 days after the congregation lost 26 of its members. Can you imagine that--just a week later, showing up for another church service a week after a gunman shot up the church, killing 26 people and injuring 20 more. I went there for no other purpose than to lend a shoulder to the mourning and to try to offer what little encouragement I could. Strangely, what happened is that the reverse occurred: They gave me more hope and inspiration than I ever could have imagined. This shows how the shooter's ultimate plan failed. Evil never triumphs. Just ask Pastor Mark Collins, who pointed out that the First Baptist Church has been open for nearly 100 years but that on Sunday, the congregation smashed its alltime attendance record. Ask Pastor Frank Pomeroy, who lost his 14-year-old daughter in the attack but was already back doing the Lord's work of consoling other members of his church when he himself lost his own 14-year-old daughter. Pastor Pomeroy said: ``We have the freedom to choose, and rather than choose darkness, like the young man did that day, we choose the light.'' He said: ``Love never fails.'' It was an emotional service, to be sure. It was an honor and, as I said, an inspiration to join the Sunday worship service and to visit the church that has been transformed into that stunningly beautiful memorial to commemorate the victims. The day before, I had had a chance to visit with a number of victims--and their family members--who are recovering in local area hospitals. We cannot forget them as they continue to heal or forget the rest of the 20 who were wounded by the gunman that day--a man who was clearly deranged, was a convicted felon, someone who had been hospitalized for mental illness and had escaped, and someone who had been found guilty of domestic violence against his wife, including the fracturing of his infant stepson's skull. We now know that when it comes to the shooter, there were plenty of warning signs. The gunman's former colleague has said that he was always on edge and that he scared her both while he was in the Air Force and through disturbing social media posts afterward. There were multiple red flags along the way--school suspensions, threats of killing his superiors, depression, the abuse of animals, choking his wife, as I said, fracturing his stepson's skull, and doing time in a military prison. One thing is abundantly clear: We can do more when it comes to spotting these flags, including in the military. Where the law currently provides that an individual who is convicted of a felony or convicted of domestic violence or somebody who has been found to be mentally ill by a court--we can make sure and do better to make sure that those individuals do not purchase a firearm. Current law disqualifies them, but unless the results are uploaded on the FBI's background check system, there is no way to catch them when they lie. They are asked when they purchase a firearm at a firearms dealer: Have you ever been convicted of a felony? Have you ever been convicted of domestic violence? Have you ever been committed for mental illness? If they lie and the background check system is simply silent, then there is no way to know and no way to stop them, and that is what happened to this shooter. We know now that the Air Force and the other branches of the military are considering what additional steps to take to make sure this never happens again. I appreciate their prompt response, but it should never have come down to this. Now we have to do our part to ensure that this sort of preventable disaster never happens again. Don't get me wrong--I don't believe we can somehow wave a magic wand or pass a law that will prevent manmade disasters in every instance in the future, but this one could have been prevented. We could have kept this shooter from buying a firearm through a legal firearms dealer. If the background check system had been accurate, he would not have been able to do so. Today, I plan to introduce legislation to ensure that Federal agencies report and upload criminal records onto the background check system--records that are already required to be so but often that are not. As we know, this was a major problem that led to the rampage in Sutherland Springs. My bill would also reauthorize the two primary grant programs that help the States report and upload their own records and incentivize States to improve overall compliance. We know that just down the road in Virginia a few years ago, the records of a young man who had been adjudicated as mentally ill by the State of Virginia had never been uploaded into the background check system. Like this shooter in Sutherland Springs, when he went to purchase a firearm, there was never a hit on the FBI's background check system, and he simply lied about his mental health record. It has been estimated that some 7 million records--including at least 25 percent of felony convictions and a large number of convictions for misdemeanor domestic violence--have not been posted on the background check system. That is outrageous. I doubt that any of us knew this beforehand, but we know it now, and it is within our power to fix it. We can all agree that this has to change and that this cannot stand. Let me be clear. I think that law-abiding gun owners, under the Second Amendment, can and should be allowed to purchase and possess firearms. As somebody who enjoys hunting and sports and shooting, I believe that every law-abiding American should possess the same right that I have to purchase firearms for recreation, for hunting, or for defending our families or property. In fact, that is what happened in Sutherland Springs. Sutherland Springs proves why guns can save lives when in the hands of law-abiding citizens. But if you have a long, documented history of dangerous behavior, if you are convicted of committing violent acts, under the law, you are not allowed to have guns. Today, we have to ensure that those laws will be enforced, and my bill will help to do that. This is really an incredible story. When I went to Sutherland Springs, I learned more about Stephen Willeford, whom I have spoken about before. Stephen Willeford lived about a block from the First Baptist Church, and he heard the shooting. I think it was his daughter who alerted him to it. He got his AR-15 out of the gun safe in his home, and he ran about a block away while barefoot. He saw the shooter exit the church. He, in turn, decided that it was up to him because there was not anybody else to stop him. Mr. Willeford, fortunately, is an NRA-certified shooting instructor and an expert marksman, and he shot and wounded the person who committed this mass atrocity, who then dropped his firearm, got in a truck, and led him on a high-speed chase. Thanks to Mr. Willeford and another Good Samaritan, they chased that shooter until ultimately the shooter took his own life. That shows you what can happen when law- abiding citizens--gun owners--can come to the aid of others. When the police are not present and there is nobody else around, Good Samaritans can help save lives.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, to conduct hearing on the nomination of Kirsten M. Nielsen, to be Secretary of U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from South Carolina. This is, indeed, a good day for the families who will benefit from this additional money in their paycheck, from the increased standard of living they will enjoy. For those of us who want to see businesses come back home from abroad, they fled this country because we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. When we say we want to reform that broken corporate tax rate and to bring those businesses and that money home, we join our colleagues--ranging from the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, to Barack Obama in 2011, in a joint session of the U.S. Congress--in advocating for bringing that business rate down so that businesses will stay in America. They will hire Americans, and they will improve wages for all working families. I am proud to join my fellow Finance Committee colleagues on the floor today to support our version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was just released a few moments ago. I congratulate Chairman Hatch for his leadership, but I am extraordinarily impressed with all the members of the Finance Committee who worked so hard together to try to get us to where we are today. We plan for lower rates. As you heard, we increased the standard deduction, we expanded the child tax credit, and we reformed the Tax Code so that we can give Americans access to more jobs and higher wages. Our Democratic colleagues have said they want tax reform too. I mentioned Barack Obama and Chuck Schumer, our colleague from New York, who repeatedly said that we should lower the corporate rate so businesses will come home, hire Americans, and help our economy grow here. So we are all in agreement on that on a bipartisan basis, and there is room for further agreement. I agree with the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Hatch. We invite our Democratic colleagues to come together and join us, particularly starting on the Finance Committee on Monday. If what we want is more, better paying jobs--and we do--then we have to focus on lowering rates on all the job creators, including small businesses, as you have heard. The framework we have developed was designed to cut taxes for middle-class families, not millionaires. It is to help small businesses grow and create more jobs. It is to provide relief for hard-working families by increasing the standard deduction, as our colleague from South Carolina pointed out. One out of ten taxpayers will now have to itemize deductions in order to take full advantage of the law to reduce their tax burden. So it will be simpler, easier to comply with, and lower their tax rate, while enhancing the child tax credit. These reforms will make the 1,000-page Tax Code easier to understand and comply with. Our efforts will simplify what are now pages upon pages of language that only tax lawyers and lobbyists understand. I look forward to continuing the important discussions when the Senate Finance Committee marks up and amends this proposal starting Monday. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, only 4 days have passed since the terrible tragedy in Sutherland Springs occurred, and, of course, the grieving and pain of the families who have lost loved ones and who had loved ones injured during the course of that terrible shooting incident--our thoughts and prayers are still with them. I am going to be traveling to Sutherland Springs this weekend to offer my condolences and ongoing support in person. It is important that we give the community the time and space they need to grieve. By now, we all know that 26 people lost their lives during a church service at the First Baptist Church. This included an unborn child. Twenty more were injured, and some of them still remain in critical condition. What is amazing to me is that First Baptist will hold a church service this Sunday, just 7 days after a gunman stormed the building and committed the deadliest mass shooting in Texas's history. What resilience, what incredible resolve to come together 7 days after this terrible shooting and have the congregation that lost 26 of its members come together for a church service. One little guy many of us will be praying for is 5-year-old Ryland Ward. Ryland was shot four times and was partially shielded by his mother, Joann, who, tragically, did not survive. Ryland is fighting for his life at University Hospital in San Antonio, and he remains in critical condition. I know we will all continue to think of him and pray for his recovery. We continue to hear more about what led to this atrocity--a gunman with a history of domestic violence, animal cruelty, and mental illness. Because of his troubled history, which included convictions for domestic abuse in the military, he was legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm, but he lied about it. Unfortunately, the background check system, which is supposed to alert the dealer not to sell a firearm to a person with disqualifiers such as his, simply did not come back at all to demonstrate that he was, in fact, disqualified from purchasing a firearm. He was legally disqualified because he had beaten up his wife, had fractured the skull of his stepson, and he was legally disqualified because a military court in New Mexico had handed down a felony sentence for his attacking his own family. But as we know now, and as I have said, that information was not uploaded by the U.S. Air Force or the Department of Defense in the Federal background check database. Under the law it was supposed to be uploaded, but it wasn't. So he got away with lying about his record. That is what we have to fix. After terrible incidents like this, the most common question I hear people ask or the most common statement I hear them say is this: We have to do something. But here that something we have to do is crystal clear. Troubled individuals like this monster should never have gained access to a gun. When he tried to purchase them, the person who checked the Federal database should have seen his name and criminal convictions and said: No way, no how. I have had conversations with many of our colleagues across the aisle and in the Chamber about this problem and what we need to do to fix it. Next week, I plan to introduce legislation to fix these flaws in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and to ensure that all Federal agencies upload required conviction records like these in the NICS system as fast as possible. Clearly, that is not being done now, and we must do it and do it quickly to make sure that other potential killers will not be sold a firearm because of the defects in our National Instant Criminal Background Check System. It is imperative that this information be shared, that violent felons' convictions be uploaded, and that dangerous individuals not gain illegal access to firearms. Unlike law-abiding citizens, these individuals can't be trusted to do what is right because we know that in the wrong hands, guns can do tremendous harm. I must add that in the right hands lives can be saved too. All we need to do is regard the actions of Stephen Willeford. When he heard the gunshots going off in the church, he grabbed his AR-15--what some people call an assault rifle. It is a semiautomatic legal weapon. He is an NRA, or National Rifle Association, certified instructor. He took that gun and shot at this killer to try to stop him from killing more people, and he was successful. He wounded the killer and put himself in harm's way. To me, this demonstrates not only the heroism of Mr. Willeford, but it demonstrates another reason why law-abiding citizens should be able to keep and bear arms, in the terminology of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Law-abiding gun owners are not a threat to the public safety. It is only so when they get in the hands of felons, the mentally ill, and domestic abusers, like the killer in Sutherland Springs. So in the right hands, guns can save lives too. As somebody who is a sportsman and believes in the Second Amendment and believes that law-abiding citizens ought to be able to keep and bear arms to defend their families and communities, I am proud of the work that Stephen Willeford did on that terrible day. I know there are those who believe that the NRA is somehow complicit in some of these terrible events, but I will tell you that the NRA did us all a favor by training somebody like Stephen Willeford so he was prepared on that horrible day to stop the shooter before he killed more innocent people. I applaud him for it, and I applaud them for teaching people gun safety and self-defense so they can protect their families, their property, and their communities as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as the world now knows, there was a tragic shooting in Sutherland Springs, TX, last Sunday, which took the lives of 26 innocent people and injured 20 more. On Monday evening there was a prayer vigil for those victims. The community gathered to pray and to pay their respects to the deceased. There are two people in particular who were in attendance, whom I want to highlight: Stephen Willeford and Johnnie Langendorff. I mentioned them yesterday, and perhaps you have seen them on the news, but I have been thinking a lot about them lately. In addition to the tragedy, this was really one of the things that gives you a little hope amidst the terrible circumstances. Stephen, of course, is the man who responded to the shooter's rampage by grabbing his rifle and running toward the First Baptist Church. Johnnie drove the truck that chased the gunman down at high speed. In typical Texas fashion, these two gentlemen don't consider themselves to be heroes, but I consider them to be heroes. They said that they were just doing what needed to be done. Johnnie said it was an ``act now, ask questions later'' kind of deal. I think we in Washington should take more of our cues from people like Johnnie and Stephen. We should show courage, track down anything that is not right, and do our very best to fix it. In particular, Stephen Willeford--maybe you have to be a Texan or an Alaskan to really appreciate what he did. From what I have read, he was an NRA-certified shooting instructor. He apparently heard the shooting at the church, grabbed his gun and went there and, basically, ended up stopping the shooter from killing more people. The shooter apparently had accumulated enough ammunition to do a lot more damage than he did, but, thanks to the intervention of this concerned citizen, this person who was willing to put himself in harm's way actually shot the shooter and discouraged him from doing more. But for his actions, a lot more people would have died on that terrible, terrible Sunday. The police can't be everywhere all of the time. That is one reason why, in my State and around the country, we believe that citizens ought to be able to defend themselves under appropriate circumstances. We now know that the gunman was court-martialed by the Air Force and convicted of serious domestic abuse. Under current Federal law, this should have prohibited him from ever purchasing a firearm. The fact that it didn't means that we need to figure out why Federal law wasn't followed and make darn sure that the relevant information is always uploaded into the background check databases. There were multiple errors--human and systematic errors--that should have prevented this shooter from ever buying a firearm. He unlawfully purchased four firearms that he wasn't permitted to purchase. Federal background checks did not turn up his Air Force conviction for domestic violence, a felony, for fracturing the skull of his infant stepson. These convictions were not uploaded on the NICS Federal database. I plan to introduce legislation--and I have been talking to a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are interested in providing a solution to this problem, but we are going to introduce legislation to ensure that all Federal departments and agencies, including the Department of Defense, upload the required conviction records. My legislation will also encourage to the greatest extent possible under the Constitution that State and local governments do the same. We all remember the terrible shooting that occurred at Virginia Tech a few years ago by a person who had already been adjudicated to be mentally ill by the State, but because the State did not upload that information into the Federal database when he went to buy a firearm, there was no hit, no disqualifier that appeared that would have prevented him from buying that firearm in the first place. We need to make sure those systems work every time. What Sutherland Springs has exposed is that the Federal Government is failing to comply with reporting requirements. This is unacceptable, and it must change. Yesterday, Gen. David Goldfein, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, came by my office, and I am grateful to him for that. I told him that it must have been one of his worst days when he found out that the Air Force had failed to notify the Federal authorities of the information that would have disqualified this individual from buying a firearm. He appropriately expressed grave concern over the fact that the gunman's convictions were not sent to the NICS database. He pledged to get to the root of the problem, and I believe him. It is worth noting that we have tried to address similar problems before, and we can do it again. In 2015, I introduced a bill called the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, which addressed a related issue, and that was the failure of State and local authorities to upload valuable mental health records into this same NICS database. I think there is a bipartisan willingness in this Chamber to work on problems inherent in the sharing of these records, and I hope my colleagues will join with me in supporting this new legislation once it is introduced. We are shooting for the first part of next week. We owe it to the men and women and the families of Sutherland Springs to make sure that our laws are enforced and that individuals like this shooter with a history of violence do not gain illegal access to firearms.