Floor Statements

Mr. President, for the last 3 years we have heard President Obama and our friends on the left promise--no, guarantee-- that ObamaCare will help make health insurance more affordable. But day after day we see costs going up for hard-working families all across our country--not merely the rich families, not only the 1 percent, but middle-class Americans.

Last week I heard from Natalie Geiger, a wife and a mother of three in

Charleston, SC, whose health insurance costs are seeing double-digit increases.

These are the faces of real people impacted by ObamaCare. They are not stats; they are not numbers; they don't get waivers. They are taxpayers, middle-income taxpayers, and ObamaCare is forcing many to choose between saving for college for these three little kids and paying for health care. They shouldn't have to choose.

``ObamaCare'' and ``healthcare.gov'' are words that we now know are synonymous with ``failure.''

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have enjoyed--well, not really, but I listened to my colleagues from the left talk about just reopening the government. I think to myself as she used the analogy of saving someone's life, dragging them halfway to the shore and stopping--I think to myself, think about the veterans. The House of Representatives passed a bill to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I think about all those veterans who served our Nation, put their lives on the line. The House of Representatives sent over a bill to fund the very crucial needs of our veterans. Yet the Senate has failed to take it up. I think about the national parks and all the opportunities we have to see our parks reopen, see our veterans from World War II not denied. But, no, the Senate refuses to take it up.

I think of NIH and the critical funding that is necessary to continue the research. Yet our friends on the left refuse to take up this critical piece of legislation.

I enjoy being lectured to. I call it ``the Democrat lecture series,'' but at the end of the day we ought to have action and not simply words. I understand it is important for us to figure out who to blame.

In politics, the lowest common denominator is always fear. Our friends on the left do a very good job of assigning blame to someone, someplace, somehow, all the time, but what we need is leadership, not more information about polls but leadership. We need people committed to a cause. In a town that seems to be the epicenter of activity for the economy, we have two-thirds of this legislative process, the White House and the Senate, being run by our Democratic friends. Yet they want to blame the Republicans for the shutdown.

I call this, no question, undeniably the Democratic shutdown. I hope we find ourselves in a position to tell our veterans we were not kidding when we made the promise. Promises made should be promises kept. There ought to be no question of our commitment. We have seen that commitment demonstrated by our friends in the House, Republicans and Democrats, working together to pass legislation to take care of our veterans. We need more of that. That is leadership, working together, finding common ground to take care of those who have made America possible. But not today, not in this Senate, not when those bills sit idle. But the men and women who served our country cannot sit idle. They go without their benefits. I wonder why. I wonder why we are not seeing the sense of urgency to take care of those areas where there is full agreement. Why are we not taking advantage of the opportunities presented to us on a consistent basis by our friends in the House of Representatives? I do not understand that. I simply do not understand that.

I will say I do find it very difficult to find common ground in the Senate at times. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans and Democrats to find something we have in common. I believe we strive to work in a bipartisan fashion on a consistent basis, and I will tell you that on the most important issues it is very difficult. But I have been encouraged in my research in the last few days of looking for common ground--I have been encouraged that I have found some friends on the left who actually seem to agree with my position on some of the most important issues facing the Nation today. I will even quote some of my friends to the left as I think through the debt ceiling debate.

As a matter of fact, the first quote I will start with from my friends on the left:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's

debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.

I concur with my friend on the left. Another quote:

Interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans. A

debt tax Washington did not want to talk about.

I concur and agree with my friend to the left. Another quote:

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and

internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here.

I agree with my friend on the left. My colleague on the left is now the President of the United States. These are quotes from Senator Barack Obama.

Our President of the United States and our Vice President, combined, voted approximately I think it was 10 or 11 times not to raise the debt ceiling of our country. They called it a failure of leadership. I think it is interesting. As a small business owner for the last 15 years I have had the opportunity to borrow what I considered at the time real money. Now that I am in Washington, I have to redefine the definition of real money. But at the time I was trying to get my business started. I went to a bank to borrow some money. The banker had some very interesting questions for me. He wanted to know how I was going to pay it back. He wanted to know what assets I was willing to put up in order to receive the resources I needed to fund my business.

I see the debt ceiling debate as a debate over how we explain to our investors, the American taxpayers, that we are handling responsibly the underlying causes for the need to increase our debt. I cannot tell our investors that we are handling our debt--our spending responsibly. I cannot tell our investors that we have a plan to balance our budgets. I cannot tell our investors, the taxpayers of America, that we are even thinking about controlling our spending. No. As a matter of fact, over the last 5 years we have spent nearly $5 trillion more than we brought in. And our friends on the left want to have a serious conversation about the spending of this country.

I cannot tell our investors, the American taxpayers, what I want to tell them, but I can tell them that we do not deserve an increase in the debt ceiling unless we produce a plan. I can tell our investors here at home that we do not deserve an increase without balancing our budgets. I can tell them, the taxpayers of America, that until we are willing to cut our spending at the same rate that we increase our credit card limit, we don't deserve their confidence in raising the debt ceiling.

Some would ask: Senator Scott, where, pray tell, would you find the revenue when our friends in the House of Representatives say that there is just no more money for us to cut? We can't find any place to cut anything in this $4 trillion spending plan. Really? Well, there are many options on how to cut spending here in America.

Senator Tom Coburn regularly shares reports on government waste. Last year he showed how the Market Access Program provided $20 million to the Cotton Council International. They used that money to create reality TV shows in India intended to promote the use of cotton. India, for the record, is an exporter of cotton and produces twice the amount the U.S. does.

The OMB released a report that improper payments for Medicare amounted to $47.9 billion in 2010, or 9 percent of Medicare's budget. The Chamber of Commerce looked at the Davis-Bacon requirements and found that it inflates the costs of Federal construction projects by as much as 15 percent and costs the taxpayers over $1 billion annually.

There are over 1,500 programs in the U.S. Government that are in duplication and costing the taxpayers more than $400 billion.

I would like to be able to share with the investors of America, the taxpayers, that we have a plan. I would love to share with the taxpayers of America that one day we will balance our budget. I would love to tell the taxpayers of America, our investors, that they can have confidence in our ability to lead us in such a way that future debt increases will be less likely to happen. I have not seen such a plan. I have not heard conversations about controlling our debt, only conversations about increasing the limit to create more debt.

I am concerned that as we wrestle with the problems of today we have no focus on tomorrow. I hope that this body will work diligently not only to have a conversation about the debt limit of America but to have a conversation about how we take care of the underlying problem.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me start by getting something out of the way: I am opposed to funding Obamacare, plain and simple, and my votes this week reflect that. The allegedly Affordable Care Act is raising premiums, forcing millions of Americans into part-time work, and raising taxes on hard-working American families.

However, I want to bring up another problem we are facing this week, which has so far been mostly drowned out in this latest budget crisis. Short-term, month-to-month budgeting is no way to run a government. Even if we manage to avoid a government shutdown this time, we will be debating this same question in just 6 weeks. We should not continue to place bandaids on Washington's failure to pass a responsible, long-term budget.

When I ran a small business, I had a plan to meet payroll and keep the lights on and doors open with the revenue I brought in. Even small businesses need long range planning, fiscal discipline, and foresight. When families sit down to plan their budgets, they are forced to make tough choices--like how to save for college, or simply how to get food on the dinner table that week. But the Federal Government has repeatedly failed to play by these same rules, and as a result, we move from crisis to crisis with no solution on the horizon for our growing fiscal mess. Congress has not completed all 12 regular spending bills on time since 1997. This year, Congress has not yet passed any of these bills. As a result, our debt continues to rise, our government grows ever bigger, and our economic future remains uncertain. This hurts our economy and hurts our families.

A big part of the solution here is not rocket science: Pass a budget. Pass all 12 appropriations bills. Show some fiscal foresight. While Obamacare is certainly more than enough reason to oppose the current continuing resolution, I will not support this stopgap spending measure and further grind our budgeting process to a halt. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to reflect on the current Senate debate over the funding of our government and the future of the so-called Affordable Care Act.

At the outset, I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I oppose Obamacare and have from the beginning.

I was among the most outspoken critics of Obamacare when it was being debated in the Senate. In fact, I was the first Member of Congress to suggest that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, an argument that eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Since the law's passage, I have been one of the foremost voices in Congress in favor of repeal.

I have introduced legislation to repeal some of Obamacare's most egregious provisions, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate, the health insurance tax, and the medical device tax.

I have come to the floor countless times over the years to call for either a full repeal or permanent delay of the implementation of Obamacare.

In short, Mr. President, no one can accuse me of acquiescing when it comes to opposing Obamacare. I have and will continue to do all I can to protect the American people from this monstrosity of a law.

That said, I wish to express my admiration for my colleagues who are currently fighting to defund Obamacare as part of the continuing resolution to fund the government. I admire their commitment to their principles and share their desire to see Obamacare disappear once and for all.

While I may not agree with their chosen strategy, our overall goals are the same.

It is that strategy that I want to comment on today.

Once again, no one is more committed to repealing Obamacare than I am. However, if we are going to be successful in this endeavor, we need to look at the bigger picture.

Quite simply, the strategy of forcing a government shutdown in order to defund Obamacare has no chance of success. And, in the long run, I believe it will do more harm than good.

Unlike a number of my colleagues, I was around for the government shutdown of 1995. And, while purists may have patted themselves on the back for their resolve, the shutdown did nothing to advance conservative principles and, in the end, harmed the Republican Party.

I can't help but think that the same would happen now if we end up shutting down the government over a fight about Obamacare.

In fact, given the number of setbacks he has faced recently, I have little doubt that President Obama is hoping for a government shutdown so that he can blame it on Republicans.

That is what the Wall Street Journal editorial page argued recently, saying:

With his own popularity fading, Mr. Obama may want a

shutdown so he can change the subject to his caricature of

GOP zealots who want no government. He'll blame any turmoil

or economic fallout on House Republicans, figuring that he

can split the tea party from the GOP and that this is the one

event that could reinstall Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. Mr. Obama

could spend his final two years going out in a blaze of

liberal glory.

Does anyone seriously believe that the mainstream media would portray a government shutdown over Obamacare in a light that was favorable to congressional Republicans?

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, at the conclusion of my remarks, a copy of the Wall Street Journal editorial.

I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a copy of a recent op-ed piece authored by Karl Rove.

In that opinion piece, Mr. Rove rightly argues that:

``The desire to strike at Obamacare is praiseworthy. But, any strategy to repeal, delay, or replace the law must have a credible chance of succeeding or affecting broad public opinion positively. The defunding strategy doesn't. Going down that road would strengthen the president while alienating independents. It is an ill-conceived tactic, and Republicans should reject it.''

Karl Rove isn't the only conservative making these arguments.

Writing in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer said of the shutdown strategy: ``[T]here's no principle at stake here. This is about tactics. If I thought this would work, I would support it. But I don't fancy suicide.''

Mr. Krauthammer continued, saying: ``Nothing could better revive the fortunes of a failing, flailing, fading Democratic administration than a government shutdown where the president is portrayed as standing up to the GOP on honoring our debts and paying our soldiers in the field.''

Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review wrote that this strategy is ``a grass roots-pleasing slogan in search of a path to legislative fruition,'' and that it ``seems tantamount to believing that if Republican politicians clicked their wing tips together and wished it so, President Barack Obama would collapse in a heap and surrender on his party's most cherished accomplishment.''

Mr. President, these aren't critiques aimed at the Senators pursuing this strategy. Instead, these are stalwart conservative commentators recognizing the reality of our situation.

If the strategy that some of my colleagues are apparently pursuing had even a minor chance at success, I would be the first in line to support their efforts. Once again, no one wants to see Obamacare defeated more than I do.

But, facts are facts.

For this strategy to be successful, it would require at least 15 Senate Democrats to change their minds and support defunding Obamacare. That is unlikely.

It would also require President Obama to sign into law a resolution defunding what he believes is his signature domestic achievement. That is even more unlikely.

That being the case, I cannot support this strategy. I cannot support a filibuster of the continuing resolution now before the Senate.

The CR does what Republicans want it to do--it defunds Obamacare. I urge all my colleagues to vote for cloture on the continuing resolution.

At the same time, I oppose any effort to strip the language defunding Obamacare from the resolution and to raise the overall spending levels above those established under the Budget Control Act.

Indeed, if, after the Senate invokes cloture on the CR, the Majority Leader's amendment is agreed to, I urge my colleagues to vote no on final passage.

Madam President, I rise today to express my opposition to the nomination of Thomas Perez to be Secretary of Labor.

Given our relentlessly high rate of unemployment over the past 55 months and stagnant economic growth, we simply must do more to foster lasting economic prosperity. After analyzing Mr. Perez's role at the Department of Justice, I do not believe he is the proper candidate to help our Nation return to full employment or reach our economic potential. I have great concerns regarding some of the decisions he has made, the professionalism and ethics of those decisions, and his overall management abilities. The Department of Labor has, unfortunately, pursued guidance and rulemakings that are daunting to large and small businesses alike, and I believe Mr. Perez would only exacerbate these problems.

Mr. Perez accrued an alarming record of mismanagement and utter politicization of the law during his tenure at the Department of Justice, DOJ. The DOJ's inspector general 2013 report gave a highly critical review of the Voting Section under Mr. Perez, citing the ``politically charged atmosphere and polarization within the Voting Section'' and the ``dysfunctional management chain'' under Mr. Perez. Furthermore, the report indicated that the handling of the New Black Panther Party case under his leadership ``risked undermining confidence in the non-ideological enforcement of the voting rights laws.''

When I look at the nonpartisan inspector general report and the way in which Mr. Perez has pursued policies singling out certain conservative States and industries, I simply cannot support his nomination. The Voting Section's decision to override career DOJ staff to block the implementation of my home State of South Carolina's voter ID law is a prime example of this trend. Only after South Carolina spent more than $3.5 million suing the DOJ in Federal court did our law take effect. Yet, even on the heels of defeat in Federal court, Mr. Perez was still dissatisfied and decided to send DOJ officials down to monitor a special municipal election in Branchville, SC--a town with a voting population of 800 and where fewer than 200 people voted in the special municipal election.

Finally, I believe it is irresponsible and an abdication of congressional authority to move a nominee who has repeatedly failed to comply with an outstanding congressional subpoena. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee issued a bipartisan subpoena on April 10, 2013, regarding 1,200 e-mails sent from Mr. Perez's nonofficial e- mail account that referred to official business of the Department of Justice. Mr. Perez's failure to comply with this obligation casts considerable doubt on the deference he would give to Congress as Secretary.

What we need at the Department of Labor is simple: a Secretary who will put politics aside and a strong management structure in place to help get our economy back on track. States, businesses, and employees cannot afford to have a Secretary of Labor who seeks to micromanage and politicize the most mundane aspects of everyday life. For these reasons, I oppose Mr. Perez's nomination.

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

Madam President, I rise today to honor the memory of nine South Carolinians lost last week.

The McManus and Antonakos families, both of Greenville, were vacationing together in Alaska when the small plane they were flying in crashed on takeoff.

Melet and Kim Antonakos raised three beautiful children: Olivia, Mills, and Ana. They were close friends with Dr. Chris and Stacy McManus and their wonderful children: Meghan and Connor.

The loss of these two families has left the Upstate grieving, including the congregation at Christ Church Episcopal, where more than 1,200 people attended a memorial service last Friday.

When you talk to folks in Greenville about the McManus and Antonakos families, a few words come up over and over: faith, character, kindness.

Despite the heartbreak we feel, the Greenville community can hopefully take solace that these nine friends--nine neighbors, nine brothers and sisters in Christ--are now in a better place.

We remember them not for the tragic way they died but for the joy and compassion with which they lived.

I thank the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

It is indeed a humbling honor to serve the great people of South Carolina in the Senate. I am so grateful for the support I have received from South Carolinians.

The success of the Palmetto State can be measured in many ways, but today, let me share the success of our economic engine. From insourcing jobs from other countries, jobs such as Otis Elevators in Florence, SC, or the high-tech boom that is happening throughout South Carolina, companies such as BMW in the upstate continue to expand. Michelin, in Anderson County expands. Continental Tires finds a home in Sumter, SC, and there are more than 5,000 new jobs on the coast of South Carolina because of Boeing. And let's not forget Aiken, SC, where Bridgestone has made a new home. South Carolina is and will continue to be a leading manufacturing engine for America.

I stand before you today on the shoulders of two very amazing Americans. One has gone home to be with the Lord. The other is my hero, my mother, Frances Scott.

Growing up in a single-parent household, my mother would have to work sometimes 16-hour days in order to keep me and my brother off of welfare. She wanted us to have a good example of someone who believed in hard work for us to follow.

My mother used to tell me all the time that if you shoot for the Moon and you miss, you will be among the stars. But I didn't always listen to my mother. By the time I was a freshman in high school, I was drifting. Have you ever noticed that you don't really drift in the right direction? As a freshman in high school, I failed out. I failed world geography. I think I am the only U.S. Senator to fail civics. I also failed Spanish and English.

When you fail Spanish and English, they don't call you bilingual. They call you bi-ignorant because you can't speak in any language.

That's where I found myself. I found myself in a very strong and hard position, but good fortune strikes. I had two blessings. One was a mother who believes that sometimes love has to come at the end of the switch. For those of you who are not aware of what a switch is, it is a motivational apparatus, and it encouraged me a lot. I will say that, along with my mentor John Moniz, who came along at the right time--I was a sophomore--I found my way back on the path. John Moniz was a Chick-fil-A operator who made such a major impact in my life over the last three decades.

John came along as I was a sophomore in high school, and he taught me some very, very valuable lessons. A couple of those lessons John started teaching me very early on were about being a business owner. John believed that you could literally think your way out of poverty. You didn't have to be an entertainer or an athlete, but you could become an entrepreneur. So John started teaching me some of the lessons of being a business owner. He said having a job is a good thing, but creating jobs is even better.

John would teach me later that in earning an income, you have done well. But if you can learn to create a profit, you have done fantastically. He taught me some other lessons about individual responsibility. John once told me: If you don't like where you are, look in the mirror. Blame yourself. John was trying to teach me some very valuable lessons about individual responsibility.

I learned very quickly from John that if you were a part of the problem, you were also part of the promise; that in fact if you saw yourself as a part of your obstacle, you may have found the key ingredient to your opportunities. It took a little time before the lessons of my mentor and the strong discipline of my mother started to germinate in my soul, but it finally did.

After 4 years of having John as my mentor, something very tragic happened. At the young age of 38, John suddenly passed away. I remember the day before his funeral as though it were yesterday. I sat down and wrote out my mission statement: to positively impact the lives of a billion people with the message of hope and opportunity--hope being my faith in Christ Jesus and opportunity being the lessons of financial literacy and financial independence I learned from my mentor John Moniz.

I decided to follow in the footsteps of my mentor John. I started my own business, and I learned very quickly the challenges of signing the front of the paycheck when you could not sign the back for yourself. Over the last two decades, as a business owner and as an elected official--whether it was as a member of the county council or a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives or being elected to the U.S. Congress--I have used as my foundation the lessons I learned from my mentor and my mother.

During my time here in the Senate I will focus on a few key issues, including education, economic empowerment, and controlling our spending addiction. As a small business owner over the last 15 years I can tell you firsthand that our Tax Code is broken. With the highest corporate tax rate in all the world, and the taxing of small and family-owned businesses at an alarming rate, we will continue to produce a slow- growth economy.

The regulatory nightmare facing our small business owners today is only worsened by the ``Unaffordable Care Act,'' as my good friend Congressman Kucinich said yesterday.

Further, with over 70,000 pages of new regulations in the last 5 years, the compliance cost for small business is staggering. We do not simply need a delay in the employer mandate, we need a repeal of the employer mandate.

On education, I can tell you as a poor kid, by the time I was in the fourth grade, I had already attended four schools. It is very difficult for us to fund the right school with the sometimes transient nature of poverty where you have to move a lot. I believe the system and the people closest to the child are in the best position to provide the highest quality of education for that child. So there is no way a bureaucrat in Washington, DC, can better educate a child in Lexington County than that child's parents and the teachers who are so involved in that education.

We need a national debate on education. Parents need more choices so their kids will have a chance. So let's debate it. Let's debate charter schools, let's debate public school choice, private school choice, tax credits, home schools. Whatever it takes to improve our education system should be on the table for discussion.

Let me close with this. If we create a competitive Tax Code and a fair, sensible regulatory environment, as well as a world-class education system, we will create the best economy known to man, as we have in times past. You see, the best and the brightest days are still ahead for America. Our strongest moments, our strongest stands, are still in our future. I believe in the greatness of America because I have experienced the goodness of her people. In America, an ordinary guy like me can be blessed with an extraordinary opportunity like this. Thank you, and God bless America.

I thank the Leader.

I thank my colleague.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, my amendment is very simple. It prohibits the automatic deduction of union dues from Federal employees' paychecks.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, in the heart of Charleston, SC, lies Cannon Street; it's a modest street spanning just a few city blocks. However, within its history lies the story of what Dr. Creighton Hale, the former CEO of little league baseball, called ``the most significant amateur team in baseball history.''

In 1955, the area surrounding this street was one of economic blight and social unease. In an effort to keep kids out of trouble and teach skills that only team sports can provide, the local YMCA organized four little league teams for the neighborhood kids. The Cannon Street YMCA All-Stars consisted of seventeen players: John Bailey, Charles Bradley, Vermont Brown, William Godfrey, Vernon Grey, Allen Jackson, Carl Johnson, John Mack, Leroy Major, David Middleton, Arthur Peoples, John Rivers, Norman Robinson, Maurice Singleton, Leroy Carter, George Gregory, and Augustus Holt. They were coached and founded by: Lee J. Bennett, Walter Burke, Rufus Dilligard, A.O. Graham, Robert Morrison, R.H. Penn, and Benjamin Singleton. The team would advance to the Charleston City Little League playoff games but would never be given the opportunity to earn a spot in the Little League World Series. It was not because they were unworthy players or because they could not afford to go. The color of their skin stifled the dreams of these twelve-year-old boys.

The Charleston playoff games were boycotted in 1955 to preserve racial segregation. Because teams again refused to play against them, the Cannon Street All-Stars advanced past the state and regional playoffs. The National Little League invited the All-Stars to the Little League World Series as special guests; they could not compete for the title because technically they hadn't played their way to the championships. They returned to Charleston, dismayed and disappointed.

As children, they embodied the very characteristics that organized sports aim to impart--teamwork, courage and respect. As adults they have worked in productive and valuable careers such as architecture, law enforcement and education. As they have grown older, they are now volunteers in their communities--giving back, yet again. While they never had the opportunity to compete, their story has demonstrated where we have come from as a nation.

Last month members of my staff had the opportunity to meet several of the original Cannon Street Little Leaguers who traveled to Washington, DC to be recognized at Nationals Stadium before the Nationals-Phillies game. Their story remains powerful more than 65 years later, and I know my staff will never forget having the opportunity to meet them.

Today, the neighborhood that encompasses Cannon Street has developed into an integral part of the Charleston education and science community. It is home to a number of colleges and universities and a world-class research hospital. The boys of the Cannon Street Little League Team are men who through their careers and service to the community have become assets to their neighborhoods. In spite of the adversity they encountered and the challenges they confronted, these young people illustrated to the world the absurdity of segregation and the hatred inherent in racism.

In the 55 years since they were excluded from competing to earn a spot at the Little League World Series in their own right, America has matured. I would like to believe that a handful of twelve-year-olds contributed to our maturity.

It is with great admiration that I share their story and my respect for these men with you, my colleagues.

The drone issue is not an issue. It is not a question about Democrats versus Republicans or the DNC versus the GOP. It is not a question about the executive branch versus the legislative branch. It is not a question about conservatives versus liberals. It is a question about the Constitution.

Another one of our friends said that this Nation, our great Nation, needs to stand and recognize what Rand Paul is doing today for Americans. All of our aspirations mean nothing, nothing at all without our rights.

Another said you do not have to like our political party. You did not even have to like Senator Rand Paul to stand with Rand. You only need to be against the assassination of Americans without due process on U.S. soil.

I will close with the question that we have heard many times already. Why will this administration not simply state it is unconstitutional and illegal--unconstitutional and illegal--for the government to kill Americans in the United States on our soil or, as I think about it, it is illegal on the soil of Greenville, SC, it is illegal in Oconee County, SC.

It is illegal in Charleston, SC. It is illegal throughout the coast of South Carolina, without due process, to kill an American citizen. Is that what you are asking?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say farewell to the House.

I first want to say thank you to the wonderful people of the South Carolina coast. From Myrtle Beach to my hometown of North Charleston to Hilton Head, your support over the last 3 years has truly humbled me and inspired me.

I also want to thank my friends, my colleagues, and the members of the South Carolina delegation: Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Gowdy, and Mr. Mulvaney. We have a great group who truly understands we are here to represent the great State of South Carolina and the citizens of America, and I thank them all for their friendship.

Finally, I'd like to thank all of my colleagues here in the House. We may not always agree on things, but we are here for a reason: to try and make this Nation better.

As I prepare to move to the United States Senate, it is that belief that makes me incredibly optimistic about our future. The battles of today will, in the future, be seen as a positive turning point for our Nation, where we got our fiscal house back in order and revitalized the American Dream for our children and our grandchildren.

I look forward to continuing to serve the residents of South Carolina, some of the most passionate people in the Nation. And I will never forget my time here in the people's House, where we worked every single day to build a brighter future for our Nation.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Let me just say thank you to everyone. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in the House. To my delegation

members, there is no better delegation in America to serve with than all of you.

I thought I would get a standing ovation for that one, but obviously not.

I will say this, though, that one of the things that I've learned in this House is that there is a way to disagree without being disagreeable. And Jim Clyburn, you've helped me to understand that.

To my guys here, I will say without any question that being a part of the team is important. And when I think about our country, I think of our country as a team. And as a kid coming from a single-parent household looking for opportunities, I found that in my team at home and my mentor. And now as I head to the Senate, I hope that we will continue to be a team. But America needs us to remember them. So thank you all so very much for this opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 747 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 747 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 8, a bill to extend the current tax rates for all Americans for 1 year; a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 6169, which provides a legislative path for true tax reform; and for other tools allowing the House to finish its business and continue to operate during the August district work period.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, why are we here today? My friends on the left will tell you that we are here today to discuss the issue of fairness in our Tax Code. I would agree. America is the land of opportunity. We believe that the worst possible thing you can do during a fragile recovery-- that feels like a recession to me--is to increase taxes. Why? Because by increasing taxes, we jeopardize another 710,000 jobs, according to the experts, 710,000 jobs.

One of those jobs could be held by one of my constituents, a friend of mine named Joe Stringer. Joe Stringer is a middle class American, 62 years old. His wife is 67 years old and on Medicare. Joe doesn't make $250,000, Joe doesn't make $200,000, not even $150,000 or $100,000, but Joe does have dividend income, like 9 million seniors around this Nation who have dividend income.

And here is the interesting fact, Madam Speaker, when we hear the left talk about taxing the millionaires and the billionaires, here is the new definition: of those 9 million seniors who have dividend income, 68 percent of them have an income of less than $100,000, 40 percent have an income of less than $50,000. But my friends on the left would categorize these folks as a member of the rich, with their tax cuts being expired at the end of this year.

We are looking at an increase in the dividend tax rate of 185 percent for millions of Americans who are on fixed incomes. These folks aren't rich. They depend on their dividend income, and yes, with the actions of the left, we would see their dividend income tax responsibility and burden go up by 185 percent. This is definitely not right. It is definitely wrong.

Now this is on top of all the new taxes that we find as a part of the Affordable Care Act, another $804 billion of new taxes on Americans throughout this Nation. And in addition to that, Madam Speaker, under their proposal, we see the death tax going from 35 percent with a $5 million elimination to 55 percent. And for farmers, folks in agriculture, and for small businessowners, their wealth is not liquid. You would have to sell your land to pay these taxes. It's what we call a ``fire sale.''

So my friends on the left would punish people who work all their lives and come up with wealth to pass on to the next generation. But in this instance the taxes would go up significantly. And that's wrong.

In spite of the results of all the surveys--yesterday we had a survey done in my district that said that 61 percent of folks would like to see the 2001 and 2003--and, oh, by the way, 85 Members of the Democrats voted for these exact same tax cuts to stay in place in 2010. It was good in 2010; it's still good right now. Sixty-one percent of folks say let's extend these tax cuts for all Americans, and let's keep those 710,000 Americans who would lose their jobs employed.

But in addition to that, the environment that we're working in right now matters; it matters significantly. Because we have over 41 months-- over 41 months, Madam Speaker--of unemployment over 8 percent. It's devastating. It's devastating, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will come together here today and realize that the time for political points should be over; that my colleagues would come together today and realize that the time for trying to divide Americans is over; that we would come together today, Madam Speaker, and realize that the time for punishing success is over.

In many ways, Madam Speaker, in many ways this debate today is about the very soul of who we are as Americans: Are we going to lift everyone up as one Nation, or are we going to push some down to bring everyone somewhere in the fuzzy middle in some misguided attempt to redefine fairness? Are we going to let the foundation of this Nation continue to crack, or are we going to strengthen it for another 200 years?

We encourage--I encourage--success in this Nation. We have to ensure our children can learn about America the same way all of us learned about the land of opportunity. That's fairness that I believe in.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure that I note once again, reinforce the fact, that this 1-year extension that we are suggesting on the right is in fact an extension of not only the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, but also the tax cuts that passed this House in 2010 in a bipartisan fashion.

There is no doubt that an action not to extend these tax cuts is actually increasing taxes on many people in this Nation.

And, in fact, if we do extend these tax cuts, what we are actually doing is allowing current tax law to stay in place. But if we don't do that we are talking about 9 million seniors, 68 percent of whom make less than $100,000, seeing their dividend income go up in taxation by 185 percent. That's the middle class.

We're talking about how the marriage penalty will place a $591 higher tax on over 88 million families. That's the middle class. We're talking about a reduction in the child tax credit that will pose a $1,028 tax hike on 31 million families. This looks like to me that my friends on the left are willing to tax the middle class and the poor.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Trey Gowdy.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure that we remember the facts as they are. There's no reason for us to so quickly revise history to meet our political objectives.

In 2010, this House, controlled by the Democrats, the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, and the White House, controlled by the Democrats, passed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. So what we're talking about is a bipartisan piece of legislation that would continue the current tax law because the previous Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, decided that tax cuts were good for all Americans. And now we find ourselves, as Mr. Gowdy said, in the midst of a political season.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rich Nugent, the sheriff.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

I yield the gentleman another minute.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia and my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Rob Woodall.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, Mrs. Renee Ellmers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Kansas, Ms. Lynn Jenkins.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Steve King.

I have one.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).

Madam Speaker, I wonder what my friend from Texas would have said, if she was still here, to the 253,000 women, small business owners, who will be impacted by higher taxes based on the actions of our friends on the left. I wonder, Madam Speaker, what my friends on the left would say to the 710,000 newly unemployed Americans because of their actions on the left? I wonder, Madam Speaker, what my friends on the left would say to the senior citizens who make less than $100,000, to the senior citizens who make less than $50,000 who would see a 185 percent increase on their taxes for their dividend income?

Madam Speaker, my friends on the left have asked a very interesting and telling question when they asked: Who deserves a tax increase? Well, we on the right have a very clear answer to that question. We believe everybody deserves a tax decrease.

Madam Speaker, with unemployment for the 41st month over 8 percent, with unemployment in south Atlanta over 9.4 percent, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, now is not the time to engineer fairness. Now is a time for us to keep taxes low.

Madam Speaker, everyone in this room can agree we need to take steps to turn our economy around. But while one side of the room wants to divide our Nation to do so, we understand that punishing some Americans in the name of helping others is not the solution. We must lift everyone up; otherwise, we will all just end up in the squishy, nebulous middle. And America isn't about being mediocre. America is about being the best, the strongest, and the leader of the free world. Let's stay there as a Nation.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott of South Carolina

Madam Speaker, I move to amend the resolution with the amendment I have placed at the desk.

Madam Speaker, the amendment instructs the Clerk to add the text of H.R. 6169 as new matter at the end of H.R. 8 before transmitting the bill to the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, why are we here? We keep hearing that from my friends on the right--why are we here again today--and the reality of it is simple. The numbers keep changing, and it simply does not add up.

A long time ago, in 2010, a long time ago, the estimates were $900 billion will be the cost of ObamaCare. Two years later, now the estimate is at nearly $2 trillion.

Well, how do we fund this? Everybody wants to know this. A program that is already financially strapped, Medicare. ObamaCare takes $500 billion, $500 billion out of Medicare.

What does that mean? Well, to me, as a grandson of a grandfather who is 92 years old, 92 years old, what happens when we take $500 billion out of Medicare?

Well, the answer is clear. There is a 15-member board called IPAB, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, that will then recommend cuts to Medicare payments for doctors, hospitals, and other providers. In other words, my grandfather's health may be in the hands of a 15-member autonomous board who will decide what happens to his health. That's wrong.

If you look in ObamaCare, what you will find is that $317 billion of new taxes, or a 3.8 percent tax on dividends, capital gains and other income, you will find $110 billion on the middle class for folks who like their health care and want to keep it? Oh, no. No, no, no. They can't keep it.

Then you find another $101 billion, another $101 billion in annual tax on health insurance providers not paid for by those folks who make more than $200,000, but paid for by the hardworking, everyday folks like my granddaddy and my momma, those folks who struggled to make their ends meet, $100 billion of new taxes.

But if you need a medical device, another $29 billion of new taxes. There is just not enough time, Mr. Leader, to talk about all the taxes that can't be articulated in just 2 minutes.