Ron DeSantis

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for that. You mentioned just as the President came into office, and I remember the first thing, and I wasn't here. None of us were in Congress at the time. Just as a citizen, I was Active Duty Navy. You were probably too, Mr. Bridenstine. But we had this stimulus bill that had been passed. This was a huge thing. Part of that, as I've learned more about it, is that there were actually requirements that the executive branch was supposed to submit timely reports that would document the different spending and what was going on. I think even the Vice President said, Hey, I am going to be the watchdog on this. It is, in fact, the case that most of those deadlines have just been completely disregarded, that you haven't seen the type of reporting that was envisioned by the law, and that's perhaps because the law wasn't successful at engineering an economic recovery. Shortly after that, though, one of the biggest issues that happened in 2009 was the auto bankruptcy. This was something that was unusual because the White House actually got very involved on the ground in terms of refereeing the rights of the various parties, including the creditors. I now yield some time to the gentleman from Arizona to discuss that because you had mentioned that was something that had bothered you at the time. The floor is yours.

Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank both the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from Arizona for coming here today to offer their views. Their comments are much appreciated. The great thing about these two guys is they will stand up to people, regardless of party. They will stand up to people in their own party. They will stand up to people in the other party if what they're trying to do is not the right thing because these guys want to do the right thing. I just want to conclude by invoking two giants in American history in terms of some of the issues that we discussed today and kind of what they mean. The first is the Father of the Country, George Washington. When he took the reins as the first President of the United States, he made the comment ``I walk on untrodden ground.'' So he had a great sense that it wasn't just about him. He was already the biggest hero in the country. He could have taken over the country after defeating the British. He could have been king, but he surrendered his sword and retired to Mount Vernon until he was called back to further service. He was very sensitive to the idea that he was trying to establish a framework for freedom that could last generations, and it wasn't just about his own personal glory. What he tried to establish was the proper role of an executive in a constitutional system. There's a lot of people that said you either have a strong executive and it is a monarchy, or you just can't have a strong executive. I think he laid the foundation to say, actually, you can have a constitutionally circumscribed executive power that was nevertheless a force of good for the country. The other gentleman that I would like to mention is Abraham Lincoln, who's obviously one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. His earliest recorded speech was a speech before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. This was in the 1830s, so he still had decades before he was President. I don't think he had been elected to anything even locally at the time. He was really concerned about the future of the country because he said you had this great Revolution, you had this great Constitution, you had these wonderful decades where people were actually living and breathing that. Obviously, he felt that there was a lot of work to do because he spoke out against things like slavery, but he thought that the ball was moving in the right direction in terms of individual freedom. But he feared that as the Founding Fathers and their generation passed away, that people really wouldn't have something that they could all have to organize around and be faithful to in terms of our country. So what he told people to do was to really embrace constitutional principles and the rule of law. In his speech, he said: As the patriots of '76 did to support the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor. Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father and to tear the charter of his own and his children's liberty. He went on to say: And, in short, let it become the political religion of the Nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues and colors and conditions sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars. I think what Lincoln was getting at was this idea of American exceptionalism. It is not because we as Americans are anything special. I am certainly not anything special. It is not that we are so much better than anybody as people. The exceptional part of the country is the origins of the country and the principles that the country is designed to further. That, I think, is what Lincoln was talking about; that when you embrace the Declaration, when you embarrass the Constitution, you're embracing a framework in which individual liberty is the paramount objective of society, and that is why things like the separation of powers and proper lawfulness from the legislature and executive are so important. It is not just because this is all a game and we want to try to blow the whistle on people who are in the other party. It is because ultimately this constitutional structure and these protections are what make us different from all the countries that have come before and all the countries that have been founded since. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I just want to address some things that I have been hearing out there that just strike me as wrong. The President said that ObamaCare has nothing to do with the budget. Now that is very rich, considering it was passed using budget reconciliation in order to ram it through the Senate with less than 60 votes. So it was a budget issue then. Somehow it's not now. Of course the individual mandate has been ruled a tax by the Supreme Court, and it authorizes trillions of dollars in new spending. Now some say ObamaCare is the law and, therefore, cannot be changed. Well, this body has the constitutional authority to legislate. We can always amend or change the laws. But I would also say, if this particular law is somehow so special and sacrosanct, then why isn't the President enforcing it, as written? Indeed, he has given waivers and exemptions to politically connected entities, including a bailout for Members of Congress, giving them relief from the text of the very law that they passed without reading. I think ObamaCare is dangerous in terms of how it's going to impact economic growth and medical care in the country. But just in terms of good government, this really is a recipe for institutionalized cronyism. You have burdens imposed on society. And then those who have political connections can get those burdens removed. So employers can get it removed. We know there will be something for labor unions at some point. But if you are an individual, well, you've still got to abide by ObamaCare's dictates. Some say doing individual bills is simply cherry-picking, we can't pass individual spending bills, which the House has been doing very resolutely over the last several days. Big omnibus CRs, that is not the way business is supposed to be done. You are packing all the departments into one big bill. You are forfeiting Congress' ability to make good spending choices, forfeiting Congress' oversight authority, locking in bad policy. We haven't done appropriations bills in this House for years. A lot of this stuff that's locked into these CRs was done when we had the previous Speaker of the House. So individual bills are better. The Senate should absolutely act on our bills. And then just finally, I would say, before I yield back to the gentlewoman from Missouri, ObamaCare is the only major piece of legislation that's passed in the last 80 years that had zero support from the other party. Social Security had 80 percent of the Republicans in the House; the Civil Rights Act had 80 percent of the Republicans in the House; Reaganomics, the Reagan economic program, had 78 percent of Democrats in the Senate. So typically, these big laws have broad bipartisan support. This one didn't. And we have a lot of constituents who didn't want it to begin with and don't like living under it now.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, one of the realities of ObamaCare is that millions of Americans are going to lose their employer-provided health insurance and be put into exchanges. And as you look through the 2,500- pages, there's actually a provision that makes Congress eat its own cooking. It takes Congress--who voted on it in 2010, and it was signed by the President--out of the congressional and Federal plan and puts them into ObamaCare exchanges. Well, as we get close to the day of reckoning--October 1, and January 1, when the exchanges fully take effect--a lot of people around here don't like that. And so as we were leaving for August recess, the administration issued a ruling through the bureaucracy granting subsidies to Members of Congress, essentially rewarding their political friends, without any basis in the statute, and indeed subsidies that Americans who get removed from their employer plan will not be allowed to get in the private sector. And so I think this rule allows Members to go on record. Does Congress deserve this bailout? The statute wasn't read and understood. They're looking for an easy escape. You need to go on record and say whether you want to get this bailout. Should Congress receive benefits for its Members that are not available to private sector employees who are in the same situation? I think the answer to that is ``no.'' And I'll cite James Madison in Federalist 57. Madison said that the beauty of a constitutional system is that the ruling class can make no law which does not have its full operation on them and their friends as on the great mass of society. Congress should not be treated differently. This rule allows Members of this body to go on record. So I'm glad that the chairman has written it.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, the attacks of September 11, 2001, caused many Americans to appreciate the danger posed by Islamic-inspired terrorism. Following September 11, 2001, Americans from all walks of life resolved that we would bring swift and harsh justice to America's enemies. The routing of al Qaeda and the Taliban following 9/11 showed that terrorists and those who harbor them would pay a steep price for their barbarism. Even when some targets, such as Osama bin Laden, remained illusive, America continued to press forward patiently until we finally exacted justice. On September 11, 2012, 1 year ago today, four of our fellow citizens, including our Ambassador to Libya, were massacred by Islamic terrorists in Benghazi. The targeting of a diplomat breached recognized standards of civilized behavior that stretch back centuries. And yet, one year later, justice has not been brought to our enemies in Benghazi. Have we lost our resolve? Our enemies hide in plain sight, speaking with journalists and boasting of their crimes. The victims of the Benghazi attack deserve justice. The American people demand justice.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1171) to amend title 40, United States Code, to improve veterans service organizations' access to Federal surplus personal property.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our Nation's veterans serve our country and make sacrifices for the freedom and protections we enjoy every day. I am deeply grateful for the brave and heroic service of all who defend our Nation. H.R. 1171 permits veterans service organizations to obtain surplus Federal personal property, such as electronic equipment and vehicles, to provide services to our Nation's veterans. There are countless individuals and organizations who want to help our veterans, but sometimes the law and bureaucracy present stumbling blocks to these individuals and groups doing all they can on behalf of our veterans. We can never truly repay our Nation's veterans for the work they do, but this bill is a small and necessary step to provide essential services to those who serve. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek).

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, and I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 1171. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, no single piece of legislation rests so squarely on a foundation of broken promises as the 2010 health care law known as ObamaCare. We were told that it would lower insurance rates to the tune of $2,500 per family, but we know not only is it not lowering rates; it's causing rates to spike 10 percent, 20 percent, even 30, 40 percent in some States. We were told it was going to be cost effective, but now we know that the costs were purposely understated to mask the true cost of this nearly $2 trillion bill. We were told if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. We now know the question is not whether millions of Americans will lose their current plans, but how many millions of Americans will lose their current plans. This is what you get when you pass a 2,000-page bill before reading it. Oh, and do you want the IRS to be involved with your health care? ObamaCare is failing, and the American people are paying the price for this failure. Let's turn the page on ObamaCare and enact true patient-centered reform that benefits people, not bureaucrats.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, and thank you for your leadership on getting out ahead of this and really leading the charge. You're right, this will not be good for the economy. People will say it's not really a tax increase because some of these taxes are essentially use taxes that are already due. The fact of the matter is this will hurt consumers because they are going to have to pay more, and that is not the recipe for success in a high-unemployment, low- growth economy, which is what we have now and is what we've had for a number of years. In terms of making consumers pay more in taxes, I for one am sick of politicians in Washington and in State capitals throughout the country putting the interest of government ahead of the interests of the people. Our job is not to extract as much money as possible from our fellow citizens, but it's instead to provide a framework that protects their freedom and liberty and allows them to pursue their dreams. This bill obviously doesn't help do that. In fact, it hinders it. It hinders it by making it more difficult on consumers, but also will make it more difficult on up-and-coming new businesses that do business online. This bill represents taxation without representation, and the reason it does that is because the bill would require online businesses to determine, collect, and remit taxes to States with which they have no physical connection. So if you have a business in Florida that does online sales and you sell to somebody in California, you're going to be responsible for determining California's sales tax, collecting it, and then sending it to California. The problem is if you have no physical connection to that State, you have no way to hold tax-happy politicians in States like California accountable for the decisions they make in terms of taxing, spending, and regulation. I would say also, people say that there are local stores who have to pay sales tax. If you sell online to somebody out of State, you're not having to sell the tax. We don't require any stores on a local sale to figure out where the consumer came from and then send the tax over to that State. They simply collect the tax that's due in their State, so the compliance requirements are completely different. Indeed, there are over 9,600 taxing jurisdictions in the United States. This bill specifically permits audits from the other States that have sales tax and from Indian reservations, and we have several hundred federally recognized Indian tribes, so this creates a huge compliance burden for our small businesses. I just don't think it is good policy to saddle small businesses in Florida with red tape and additional compliance costs. I mean, why on Earth would any Floridian want an up-and-coming business to face a tax audit from a State like California or Illinois? And I would say, as the gentleman from Kentucky pointed out, especially in light of what we're seeing with the malfeasance committed by the IRS out of Washington, D.C., you know, the IRS is at least somewhat accountable to the people, at least in theory, because we can always vote out the administration that oversees the IRS. If you have an out-of-State tax audit, you don't have any political representation, so why would they care about your rights? They're not going to care about your rights. They're going to care about getting your revenue. I just want to say a thing about fairness. People say, well, you know, you have brick-and-mortar, local stores versus these Internet businesses; but I would suggest that that distinction is illusory, and the reason why is many companies that do business online are brick-and- mortar companies. I have a business in my district in Ormond Beach, Florida. It's called Coastal Moto, and this is a gentleman that put his entire life savings into this business. They now have grown to have five employees. They make custom wheels for Harley Davidson motorcycles, and they ship them worldwide. But they have employees showing up every day to work there, so they are both brick-and-mortar and online. So it's essentially brick-and-click. And I would also just endorse what the gentleman from Kentucky said, that the tax would give large companies a competitive advantage, because anytime you saddle businesses with more compliance cost, that will create barriers to entry for smaller companies, and the big businesses are always able to comply more easily. And look, I want companies of all sizes to do well. You know, big businesses, if they're doing well, God bless them. I just don't want to tilt the playing field in favor of them and make it more difficult for new businesses to start and grow. The Internet is one of the most pro-growth, pro-opportunity inventions in all of human history. It literally gives anybody the chance to move a product. If you have an idea, you can go online, you can put that out, and you can be successful. It's much easier, with the Internet, to have a successful business than it was 100 years ago. You're able to get into the market more cheaply and more affordably. That's not something that we should try to undermine. That's something that we should want to continue to promote. And finally, I would just say, is it fair to burden Florida businesses in order to fund excessive spending in States that suffer from severe fiscal mismanagement? I mean, for example, in California, you have county administrators retiring with a $400,000 pension for life. And so we're going to put burdens on our companies to be able to send money over there so that they can fund that extravagance? And I would also note that a lot of that money goes to funding union dues that end up helping fund political companies. So why would we want to do that? So the bottom line is that the bill is bad for consumers; it represents taxation without representation; it will stymie small business growth; and it will create perverse economic incentives. Our political system right now is suffering from an accountability crisis. The last thing we need to do is expand government and add to this problem.

Mr. DeSANTIS. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, and I would just add to your comments. You started by talking about federalism, the ability to kind of choose different tax laws, whatever laws, and this would actually facilitate higher taxes. It's a thumb on the scale in favor of higher taxes because it gives States the wherewithal to tax beyond their borders. So we should at least be trying to go in the other direction. I want Florida to be more like Montana, not more like some of the other high-tax States. And so that bears repeating. Here are some of the folks who have written in via Twitter with their thoughts. Chris writes in: Please tell the House that #InternetTax translates into higher costs for families and consumers. A weak economy cannot afford this. Andrew writes in: This will just be the 21st-century version of Smoot-Hawley. Will the lunacy from D.C. never cease? Jay writes in and says: The Internet tax is an inappropriate extension of the State's powers. It does not make commerce more fair. Another fellow writes in and says: It's a revenue grab, plain and simple. No taxation without representation. Is that vague? Tiffany Lyle says: If you tax the Internet, it's like taxing air. We work hard enough to earn what little we have. And then Glenn writes in: Remind them of how the Stamp Act went. I have some more, but I will yield back to the gentleman from Kentucky because I know you probably have some more comments, as well.

Mr. DeSANTIS. We do have some more. Cory writes in: I feel it may hinder an online business I've just started. It's already making business pay. Mark says: #InternetTax won't help local stores, but will protect online incumbents from new competition. Taylor Neuhaus writes in and says: I like the #InternetTax about as much as I like getting teeth pulled. We have another fellow writes in and says: It hurts small businesses, and it's basically Walmart vs. Amazon with consumers in the middle. Finally, I think this is a great comment from Ian Stumpf: An Internet tax will hurt one of the few remaining healthy sectors of the economy #disastrous.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to congratulate a team that captivated the Nation with style, swagger, heart, and class. I'm talking about four letters that few people have ever heard of until just March--that is FGCU--put on the map by their men's basketball team. As a Representative and servant of southwest Florida, I am so proud to have Florida Gulf Coast University in my backyard--our backyard, our home--now known as ``Dunk City.'' The men's basketball team and the university itself have only been around for, basically, a few years. Heck, the players are actually older than the school itself. Now, this was only FGCU's second year of Division 1 eligibility, and in their second year they went all the way to the sweet 16--busting brackets, knocking down threes and, of course, representing Dunk City with a total of 148 dunks this year. I am proud to represent Dunk City. I am proud of our young team and our young campus of Florida Gulf Coast University, and we all look forward to another stunning season next year.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 10-year anniversary of the start of combat operations in Iraq. Most of discussion in this town focuses on politicians, pundits, and writers. And while I don't begrudge people the ability to indulge in those types of debates, I do think what has been missing is a tribute to the sacrifices that have been made by American servicemembers. Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War wrote: This extraordinary war in which we are engaged falls heavily upon all classes of people, but most heavily upon the soldier. For it has been said, all that a man hath will he give for his life; and while all contribute of their substance the soldier puts his life at stake, and often yields it up in his country's cause. The highest merit then is due to the soldier. The Iraq conflict is much different than the Civil War. One of the ways it is different is that the burdens fell perhaps even more directly on our American servicemen and -women. After all, we did not have, and do not have, a military draft. Most of the folks who were going over there volunteered, and a lot of them knowing that they would be sent to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of our servicemembers did multiple combat tours, not just for 4 months or 6 months, but 12 months and 15 months, in very hazardous duties. And what did they volunteer for? This was not a piece of cake. These were very difficult fights against an enemy that by and large dared not show its face. The enemy preferred to blend into civilian society and wreak havoc with improvised explosive devices and suicide vests. This was a daily reality for our men and women who were on the ground during this period. When direct combat operations did occur between U.S. forces and the enemy, they were often fierce fights in urban centers in the streets of cities like Ramadi and Baghdad. And, of course, being on multiple deployments and being gone for so long provided the opportunity for a lot of stress on families. It is difficult to be in a situation where you are missing a holiday. Some of our troops had to miss multiple holidays over multiple years. That is a sacrifice both for the folks who have to be back home but also for the troops who are on the front lines. So Lincoln said: ``The highest merit is due to the soldier.'' Indeed. As we look back on the 10th anniversary of Iraq, what we see are soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who were given the most difficult of tasks and yet they discharged their duties with courage and skill. Henceforth, nobody will be able to recount the great feats of some of our services, such as the Marine Corps, from the shores of Tripoli to Belleau Wood to Guadalcanal, without also mentioning the great feats performed by brave marines in places like Fallujah. When recounting the unparalleled skill of our Special Operations Forces, credit will have to be given to those Navy SEALs who ruled the night during Iraq's most perilous moments. So, for braving the storms of war with honor, tenacity and distinction, we thank you, the American servicemember, for the sacrifices you made on behalf of our country; and for those who gave the last full measure of devotion, you have earned a place in the pantheon of America's greatest heroes. We thank you for your service and your sacrifice.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about sequestration, but few have mentioned what bothers me the most about it. The pay of Members of Congress is exempted from the sequester. When Members of Congress exempt themselves from the operation of the law, it is not only unfair, it actually violates a core principle of republican government. There is no less an authority than James Madison who will back me up on this. In The Federalist No. 57, he wrote: I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America--a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it. In the spirit of James Madison, I will be filing legislation to make the sequester apply to the pay of Members of Congress at the first moment that is constitutionally permissible. Members of this body must live under the same rules as everybody else. Our Founding Fathers expected it; the American people demand it.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, we must change the way this government spends money. We have to be responsible with the money that the government makes our citizens send to Washington, D.C. Taxpayers deserve our best efforts to put our Nation on a sustainable fiscal path. Now, this bill represents a small, but commonsense, measure that will save taxpayers $11 billion. It reverses the President's executive order at the end of last year which provides an automatic pay increase for nonmilitary Federal employees, the Vice President, and members of the President's Cabinet. It also extends the freeze on pay for Members of Congress through the rest of the calendar year. This policy, as has been pointed out by some of my colleagues, implements one of the recommendations of the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. Many government employees do great work. Forestalling an automatic pay increase is not a reflection on their work, but simply recognizes our current fiscal reality and the fact that government salaries must bear some relationship to the private sector salaries that support them. It should be stressed that this is a modest measure. This does not prevent pay increases based on promotion or longevity or bonuses for Federal employees from their agencies. Indeed, during the last 2 years when this freeze has been implemented, the average Federal salary increased by an average of $3,328, while the average private sector employee saw an increase of just $1,404--if she was even lucky enough to have a job at all. I hope this body will make decisions in the coming weeks that will put the Federal Government on a path to a budget that will reach balance within the next 10 years. If we can get our fiscal situation stabilized, we can lay a foundation for robust economic growth and private sector job creation which will benefit employees of all stripes, government and private alike.

Mr. DeSANTIS

Mr. DeSANTIS. Article I, section 3: ``The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. ``Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes.''