Tim Scott

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Madam President, for the opportunity to talk about something really important to all Americans but specifically important to Americans from the Deep South who happen to look like me. As I listened to the President talk about the importance of stopping what he characterized as Jim Crow 2.0, I felt frustration and irritation rising in my soul. As I keep hearing the references to Jim Crow, I ask myself how many Americans understand what Jim Crow was. I am so thankful--thankful--that we are not living in those days. But just for those who don't appreciate the Jim Crow that was, it was a time when my grandfather, born in 1921, would have experienced it. If he were still alive, he could tell the stories of the Jim Crow South and the Jim Crow era, an era where, in order for a black person to vote, you had to pass a literacy test. Now, if you could read at that point, it would not just be a test on whether or not you could read, it would be a test on ``Do you know who your Governor was 20 years before you were getting ready to vote?'' It would include the threat of being lynched--literally killed--because those in power wanted to stop Black folks from realizing and fully participating in the greatest Nation on Earth and exercising what I believe is a fundamental responsibility and right of Americans, the right to vote. It would include beatings and the power of intimidation, the loss of your job if you dared to show up to vote. And so when I hear my President, your President, our President of these United States, just a little while ago, a week or so ago, talk about Jim Crow 2.0 and using as the poster child of this new Jim Crow South being the Georgia voting law, I rushed to read the law one more time so that I could understand what in the world is he talking about. I am here this afternoon because I had a conversation with the South Carolina NAACP about 2 hours ago, and they encouraged me to come to the floor and make my comments as public as possible so that people understand what I have read in the Georgia law and compare it to the Jim Crow South. So what we know about the Georgia law--and I have read the law--what we know about the Georgia law is the controversies the President spoke about and that we have heard Members of Congress speak about over the weekend is it is illegal to get water while waiting to vote. Now, that claim has been proven false. It is not illegal to get water while waiting in line. That is false. The only time you can't get water while waiting in line to vote, according to the Georgia law, is if it is a partisan; someone campaigning for someone--campaigning for someone--you can't bring them water. But if you are an election worker or a relative, you can, of course, bring a person water. So that was completely false. But if that is the threshold of the new Jim Crow era, it looks nothing like the past. However, even that is false. What else is in that Georgia law that is supposedly the poster child of voter suppression? It allows for early voting, to include now the Souls to the Polls, where you have Sundays where you can vote early--as a matter of fact, 17 days of early voting, more early voting than the President's own home State or New York. It allows for mail-in ballots without an excuse, the same thing that was turned down by the voters in New York. No-excuse, on-demand, mail- in ballots is now the law in Georgia. New drop boxes. Prepandemic there was--it was not legal to have a drop box in Georgia. Now, it is legal to have a drop box in Georgia and voter ID, supported by at least 60 percent of African Americans, 60 percent of Hispanics, 60 percent or more of the majority population. After going through point by point and realizing in South Carolina that minority turnout was stronger than the overall turnout in South Carolina and that two of the three African-American Senators in the U.S. Senate today--two of us--represent those Southern States, it is hard to deny progress when two of the three come from the Southern States that people say are the places where African-American votes are being suppressed, not to mention the fact that 2020 was a banner year for minority participation in the greatest Nation on Earth from a voting perspective, and that is, my friends, good news. The Democrats' proposal would allow for the supporters of Bernie Sanders and their tax dollars to go into my reelection account; I oppose that. It would undermine voter ID laws across our country; I oppose that. It puts unaccountable bureaucrats in charge of our elections; Americans oppose that. And walking in on the day of the election, registering to vote without any verification, is something I, too, oppose. And so, when I think about the important issue of voting and when I think about the issue of voter suppression, it lands on my front porch because, as a guy who has voted in the Deep South all my life, as a person who was born in 1965 with a mama who understands racism, discrimination, and ``separate and not equal,'' with a grandfather who I took to vote and helped him cast his vote because he was unable to read, to have a conversation in a narrative that is blatantly false is offensive, not just to me or southern Americans but offensive to millions of Americans who fought, bled, and died for the right to vote. So if we are going to have an honest conversation about the right to vote, let's engage on that based on the facts of the laws that are being passed, not the rhetoric surrounding those laws, where it looks like power is more important than people. I will close with this. The Civil War of this Nation started in my hometown. One of the most powerful and popular Senators in the history of America was Strom Thurmond. In 2010, when I ran for Congress, I ran for Congress in the place where the Civil War started, and I ran for Congress in a Republican primary against the son of Strom Thurmond. I won that race, not merely because of who I am but because of who we have become as a Nation. The evolution of the heart of America and the hearts of southerners could not be more clear on a day when the son of a single mother, mired in poverty, runs against the son one of the most famous Senators in the history of the country and comes out victorious. I would love for us to have a conversation about what we are doing for Americans as opposed to this negative, false narrative of what is happening to America.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I thank my colleagues, both Senator Collins and Senator Lankford, for their thoughts and their comments and their words today because what we are talking about today is not about simply a $3\1/2\ trillion spending bill. We are talking about something more fundamental to what it means to be an American. I am proud to be an American. I am proud to live in a country where upward mobility is a reality; that we can, by hard work and a strong education, change our fortunes in this country and not only change it for ourselves but change it for the generations that follow us. As Senator Lankford talked about the three important ingredients of escaping poverty, I will say that, as a kid who stumbled in high school, who did not do well as a freshman, who did not see the opportunities that America had available, who did not believe always that there was a way that a poor kid in South Carolina could ever escape poverty, I am thankful that I met a mentor and had a powerful mom who believed in me in a way that I could not believe in myself. I am thankful to live in a country where the American free enterprise system provided a pathway forward, and if I could just see it and believe it and work towards it, it was possible for me to achieve the outcomes that we are sitting here trying to defend. I am thankful that, as a kid who then finished high school, went on to college, and experienced the American dream, that we are here together to defend the American dream for the next generation. The challenge, of course, is that when we look at the $3.5 trillion package, it makes it harder for a kid trapped in poverty, as I was, to find a path forward. I will simply say that while we discuss this $3.5 trillion package, the content of this package is more concerning than the cost of the package. I am certain that someone on the other side will figure out that taking 10 years of funding and making it 5 years of funding cuts it from $3.5 trillion down to $1.75 trillion. I am confident that that math is easy to do on either side. But I am not confident that we can preserve the American dream in all of its glory if the content of this package becomes law. I think about how unfortunate it would be, in a nation that is narrowly divided, 50-50, that we would find ourselves, because the Democrats control the White House--there is a 50-50 split in the Senate that requires the Vice President to break a tie and a five-seat majority the Democrats have in the House. With those slim majorities, they want to do something so fundamentally transformative that it scares me for the future of the kids trapped in poverty all over America. I don't know how we will continue to be able to preach the good news of economic opportunity and economic freedom when you are on the road to socialism. The two are antithetical. They don't go in the same direction. There is a fork in the road, and we as a nation have to choose one. Unfortunately, the Democrats, who have the slimmest of majorities, have the votes to fundamentally weaken the greatest economic engine in world history through taxing and spending policies that bring us so much closer to socialism. The Democrats actually want you to believe what they say more than what you see with your own eyes. You see, the breadcrumbs of this $3.5 trillion package can be seen by the level of inflation. If you put too much money into the economy too quickly and the supply remains about the same, it leads to inflation. What inflation means to kids living in single-parent households and to people living and working paycheck-to-paycheck, what inflation means is, it means a tax. It means that even with a small, marginal increase in your income, with the rate of inflation being over 5.5 percent, your spending power goes down. So when you pull up to the gas station, as I did and as so many Americans do every single day to go to work, and you look at the price per gallon, it is over $3 a gallon, which represents over a 40-percent increase in the cost of gas. On a fixed income, as our Social Security recipients and our golden Americans are, on people working paycheck to paycheck, a 40-plus percent increase in the cost of gas deprives them of some of the luxuries, the margins in their paychecks, and then stack on top of that a 20-percent increase in the cost of your utilities. It is impossible--impossible--to recognize the devastating impact that the Biden inflation is having already on middle-income Americans, on paycheck-to-paycheck Americans, people living in poverty, and single-parent households. But worse than the inflationary effect, which, of course, is a precursor to the $3.5 trillion, is what the content does. Think about this: In America today, if you write a check for $10,000, the IRS wants to know who you are writing it to. Under this proposal, imagine, if you will, the IRS spying on your bank account for every transaction over $600. Imagine four tires--more than $600. So the IRS wants to know why you are spending $600 on tires. Imagine if your engine runs hot and you have to take your car in to get it checked--more than $600. Imagine trying to find the money, scraping the resources together just to be able to buy school clothes for your kids, and if you have a couple kids, a couple pairs of shoes, pants--dresses are up 18 percent. Imagine that $600 expense being taken out of your account, and the IRS is looking into your account to see what you are spending the money on. The content of this legislation is more dangerous than the amount of the legislation. And I got to tell you, $3.5 trillion is pretty dangerous, but more dangerous than the $3.5 trillion is having the IRS empowered to take a look at every single transaction. Not only the $600, but imagine doubling the number of IRS agents with the $80 billion in this package--doubling the number of agents to come take a look at your family business, your family accounts. Destructive. Go beyond that. Think about the average farmer in South Carolina who spent their entire life farming and who has more land than money. Because of this package and its impact on family businesses and family farmers, because of the way they want to refigure the death tax or the estate tax, as we say it when we are being polite in mixed company, here is what it means: It means that you jeopardize the ability to pass your family farm to the next generation. This is not theoretical. You can talk to a farmer named Whit Player from Lee County or Monty Rast in St. Matthews, SC, who have been farming for decades. Ask them about the impact of not being able to pass the family farm or small business to the next generation. Think about punishing the farmers and still providing a check for $12,500 for someone making $800,000 a year to buy a luxury vehicle, an electric vehicle. You are going to give them a tax credit even though they make $800,000. Imagine a part of the bill where union workers at an auto factory are able to sell their cars with a $4,500 tax credit, but the Volvo workers in South Carolina, the BMW workers in South Carolina who don't work at a union factory--their cars don't get the $4,500 tax credit, embedding a unique form of bias into this bill. It just doesn't feel right. Restoring the tax credits for the State and local taxes for millionaires and billionaires across this country and putting that burden back on the backs of working people, middle-class working people. I won't even go into raising the corporate tax from 21 percent to 28 percent or 26.5 percent. I won't go into eliminating passthroughs for small businesses, mom-and-pop businesses; a 20-percent increase because they eliminate the 20-percent credit on their small businesses. I won't get into that because we don't have enough time. I won't get into the raising taxes on individuals. I won't get into the capital gains tax going from 23.8 to 43.8. I won't get into all of that right now, but I will say this: If the Democrats' plan succeeds, I fear for that American dream that I am able to live right now. I fear that kids stuck in poverty today will be stuck in a caste system of socialism tomorrow. Madam President, thank you for your time, your patience. I am just concerned about the greatest Nation ever designed in the history of the world. Thank you.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I agree with my colleague that we should stop politicizing this issue. All we have done for the last several months of this year is politicize this issue and every other major issue. Vote on Amendment No. 3073 I would like to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3073 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, in over a year of uncertainty and the pain of living through a pandemic, I have to admit I am shocked that I have to come down here to talk about the importance of quality, in-person education. Today, we are debating a $4 trillion tax-and-spending bill, and that is on top of the $2 trillion we spent in March and the $4 trillion we spent last year. How insane is it that with all that spending, there is still no guarantee that our kids will be back in school this fall? The sad reality is, more than 1 million kids did not enroll in their local schools during the pandemic. Thanks to labor union bosses and their unneeded and damaging school shutdowns, kids have been kept out of school, and many--far too many--have suffered psychologically. For our children's sake, I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment and to join me in ensuring our children are no longer confined to virtual learning.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, American entrepreneurship and innovation is the backbone of the American economy. American entrepreneurs provide new job opportunities for millions, bring new technologies to the marketplace, and drive forward our shared American Dream. Small businesses account for half of our gross domestic product, more than half our jobs, and three-fourths of new jobs created each year. Contrary to popular belief, not all of America's entrepreneurs are young tech-focused individuals starting companies in their garages. In fact, millions of older Americans represent a powerful and growing share of American entrepreneurs. Today, the average age of successful entrepreneurs in America is 45, and in 2018, 3 in 10 entrepreneurs were over the age of 50, an increase of 50 percent since 2007. Today, entrepreneurs ages 55 and over represent 55 percent of all small business employers. Not only do seniors represent the majority of small business employers, but their life experiences help drive their businesses to the top 0.1 percent of the highest growth startups in the country based on growth in the first 5 years of operation. In my conversations with older entrepreneurs in South Carolina. I have learned how they combine their years of experience, networks. and dreams to start countless successful small businesses. I have also learned that older entrepreneurs often face unique challenges in today's economy. Those challenges include the need for enhanced digital and technical skills. mentorship opportunities, business growth and hiring training; along with resources for estate and retirement planning for their businesses. These obstacles can prevent small businesses owned by older Americans from reaching their full growth potential. This untapped business growth potential leaves capital on the sidelines and slows innovation and job creation. That is why today I am introducing the Golden-preneurship Act. The Golden-preneurship Act would take a meaningful step in helping catapult senior-owned small businesses into the next level of success by establishing a new training program for ``Golden Entrepreneurs'' at the Small Business Administration. The newly developed ``Golden Entrepreneurs'' training program would equip proven senior entrepreneurs with the necessary tools to increase their business's market share and help bring jobs and capital to communities around the country. ``Golden Entrepreneurs'' would be a 7-month training program with two years of benchmark check-ins to fill the market gap and bridge the knowledge divide in digital and technical skills, business growth and hiring training, estate and retirement business planning, and provide new mentorship opportunities. The Golden-preneurship Act also requires the Small Business Administration to track the loans and grants provided to older Americans, valuable information we need to ensure America's older entrepreneurs are receiving the help they need. With the Golden-preneurship Act we will ensure that today's Golden Entrepreneurs have the tools and resources to create tomorrow's jobs, new technologies, and opportunities. Thank you.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, American entrepreneurship and innovation is the backbone of the American economy. American entrepreneurs provide new job opportunities for millions, bring new technologies to the marketplace, and drive forward our shared American Dream. Small businesses account for half of our gross domestic product, more than half our jobs, and three-fourths of new jobs created each year. Contrary to popular belief, not all of America's entrepreneurs are young tech-focused individuals starting companies in their garages. In fact, millions of older Americans represent a powerful and growing share of American entrepreneurs. Today, the average age of successful entrepreneurs in America is 45, and in 2018, 3 in 10 entrepreneurs were over the age of 50, an increase of 50 percent since 2007. Today, entrepreneurs ages 55 and over represent 55 percent of all small business employers. Not only do seniors represent the majority of small business employers, but their life experiences help drive their businesses to the top 0.1 percent of the highest growth startups in the country based on growth in the first 5 years of operation. In my conversations with older entrepreneurs in South Carolina. I have learned how they combine their years of experience, networks. and dreams to start countless successful small businesses. I have also learned that older entrepreneurs often face unique challenges in today's economy. Those challenges include the need for enhanced digital and technical skills. mentorship opportunities, business growth and hiring training; along with resources for estate and retirement planning for their businesses. These obstacles can prevent small businesses owned by older Americans from reaching their full growth potential. This untapped business growth potential leaves capital on the sidelines and slows innovation and job creation. That is why today I am introducing the Golden-preneurship Act. The Golden-preneurship Act would take a meaningful step in helping catapult senior-owned small businesses into the next level of success by establishing a new training program for ``Golden Entrepreneurs'' at the Small Business Administration. The newly developed ``Golden Entrepreneurs'' training program would equip proven senior entrepreneurs with the necessary tools to increase their business's market share and help bring jobs and capital to communities around the country. ``Golden Entrepreneurs'' would be a 7-month training program with two years of benchmark check-ins to fill the market gap and bridge the knowledge divide in digital and technical skills, business growth and hiring training, estate and retirement business planning, and provide new mentorship opportunities. The Golden-preneurship Act also requires the Small Business Administration to track the loans and grants provided to older Americans, valuable information we need to ensure America's older entrepreneurs are receiving the help they need. With the Golden-preneurship Act we will ensure that today's Golden Entrepreneurs have the tools and resources to create tomorrow's jobs, new technologies, and opportunities. Thank you.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize the great work of Dale Gilbert. Mr. Gilbert served as a meteorologist for nearly 25 years at WYFF-TV, which is a local station in Greenville, SC. Dale Gilbert began his career at WYFF in the early 70s, becoming one of the youngest people on the air for the network. During his time at WYFF, he received many awards, including the South Carolina Broadcasters Association Masters Award. Mr. Gilbert was well loved by his community, and will be missed for the local legend that he has become.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I would like to wish Ms. Fay Brickman of Charleston, SC, a very happy and healthy 100th birthday. Ms. Brickman married her high school sweetheart, Jack, after he returned from serving in World War II. They were married for 70 years before his passing. Together, they touched the lives of countless people in their community by generously supporting Charleston's academic institutions and consistently devoting time to their synagogue, Brith Shalom Beth Israel, where Fay was the president of the sisterhood. I would like to recognize Ms. Brickman for the impact she made on our State and the legacy she built through her work and family. She is blessed with six brilliant children, all of whom hold law degrees, and 11 grandchildren, who visit regularly. I wish the family a wonderful time as they gather to celebrate Fay's 100th birthday.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1030 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. President. I would simply say that what my amendment does is it says that you can't lie about the numbers. The bottom line, it simply says that it is very important for us to have accurate information about the deaths in nursing homes. The more accurate the information, the more likely we are to have the best response.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask for 10 seconds to respond to my good friend from Oregon.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. President. I will just simply say that even President Biden himself has suggested that investigations are warranted into this issue. Vote on Amendment No. 1030

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I have been doing some research as the ranking member of the Aging Committee. As of last month, 40 percent of COVID-related deaths in this country were residents or staff of long-term care facilities. Lawmakers are charged with the responsibility of protecting the most vulnerable populations in our country, and those numbers represent absolute failure. Some States have underreported deaths in nursing homes, and some public officials made this move intentionally, a clear effort to deceive their populations into thinking the situation was not as dire. Inaccurate information affects life-and-death decisions for communities. Requiring States to provide accurate data is common sense for anyone who believes, as I do, that we should have a science-based, fact-driven response to the pandemic. We should not offer more funding to States that have mismanaged and then covered up their pandemic response. It makes no sense.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Colleagues, as of last month, two out of every five COVID-related deaths in this country are either residents of nursing homes or the staff of nursing homes. Inaccurate information affects life-and-death decisions for communities. Requiring States to provide accurate data is common sense for anyone who believes, as I do, that we should have a science-based, fact-driven response to this pandemic. We should not offer more funding to States that have mismanaged and then covered up their pandemic response until they fix it. It simply makes no sense. That is why my colleagues should join me in supporting this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 53 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, how much time do I have left on my 60 seconds?

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I look forward to working with Senator Casey on the committee, and he is a person I have great respect for. I would simply say that it is the responsibility of the Governors of these States to report accurate information. This is not a political debate.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize a milestone achievement for a ministry in my State. The Academy of Arts Ministries is celebrating its 50th anniversary in South Carolina on January 8, 2021. This ministry has trained thousands of students in the arts and sent them out in their local communities to share the Good News about God through their art. Its founder, Dr. Nicky Chavers, has dedicated the last 50 years to giving young people a safe avenue to be creative through the Logos Theatre, nation-wide traveling ministries, a professional film company and more. The young people in my great state of South Carolina have truly benefited from the sacrifices of Dr. Chavers and the entire team at the Academy of Art Ministries.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Session and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged and the Senate proceed to the consideration of PN 2329, PN 2330, and PN 2331, en bloc; that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, all en bloc.