John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the first step to achieving our goal of overhauling our antiquated and uncompetitive Tax Code is passing a fiscal year 2018 budget resolution, and we have made the first step in that journey earlier today. No one should be confused about this. A vote for the budget is a vote for tax reform. In converse, a vote against the budget is a vote against tax reform. I don't know anybody in America who thinks that our Tax Code is a paragon of simplicity, efficiency, and virtue. To the contrary, I think most Americans realize that our Tax Code is simply too complex and that our Tax Code punishes taxpayers here at home by keeping overseas money earned overseas, rather than being brought back home and being invested in jobs and wages in America. The budget resolution will steer our Nation into a safer and sounder fiscal course through a combination of restraining spending, reducing tax burdens, and strengthening our economy. Strengthening our economy really needs to be the focus, like a laser, that we have on what we are all about here--trying to get the economy to grow again faster. We know that since the great recession of 2008, our economy has experienced anemic economic growth. Last quarter we saw that our economy, instead of growing at the annual rate of about 1.8 percent, grew at 3.1 percent. Why is that important? Well, when the economy grows faster, that means that people are finding more work to do and they are paying their taxes to the Treasury. That eases the financial burdens of the U.S. Government while allowing people to keep more of what they earn in their pockets. Here are some of the goals that we are attempting to accomplish by the 10-year budget resolution. First of all, we want to try to restrain Federal spending, parts of which go up at the rate of 5.5 percent or more a year and is about 70 percent of what the government spends. I know most people focus on the 30 percent that Congress appropriates, but, really, that is not the biggest part of the problem. That 30 percent includes about $600-plus billion for defense spending alone. But the 70 percent of the money that is spent on auto pilot through mandatory spending programs grows at the rate of about 5.5 percent per year. That is the reason why we are seeing huge annual deficits and unsustainable debt. So restraining spending is an important goal of our budget. Reducing nondefense discretionary spending is also important. Part of having a budget is establishing our priorities. That is what we do in our household budgets. That is what we do in our individual budget. That is what countries need to do in their budgets. We need to determine what our No. 1 priority is. Well, I happen to believe that the safety and security of the American people is our No. 1 priority. That is why I believe defense spending is so important. While there are other things we would like to do, just like there are other things we would like to be able to buy as an individual or as a household, sometimes you simply can't afford it, recognizing the priorities that are important to you and to your family. Defense spending is the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government. Nobody else can do that. We can't do it as individuals. We can't do it as States. That is why it needs to be our national priority. This budget also provides for the maximum level of defense funding allowed under the law, while allowing for an adjustment if an agreement on revised funding levels is reached. It provides a glidepath to an on- budget surplus, leaving aside Social Security entirely. Most importantly, the budget will provide Congress with the roadmap forward in the goal of being able to pass tax reform and ultimately allowing middle-class Americans to keep more of their hard-earned pay. Helping working families is one of the most important benefits of tax reform, but it is not the only benefit. Equally important is enhancing our Nation's competitiveness in a global economy and achieving growth for our job creators. We have a self-inflicted wound caused by our Tax Code when competing with other countries around the world. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Why is that important? Why should we care what corporations pay in taxes? Because that influences how much money is paid to shareholders. It influences how much money can be paid in wages to people employed by businesses. What we have seen frankly is a negative incentive for companies to move their businesses overseas. About a week or so ago I remember reading an article--I think it was in the Wall Street Journal--that said IBM now has more employees in India than it has in the United States. I am sure that is caused by a number of circumstances--perhaps access to the workforce, perhaps the markets that are available to the company--but I have to believe that at least some of that is caused by our Tax Code. It is cheaper, more efficient, and more cost effective to develop those jobs and that business overseas than it is here at home. Why in the world would we want to sustain that status quo? That is one of the things we are trying to do in our tax reform--enhancing our competitiveness and achieving growth for our job creators right here in America. It used to be that reducing the business tax was a bipartisan effort. In 2011, when President Obama was President of the United States, he gave a speech to a joint session of Congress where he called it a national priority, recognizing that having the highest corporate rate in the world moved business overseas and it hurt workers here in America. The Democratic leader, our friend and colleague from New York, has previously advocated reducing that corporate tax rate because he recognizes the benefits to workers and working families right here in America. So, occasionally, we have to remind them, when they come out and say harsh and frankly untrue things about what we are trying to do, that they used to be for the very same things that we are now advocating for today. There are other significant pieces, too, such as those that affect the people in my State and those who work in the energy sector. It is no secret that Texas leads the Nation in energy production. I know people think that it is only about oil and gas, but we are actually the No. 1 electricity producer from wind energy in the country. So we believe, literally, in an ``all of the above'' policy when it comes to energy. We know that some parts of the energy sector, particularly those refiners in the oil and gas sector, spent the past month and a half trying to recover from Hurricane Harvey, and at least 25 refineries were closed temporarily because of the storm. Why should you or I care about refineries that were closed because of the storm? Because all you had to do after Hurricane Harvey hit Texas was to look at the price you pay for gasoline. It has skyrocketed because of the closed refineries. It actually benefits the entire Nation and consumers when energy prices are low. Operations have now resumed in some areas and, thankfully, some of those higher prices at the pump have dropped, but the hurricane underscored the need to ensure our energy sector's ongoing dynamism and vitality. That is where tax reform can help as well. One component of our proposal is a territorial tax system. Companies such as Apple, IBM, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil all have headquarters in the United States, and they have earned money overseas. One has to wonder: Why in the world wouldn't they want to bring that back to the United States and invest it in businesses and paychecks here in America? That is because under our current tax structure, they have to pay taxes on the money they earn overseas, but if they want to bring it back to the United States, they have to pay taxes again up to a 35-percent corporate tax rate on the same money. So they make the rational decision and keep the money overseas. They build their businesses there and hire more workers abroad and not here at home. Why in the world would we want to maintain that sort of self-destructive status quo? A new territorial tax system is going to be an important part of tax reform, and it is not to help big businesses. It is to help workers who are looking for work or people who are working who have had stagnant wages and are looking for a little extra in their paycheck each month. That is why it is so important. In addition, we plan to help decrease the cost of investing in things like new plants and equipment in America. Things like expensing rather than depreciating over many years investment in new equipment and new businesses are really important to encourage those businesses to modernize their plants and, again, to hire more workers. Tax reform represents an opportunity to cement America's position as the world's largest energy producer, as well, rather than one of those regulatory exercises that, unfortunately, happens far too often and ends up increasing the cost of creating jobs in the energy sector. I will continue to be an advocate for the countless number of Texans whose livelihoods depend on this sector of our economy while it continues to face challenges on a multitude of fronts. Getting back to my point about the price of gasoline, if we drive a car, we are all paying for gasoline. It just makes sense to do what we can to help that price get lower, and we all benefit. One of those ways we can do that is through regulatory reform and the second is through tax reform.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, today I want to talk to you about time and how little of it we have to accomplish two incredibly important legislative priorities, one that is national in scope and potentially historic in impact. The first of those priorities is tax reform. We have a target date on the calendar, and now the clock is ticking. We have to get to work. The budget resolution that we will consider this week sets November 13 as our deadline for the Finance Committee to report a bill, and of course the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Hatch, is on the floor, and that is a commitment I know he takes very seriously. This bill, I hope, will broadly cut taxes on individuals and businesses alike and put more money in the pockets of working families across the country. What I like most about the plan I have seen so far is that it is bold. We are not trimming a little here and a tiny bit there. We are slashing rates, consolidating brackets, and eliminating pet credits and deductions. This is not JV tax reform. This is tax reform that is serious and based upon our commitment to get the economy growing again. Two weeks ago, the House approved its version of the resolution, and the Senate Budget Committee reported out its version. Now the Senate will consider the committee's resolution in the coming days. Why do we need that budget resolution? How is this all going to work? Well, these resolutions from each Chamber are the first step in passing pro-growth tax reform. They authorize the use of a tool called budget reconciliation. That means when the tax reform legislation is considered, it can't be stopped by less than a majority of the Senate. Of course, this isn't our first choice. I wish our colleagues across the aisle, our Democratic friends, would join us in bipartisan tax reform, but passing a budget resolution in the Senate is a must because this is something we can hold in reserve if our friends across the aisle simply refuse to participate in the process of pro-growth tax reform. It is a key procedural step because we have to fundamentally change the Tax Code before the end of the year. How well our economy does next year, how many jobs are created, and how much investment occurs here in the United States will depend largely upon our success in passing pro-growth tax reform this year. The clock is ticking, and we have to act with dispatch and with determination. As the President said last week in Pennsylvania, ``we want lower taxes, bigger paychecks, and more jobs for . . . American workers.'' He is absolutely right. Lower taxes, bigger paychecks, and more jobs are the things we all ought to want, and they are worth the fight. Under this administration we are already seeing results. The economy is bouncing back. Unemployment is at a 16-year low. Wages are rising and the stock market is soaring. The slumbering giant, which is the U.S. economy, is now slowly awakening. Our economy reached more than 3.1 percent growth last quarter. Confidence, as the President stressed in Pennsylvania, is back when it comes to our economy and our future, but that confidence will not last long if we let this opportunity pass. We have to find ways to get companies to stay in America, to expand, and to hire in America. We have to find ways to take the money out of Washington's pocket and put it back into the pockets of those who earned the money in the first place--American families. We have to find ways to simplify the Tax Code, which, let's remember, hits families multiple times each year by taking their earnings, by stealing their time through compliance, and by trying their patience with complexity. Each tax return feels like three. I find it appalling that a majority of taxpayers are forced to pay someone else to do their taxes for them because they simply don't have the time or expertise to do it themselves. The unified framework released a few weeks ago will help. It calls for collapsing seven separate tax brackets down to three. That is what I call simplification. It expands the zero bracket so that if you are a married couple earning less than $24,000 a year, you will pay zero income taxes. It enhances the child tax credit. It repeals the death tax and special interest tax breaks, and it reduces the uncompetitive corporate tax rate to 20 percent and cuts tax rates for small businesses to the lowest level in more than 80 years. So let's make this happen before time runs out.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, not too long ago--I believe this was 2011--a President came to a joint session of Congress and before the American people, he said what needed to be said about our Tax Code. He was pretty blunt. He said that our Tax Code is ``rigged.'' He said: ``It makes no sense, and it has to change.'' Of course, you can imagine, that was met with bipartisan applause in the House Chamber and across the country. The same President called on Democrats and Republicans to ``simplify the system, get rid of the loopholes, and . . . lower the corporate tax rate''--one that, I might add, ranks among the highest in the industrialized world. That President, like the rest of us, knows that our business tax rate is a self-inflicted economic wound because businesses figure out, How can I move money offshore and my headquarters offshore, and if I earn money overseas, how can I avoid bringing that back to the United States for better wages and more jobs and to build the business? That is all because of our self-destructive Tax Code. But the President's name--and I gave it away by saying the year the speech was given. The President's name might surprise you, given the nature of the current debate in Washington. It was Barack Obama who said that, and the straight talk came from his 2011 State of the Union address. Let's fast forward a few years. We have a new President from a different party beating the same drum. President Trump has called our Tax Code a relic and a colossal barrier standing in the way of America's economic comeback. He is right, of course, but so was President Obama. Tax reform doesn't have to be partisan. In fact, it shouldn't be because the ramifications are much more important than just the politics and the scorekeeping of the day. The job creators in my State of Texas are the ones who really understand what is at stake because they are living it. They are the ones who are getting slammed by our current system. Take Lisa Fullerton, for example, who owns a small retail business in San Antonio, my hometown. Ms. Fullerton is an accountant with 33 years of experience, who used to handle her own business's tax compliance in- house. Eventually, though, the code became too complex, and enforcement became too punitive, and she couldn't take that risk anymore. She said that her outsourcing of tax and employment functions now costs her small business roughly $280,000 more per year than it did in 2000. Lisa is far from the only one who is frustrated. Kurt Summers is the President of Austin Generator Service, a small residential power company in the Texas capital. For him, a lower tax rate would mean the difference between his company turning a profit or a loss. It would literally make the difference between being able to keep the doors open or have to lock them up permanently. He explained that any extra profits realized through tax savings might enable his company to grow more aggressively. To him, the need for change is very simple. It means more hiring and more jobs. So Texans, like Alaskans and like all Americans, get the picture. But the picture is pretty messed up, and it doesn't make any sense. Greg Brown, President of W.W. Cannon, an industrialized storage company in Dallas, says that compliance has gotten to be a truly herculean tax. It has gotten so difficult that he has had to outsource that to a CPA--again, because it is so complex and people don't want to risk the burden of not doing it right because of the punitive nature of the penalties. Darryl Lyons, CEO of PAX Financial Group, has done the same thing. He is harmed each year by the passthrough taxes on his small business income, which impair his ability to save for business emergencies, as well as to pay off his company debt. Lastly, in terms of my stories here, Andy Ellard, the owner and general manager of a machine company in Dallas, regularly purchases expensive computer numerical controlled equipment to stay competitive in his industry. I have no idea what that is--computer numerical controlled equipment. He said that the tax ramifications of every purchase have to be considered. Almost every day, he asks: Can we expense it? Do we have to depreciate it? And if we do, over how long? Mr. Ellard isn't shy with his words. He calls the complicated deduction scheme for business expenses ``chaos.'' Clearly, something needs to change. As I said at the outset, that has been acknowledged on a bipartisan basis by the current President and the past President. I even brought out some quotes yesterday or the day before from the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, making exactly the same argument. The ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the Senator from Oregon, said that lowering the corporate tax rate will make America more competitive globally and will bring money back home for jobs and investment in our country. So it is important for us to be consistent and, unfortunately, they haven't been. Things are starting to change. Last week, the so-called Big 6--led by Speaker Ryan; Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin; Kevin Brady, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; and the Finance Committee chairman, Orrin Hatch--released a unified framework that contains core principles for reform. Among them are a simplified rate structure, the elimination of the alternative minimum tax, and many itemized deductions and incentives for companies to keep jobs on American soil. Perhaps most importantly, the framework recommends what is widely agreed upon as overdue, which is lowering our uncompetitive corporate rate, which puts American employers and workers at a disadvantage. Today, it is sad but true that we are divided on many issues in America. But as President Trump and President Obama have suggested, tax reform does not have to be one of them. I listened to our friend the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, this morning, calling for bipartisan tax reform. They are going to have a chance to do that because, after we pass a budget resolution, I anticipate that in the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Hatch will call up a base bill known as the chairman's mark, which will be open for amendment in the Senate Finance Committee. That is what people have been asking for, a chance to participate in the writing of the legislation in the committee and then to have it come to the floor for open debate and amendment. It is what we call regular order around here. But what I am hearing from our Democratic colleagues is, yes, they want bipartisan legislation, but they don't want to participate in the process of writing. It strikes me as pretty hypocritical. This shouldn't be partisan, as President Obama and President Trump have demonstrated and as Democrats and Republicans alike have said time and again. We in Washington have no magic wand that will make our Tax Code suddenly disappear, but that doesn't excuse us from working to make taxes and tax compliance a little less painful. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, beginning today, the Senate Budget Committee will take the next step in our effort to enact pro-growth tax reform, this time by marking up a budget resolution. The committee's work follows the release last week of our unified framework--the tax blueprint on how to create jobs and how to put more money back in the pockets of the hard-working Americans who earn it. Even though the framework is just 1 week old, there are some who are imagining the worst-case scenario. Rumors are spreading like wildfire. Last week, the Tax Policy Center fanned the flames when it published a report analyzing the plan--which, I want to emphasize, hasn't been written yet. Let me say that again. The Tax Policy Center published a report criticizing a plan which hasn't been written yet. This alleged or so-called nonpartisan think tank has looked into its crystal ball and now claims to be able to see the future, and it said the future doesn't look very good. The tax plan, it says, will be a resounding flop. Well, give me a break. I, for one, am sick and tired of this sort of pessimism parading as expertise--people talking about things they know nothing about and claiming to be the experts. It is pretty common here, in Washington, DC, you might have noticed. It is not helpful to assume the worst prematurely and to condemn this important exercise before we are even starting, and it is irresponsible to masquerade biased, partisan analysis as somehow objective. As the Wall Street Journal wrote a couple of days ago, in response to the Tax Policy Center's economists, they made at least two baseless claims: first, that our proposal would ``reduce federal revenues by $2.4 trillion over the first ten years and $3.2 trillion over the subsequent decade''; second, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would ``receive about 50 percent of the total tax benefit.'' These statistics were pretty quotable and indeed raged like a prairie fire across the news media in our country, especially when the media is predisposed to believe the worst, without any question or semblance of skepticism. After all, the Tax Policy Center's report made for easy headlines, reciting the same tired refrains we have all heard before that are all too predictable; that, somehow, our tax plan is only designed to help the rich. Apparently, the temptation was just too great to resist, even though the report didn't have a real author since no self-respecting economist wanted his or her name attached to it. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, however, last week's tax blueprint was just that--a starting place, a plan, a framework, and nothing more. It excluded many important data points which would be important to a real analysis. For example, the income ranges for the three consolidated tax brackets, those weren't in the blueprint. The value of the expanded child tax credit and when it would be phased out, that wasn't in the blueprint either, and you would need to know that information in order to make a reasoned, logical analysis. The blueprint also doesn't mention tax rates for small businesses and what deductions will be eliminated as part of the base broadening. As we all know, an army of lobbyists, lawyers, and other folks have, since 1986, larded the Tax Code with a wide variety of deductions, credits, and other special preferences. What we need to do is clear out some of that thicket so we can lower the rates for everybody, so everybody gets a tax cut, and I mean everybody. It is not going to be easy because we can imagine that army of lobbyists descending upon Capitol Hill trying to protect the special deals they were able to carve out of the Tax Code since 1986, but we have to do it. None of these facts that would be important in order to conduct a reasoned and objective analysis was included in the framework, but all of them would have great potential to greatly move the final numbers. These, and many other details, are essential for any honest fiscal assessment of changes in our Tax Code. When will we begin to see some of those numbers? We need to pass the budget resolution out of the Budget Committee this week--which we will. Then, after Columbus Day, we will come back and have a debate and a vote-arama to pass the budget resolution, which will equip us with the technical tools we need in order to pass a reconciliation bill. Then the real work is going to be occurring in the Finance Committee on this side of the Capitol, where we will take the chairman's mark-- the original bill which Senator Hatch will introduce at the committee-- which will fill in a lot of these details. I predict that will be sometime around the third or maybe fourth week of this month. Then we are going to have an amendment process. The real question in my mind is, Will our Democratic colleagues participate and make this a bipartisan bill? I hope they will. I also want to mention two other related points that deserve mention but which were left out of the Tax Policy's report. One is, the committees in Congress will actually have the ability to come up with the details I mentioned. That will happen in the Ways and Means Committee in the House and in the Finance Committee in the Senate. There will be, as there should be, discussion, deliberation, and compromise as the normal legislative process works out. There have been many around Capitol Hill who have said we don't have enough ``regular order.'' What that means is, we need to conduct the normal legislative process and have the committees actually do what they are designed to do--which is to have hearings and vote on amendments and pass the bill out so it is available to be heard on the floor of the Senate. Then the Senate has a chance to amend it, vote on it, and debate it. The second point I want to make is, any analysis of tax reform must consider what will be the impact on economic growth that will result from it. As the Journal stated, if the rate of GDP growth speeds up from the Obama administration's pace of 2 percent a year to 3 percent, incomes would rise and revenues would increase to the Treasury by some $2.5 trillion. That is what is most often underlooked, including by some of the people who score these bills. If we are successful in passing pro-growth tax reform and tax cuts and we can get this sleeping giant of an economy awake and roaring again just to get it to 3 percent--which is below the average growth of the economy over the last three decades--just at 3 percent, it would put $2.5 trillion more in the Treasury. That would be great because it would help us not only pay our bills, it would help us pay down the deficit and the debt. Obviously, these are important factors to acknowledge. The best way to accomplish meaningful tax reform is to lower rates and simplify provisions across the board, to give Americans more take-home pay and have to spend less time hiring somebody just to complete their tax return. We can't simply throw up our hands, do nothing, and accept the status quo because American workers and job creators can't afford the status quo. I am optimistic about the framework that has been released and look forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee in the days and weeks ahead. What we have now is a useful starting point, and we need to fill in the blanks--and we will--so then we can have a debate based on the facts, not based on somebody's wild, fevered imagination about what the tax bill might look like. One last point on that. We have the highest tax rate in the world for corporations and businesses. This used to be something that even the President of the United States, Barack Obama, back in 2011 acknowledged and said we need to reduce that in order to be competitive globally. We know too many of our jobs are moving overseas. I mentioned yesterday that IBM, one of the largest businesses in the world, has more employees in India than they have in the United States. Now, there are probably varied reasons for that, including our Tax Code. Some of it is access to highly trained workers, lower costs of operation, and the like, but our Tax Code is a self-inflicted economic wound for our country, and the people who pay the price are the people whose wages are stagnant or people who are looking for a job and can't find one. We need to put more money back in their pocket, let them keep more of what they earn, and get this economy growing again.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 17 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``An Examination of the Equifax cybersecurity breach.'' Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to hold an Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 10 a.m. in room Hart 216. Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room Dirksen 406, to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Michael Dourson, Matthew Leopold, David Ross, and William Wehrum to be Assistant Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Jeffery Baran to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, after the first vote scheduled at 11 a.m., in room S-216, to hold a business meeting to consider the following nominations: Bruce J. Walker and Steven E. Winberg, to be Assistant Secretaries of Energy. Committee on Finance The Committee on Finance is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in room Dirksen 215, to consider favorably reporting the Keep Kids' Insurance Dependable and Secure (KIDS) Act of 2017. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 9:15 a.m., to hold a briefing ``Ordered Departure of Personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Havana, Cuba.'' Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on nominations. Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 3 p.m., in room Dirksen 406 to conduct a hearing entitled ``Department of Labor and National Labor Relations Board Nominations.'' 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 Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 10 a.m. for a business meeting. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room Hart 216, to conduct a business meeting considering the following: S. 943, Johnson-O'Malley Supplemental Indian Education Program Modernization Act. Committee on Indian Affairs The Committee on Indian Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room Hart 216, to conduct an oversight hearing entitled ``Doubling Down on Indian Gaming: Examining New Issues and Opportunities for Success in the Next 30 years.'' Committee on Judiciary The Committee on Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 10 a.m., in room Dirksen 226 to conduct a hearing on nominations. Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on pending nominations. Special Committee on Aging The Special Committee on Aging is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 9 a.m. in room Dirksen 562, to conduct a hearing ``Still Ringing off the Hook: An Update on Efforts to Combat Robocalls.'' Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. in room Hart 219 to hold a closed briefing. Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere The Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere is authorized to meet during the session of Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 11 a.m., to hold a hearing ``The Future of Iraq's Minorities: What's Next after ISIS.'' Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law The Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law is authorized to meet during the session of Senate on Wednesday, October 4, 2017, at 2:30 p.m., in room Dirksen 226, to conduct a hearing ``Equifax: Continuing to Monitor Data-Broker Cybersecurity.''

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, yesterday I mentioned how our colleagues across the aisle and, of course, some groups outside of Capitol Hill have predictably started attacking tax reform, actually a plan that doesn't even yet exist in legislative language. With the fall season now upon us, they have decided to shoot arrows at a straw man. One would think, given their effusive support for tax reform in the past, our Democratic friends would at least wait to review the legislation before they pounce on it. I had hoped that they would work with us to come up with a bipartisan plan, but I guess I am not entirely surprised. That has never stopped them before from pillorying smart policy when it served a political end. Yes, they are already piling on, spreading misinformation, and assuming the worst because that is the easy and politically expedient thing to do. The problem is that many of the criticisms of our framework have been misleading and counterproductive. Worse, some Members seem more content to misconstrue a plan than to understand it and give it a fair hearing. Allow me to clarify the record for just a moment. What is most striking is that the new framework unveiled by the so-called Big 6 shares many of the core features of previous plans that were widely embraced by Democrats--not only that, but many of the folks who are now critical of the new plan came out in support of these provisions as recently as this year. The senior Senator from Oregon is typical in this regard. In response to our framework, he said that ``this is a far-right Republican scheme to endow future generations of the mega wealthy and leave what amounts to crumbs for the middle-class behind.'' That is kind of a breathtaking allegation. Those are indeed strong statements, but the American people are smart. The American people realize that the plan our colleague from Oregon is criticizing is similar to the one he sponsored and promoted in 2011. Let's get the facts straight. The Senator from Oregon had previously sponsored a plan in 2011 with our former colleague, Senator Coats of Indiana, called the Wyden-Coats plan. Here on the left is the Big 6 framework that he described. Let me read that again. He said that ``this is a far-right Republican scheme to endow future generations of the mega wealthy and leave what amounts to crumbs for the middle-class behind.'' Well, here is the framework he was criticizing by the language I just provided, and here is his plan in 2011. Each of these plans--the Wyden- Coats plan from 2011 and the one we are considering now--is based on three individual tax rates. Both the plan the Senator from Oregon once supported and the one we are now discussing, the framework, would collapse seven tax brackets in the current system down to three, vastly simplifying the Tax Code and the burden of complying with that Tax Code by ordinary Americans. Each plan would also eliminate the alternative minimum tax. It vastly increases the standard deduction. The Wyden- Coats plan would have tripled it. The Big 6 framework, which he criticized, doubles the standard deduction, making it so that a married couple who earn $24,000 or less would be essentially in a zero tax bracket. So my question is, What has changed, other than the political party of the President in office? These changes to our Tax Code used to be noncontroversial, and certainly not partisan. The Big 6 plan isn't just similar to the Wyden one, though. It also shares key features with the so-called Simpson-Bowles plan from 2010, which not long ago was embraced by a number of Democrats, including the current minority whip, the Senator from Illinois. Here is a comparison of the so-called Big 6 framework and the Simpson-Bowles plan. As you can see, there are a lot of similarities: seven brackets collapsed into three, eliminating the alternative minimum tax, and eliminating a number of itemized deductions or so- called base broadeners. It enhances the child tax credit, and it lowers the corporate rate. These proposals were once a no-brainer for Republicans and Democrats alike. So why the change in tune? Our Democratic colleagues used to think these reforms were long overdue. They were right then, and they are wrong now. None other than the Senate minority leader, our colleague from New York, has said: ``To preserve our international competitiveness, it is imperative that we seek to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent.'' That was the Senator from New York in 2012. He said: ``This will boost growth and encourage more companies to reinvest in the United States.'' He was absolutely correct in 2012. He is entirely wrong now to change his view and suggest that this is somehow a wrong way to approach getting the economy growing again and encouraging businesses that have earned money overseas to bring that money back home and invest it in businesses and jobs and pay for American workers here at home. We do need to change incentives, and we do need to spur growth. That is why the new framework we are considering will create a new tax structure for small businesses, allowing them to better compete. Once upon a time, none of this was particularly partisan, and many of our colleagues across the aisle got the picture. Our colleagues from Ohio, Minnesota, and Missouri have all said in recent years that we should lower the corporate tax rate, not because we love corporations but because we recognize that provides incentives for them to stay here and invest in jobs and businesses in America rather than overseas. But it also makes it more likely that hard-working Americans will be able to find a job and that the jobs they hold will actually pay better wages. Thanks to our reduction in individual tax rates, they will actually have more take-home pay. As some have pointed out, this literally would raise their standard of living and make it possible for them to provide for their children's education, maybe buy a reliable car so that they can go back and forth to their job every day, maybe buy a home, or perhaps save for their retirement. There is nothing partisan about wanting an updated and more competitive tax code that will incentivize businesses to keep jobs on American soil. That is what the so-called reduction in the corporate rate will do. Right now, we have the highest corporate rate in the world, so many businesses have simply picked up their roots here in America and have moved overseas to countries that have lower tax rates because they simply can't rationalize to their shareholders, to whom they have a fiduciary duty, paying higher taxes and remaining in the United States. So they take it overseas. Even for those who stay behind--because of our extraordinarily high tax rate and the fact they literally would have to pay double taxes for income earned abroad and brought back to the United States--they pay the tax rate in the country where the money is earned, bring it back to the United States, and have to pay twice. So they pay 35 percent on top of whatever they have to pay in the countries where the money is earned. Is it any wonder, for example, that IBM--I read this last weekend-- actually has more jobs in India than it does in the United States? Let me say that again. IBM, the global computer company, has more jobs in India today than it does in the United States. I have no doubt that has to do with certain incentives the country will pay to companies to invest and to build their business in their country, and, no doubt, it has to do with access to skilled labor. That certainly has to be a part of it, but there can be no doubt that our Tax Code is simply encouraging companies like IBM to shift more of their work overseas. Even if they wanted to bring the money they have earned overseas back to the United States, they would have to pay twice. So what do they do? They simply invest in their workforce, they simply invest in their business in another country, much to our detriment. If something is broken, which our Tax Code is, it needs to be fixed, not avoided. Our Democratic colleagues need to once again acknowledge this, as so many of them did when it came to our outdated Tax Code, as I pointed out. There is no reason why tax reform can't be bipartisan, and if our colleagues just returned to some of their statements, which I have highlighted here--if they returned to those policies in a bipartisan fashion and worked with us, we could change our Tax Code for the better. We could make it simpler. We could make sure individuals have lower tax rates so they could have more take-home pay from the wages they earn and, in the process, improve their standard of living for themselves and their families. Finally, we could become more competitive in a global economy where the highest tax rate in the world does not serve American interests well. It doesn't serve the interests of American businesses well, and it doesn't serve the interests of American workers or taxpayers either. We can do this. All it takes is political will. All it takes is approaching this in a fashion that benefits all Americans on a nonpartisan basis. I hope our colleagues will listen. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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, today we mourn the loss of at least 50 lives in Las Vegas, the victims of senseless violence at an outdoor concert near the Mandalay Resort and Casino. The lives of fellow Americans were taken in a barbaric manner that defies all justification, excuse, or even explanation. That these events have become almost commonplace in modern society makes them no less shocking or morally reprehensible. The date and location--a country music festival on a Sunday afternoon--make the act seem doubly cruel. Thousands of innocent spectators were there from around the country enjoying themselves, with security being the furthest thing from their minds, until the shots rang out. As news reports have now indicated, the event is one of the deadliest mass shootings in modern U.S. history. It and other forms of violence continue to tear apart the fabric of our country, and the scars left among the victims' families and loved ones will be painful and permanent. My prayers go out to all those in Nevada who have not slept since yesterday and who are still grappling with the aftermath of the shooting, the families tending to loved ones in hospitals, as well as the first responders and law enforcement officers who ran toward, not away from, the gunfire and who are now nursing various wounds. Here in Washington, we will continue to monitor the situation. We will continue to keep the fallen in our prayers in the days ahead.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to congratulate Heath Tarbert, who was confirmed by the Senate last Wednesday and will soon be serving as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Markets and Development, and also to talk about reform legislation that relates to his new area of responsibility. I was pleased to support Mr. Tarbert's nomination, along with the vast majority of my Senate colleagues. He has held a number of important positions in all three branches of the Federal Government, including his service as a special counsel to the Senate Banking Committee during the negotiations leading to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; an associate counsel to the President of the United States during the global financial crisis; and a law clerk for the Supreme Court of the United States. He is an experienced lawyer and financial expert who will be a valuable asset to the Treasury Department. While his new position may not be well known to many outside of the Beltway, it is vitally important to safeguarding our national security interests, as Chairman Crapo of the Senate Banking Committee attested to when Mr. Tarbert was voted out of committee in near-unanimous fashion in May. I have no doubt of Mr. Tarbert's qualifications to take on this key role, and given that only one Member voted against his nomination, it is clear that there is a bipartisan consensus on that point. With that being said, I look forward to working closely with him on some important reforms that are desperately needed to protect our national security and modernize the way we screen foreign investment deals for those risks. Specifically I am referring to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, better known as CFIUS. As you may know, Mr. Tarbert will now be charged with overseeing the vetting of hundreds of proposed investments annually. I am confident that Mr. Tarbert will make effective use of the tools and authorities that CFIUS has. Unfortunately, those current tools and authorities are not adequate, in light of the changing national security landscape. There are clear gaps in the CFIUS process, which nations such as China are exploiting on a daily basis. The reason for this is simple: CFIUS was not designed to stop investment-driven technology transfers, and unfortunately, many such transactions are occurring today that are carefully designed to sidestep CFIUSs' limited jurisdiction. The need to close these gaps has garnered support from Republicans and Democrats alike, something that is seemingly rare in Washington these days. In fact, there is a bipartisan effort coming together right now to introduce legislation that would modernize the CFIUS process for the first time in a decade. Such commonsense reforms should be made to heighten scrutiny on certain types of investments, especially from countries such as China that pose a potential threat to U.S. national security interests. At a minimum, we should expand the types of transactions that fall under CFIUS jurisdiction, including joint ventures and minority-position investments, as well as certain real estate transactions in close proximity to military bases and other sensitive national security facilities. My legislation, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, or FIRRMA, will do just that, and I intend to file it in the next few weeks. It will address the aforementioned gaps in the current CFIUS process and will help protect our national security. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and support these commonsense reforms for the sake of our long-term national security. (At the request of Mr. McConnell, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have 1 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 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, October 2, 2017 at 5:45 p.m., in S-216, Capitol (President's Room), in order to conduct a business meeting to report the following nominations: Stephen Censky, of Missouri, to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture and Ted McKinney, of Indiana, to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs.

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, it has been quite a few weeks now since Harvey hit and, then, Irma. Now Maria has devastated the island of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Of course, my gaze has been firmly on the devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey back in my home State of Texas. Yet we are joined together with those who suffered under Irma and Maria, and we will remain steadfastly with them as we all work to recover from these terrible hurricanes. Last week, I rode in a Black Hawk helicopter with Russ Poppe, as well as our Adjutant General, John Nichols. Mr. Poppe is executive director of the Harris County Flood Control District. We were able to survey in the air things I had seen up close during several trips back home, the wreckage of the land and livelihoods. It is an emotional thing for families and homeowners to basically take all of their worldly possessions out to the front of their house and put it in the front yard because it is completely ruined as a result of the water, along with things like the drywall, trying to attack the mold before it grows and makes the house uninhabitable. We saw from about 10,000 feet in the air what we had previously seen from the ground, but from the air, you definitely get a different perspective on the waterlogged landscape. You see so much more. You see the levees, the reservoirs, the areas hit. You see the damaged goods and drywall that people have taken out of their homes as the first step toward recovery. It definitely has an impression on you, particularly with the size and scale of the affected area. It is really hard to believe until you see it from that perspective. So when I took off my headset and sunglasses--and by the way, Speaker Paul Ryan joined us on that particular trip, and we all appreciate his being there. When we stepped off the chopper, what I thought about was not only what we have done so far but how much further we still had to go. It is not just about building materials, street and roof repairs, or even the temporary housing that people need, although all of those things are surely important. We need to remember that the remedies are not going to be one-size-fits-all. We need broad support, but we also need targeted and narrow support to help people get back on their feet. We need to keep each family in mind and what their own particular needs may be depending on their particular circumstances. As I started out to say, it is not just Texas we are talking about anymore; it is Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands too. We all remember that those places were hit by Hurricanes Irma and Maria right after Texas was hit by Harvey. I want to make one thing clear, though: We in Texas stand together with our fellow Americans who suffered from Hurricanes Maria and Irma, as well as those who suffered from other natural disasters occurring in and around our country, and we will do everything we can to help the people who were harmed and damaged, even devastated by these terrible storms. We will help them fight to get back on their feet, to recover, and to return their lives to some form of normalcy. One way we can work together and deliver relief to different people in different geographic areas is in providing temporary tax relief. Now, I know this sounds kind of like a small thing to do, but if you think about it, this is a thousand-year storm. Hurricane Harvey dropped 34 trillion gallons of water on the same area over a period of about 5 or so days. Many people were not in the hundred-year floodplain, which is typically where you would buy flood insurance, so many people suffered losses that were not covered by flood insurance. What many of these folks will have to do is dip into their retirement savings and other savings in order to help to get life back to normal. This relief will help folks get back on their feet as they rebuild their homes and businesses and neighborhoods in the wake of these hurricanes. We recently passed--earlier this afternoon--a Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, but it also included the tax package I am talking about now that provides this targeted relief. These provisions will help hurricane victims in all of the devastated areas keep more of their paycheck, first and foremost, but be able to deduct the cost of their property damage on their tax return and encourage even more Americans to generously donate to hurricane relief to help their neighbors and employees. I know this tax package is a small matter. It is not a panacea and certainly not a cure-all, and it is not supposed to fix every storm- related problem or absolve us from honoring our ongoing responsibilities in the days ahead. But as John Steinbeck once said, ``and now that you don't have to be perfect, you can just be good,'' and I think these are good reforms. They will complement other measures by the Federal Government, as well as other State and local actors. Similar provisions were introduced in a noncontroversial section of the FAA reauthorization bill that unfortunately House Democrats, led by Leader Pelosi, tried to block earlier this week. Despite the delays, I am pleased that the House acted a second time earlier today to ensure that this relief is delivered to those who need it most--again, not just in Texas but in Florida, the Virgin Islands, and in Puerto Rico, which reportedly has been devastated. Now we in this Chamber seem to have finally gotten the message, too, by passing this relief just this very afternoon as part of the FAA bill. Our colleague from Florida, Representative Carlos Curbelo, said about the hurricane victims in his home State: ``They don't have time to wait. They certainly don't have time to play political games.'' He is right, and now we can say we have taken those words to heart. So I remember what I saw from that helicopter. Now that the time for surveying the scene has ended, what is no longer up in the air is this: For many Texans, Floridians, and Puerto Ricans, targeted tax relief will serve to make a difficult year just a little easier. So I salute the House for getting the job done, and I am glad we in this Chamber have quickly followed suit. Mr. President, I yield the floor.