Tim Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that there now be 30 minutes, equally divided, for debate only, with no amendments or motions in order and with the majority leader being recognized at the conclusion of that time.

Mr. SCOTT. Regular order.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, reserving my right to object, I am not sure what meeting I sat through for 12 hours about 2 weeks ago, where we essentially litigated each aspect of this legislation. I am not sure where we have been for the last several years as we have had, for the last 5 or 6 years, several hearings. The reality of this legislation is that every facet of it is something we have discussed. There is not a new part--not a new part-- to the legislation. Yes, we have fused it together over time. There is no doubt about that. But to sit here and say that we have not had opportunities in the Finance Committee to hear the facets of the bill is just disingenuous.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, it is not a secret that our party and this body have been working on healthcare for about 10 years. Anyone who doesn't understand and appreciate that the individual mandate and its effects in our bill take nothing at all away from anyone who needs a subsidy, anyone who wants to continue their coverage--it does not have a single letter in there about preexisting conditions or any actual health feature. The reality is, what our plan does on the individual mandate is good news for the average American. Here it is----

Mr. SCOTT. Here it is. Here is the good news for every American. They ought to hear loud and clear that 80 percent of the folks who are punished--punished--by the individual mandate live in a household of less than $50,000 of income, and one-third of those folks live in a household of less than $25,000. Therefore, the benefit of our actions is to set folks free from being penalized for doing nothing.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, this is what I find astonishing. We have been talking about this for a number of months. Frankly, for years we have been talking about tax reform. Actually, since 1986 we have been talking about tax reform. Our plan removes millions of low-income Americans from having to pay taxes. I think it is interesting that our friends' argument on the left is sincere but wrong. It misses the fact that if you are living in a single-parent household, with a mother or a father who is working paycheck to paycheck, getting another $100 a month is real money. Why are we not talking about the actual benefits to the specific people who benefit from this tax reform? When Senator Toomey talks about the typical American family seeing its taxes slashed by 60 percent, why is that specific savings of $2,200 not a meaningful--perhaps, transformative--savings that allows someone now to save for college or to save for retirement? To me, this is where the rubber meets the road. Yes, here on the other side of the Potomac, it is OK to talk in platitudes. I prefer to talk to individuals about the impact of our actions in their households and the impact of our actions in their accounts. It is a very simple way of doing the math. You don't have to pull out a calculator for a 75-percent savings for the average single parent who makes $41,000. The reason that we use $41,000 is that that is the average income of a single head of household. The reason that we use $73,000 is that that is the typical American family's income. When we are talking about the benefits, we are talking about real people--people like Sherry, back in South Carolina, a single parent with two kids, who is trying to start a business, who is struggling to keep her ends together, believing that someone, somewhere, sees her, that the decision makers in Washington don't see her as invisible or unimportant. I am not talking about tax philosophy. I am talking about real people who need their money more than the government does. If we are going to talk about tax cuts and tax revenues, let us be clear that in the 1920s, during the Mellon tax cuts, which slashed the high rate from 70 percent down to the twenties throughout the 1920s, revenues went up by 61 percent. Under the Kennedy administration, we cut taxes, and tax revenues went up to the government from those cohorts from whom we cut it. So what we have is a history. Our friends on the other side say that there is no actual history. Well, there is history that proves that. In the cohorts where the brackets are and where the cuts occur, we can demonstrate that the revenues have increased. I yield for the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I will say to my friend from Colorado that we are having a spirited debate. We are diametrically opposed on the issue, but we do have some common ground on other issues that we are working on together. I appreciate your passion. I know you are sincere. I will tell you that there is a truth that is, perhaps, missing from the conversation, and it is simply this: If you don't control spending, you cannot raise enough revenue to keep up. When you look back at the cataclysmic occurrences throughout history, one thing you will find very quickly is that even with more revenue, if your spending outpaces your revenue, you are going to find yourself in a challenging predicament. I yield for Senator Thune.

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

Mr. SCOTT. I will say, Mr. President, that my colleague from Pennsylvania did such a good job that there is little left to say. I was fumbling because I was just confused on what I would say, and I will be honest with you that there is just not much to say. If I were to reinforce a couple of points that the Senator did not cover, they would be that at our last Finance hearing, which lasted--I thought it was 12 hours; it was 23 hours--we had our friends on the other side offer 63 amendments. To say that they are not engaged in the process is to forget the 63 amendments offered over 23 hours. Senator Toomey did such a good job that I am just going to sit back down.

Mr. SCOTT. We were.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, we have heard a lot about this bill over the last several hours and, frankly, several weeks, and we have had a lot of conversations over the last several months, but, today, December 1, 2017, at 4:24 p.m.--and I hope we remember this because I have finally heard the definition of ``fearmongering.'' Someone once said that fear is an acronym for false evidence appearing real. What we have heard today is that because of the passage of this bill, the Crime Victims Fund will be zeroed out. We heard the social services block grants will go away. We heard there will be cuts to Medicaid. I want all the folks in this Chamber to remember the time so that if they ever have to go back and find it, they will know it was December 1 at 4:24 p.m. when it was said. So here is my thought: A few months into 2018, when your takehome pay has increased because the government is taking less of your hard-earned money--punishing you less and rewarding your success more--just remember to check and see if there is any money in the Crime Victims Fund; I would suggest they check and see if there are any dollars in the social services block grant; and I hope they will check and see if there has been a cut to Medicaid because if you cannot find those cuts, there is one reason: They do not exist. I look forward to hopefully passing this bill today. I hope we do. I look forward to the American people taking the time to remember the exact time, the exact date that this was said, and then do the research necessary to draw their own conclusion. The first conclusion that will be easy to come to is that when you look at your pay stub and you see there is more money in it in 2018 than there was in 2017, just remember how it got there. It is not because of what we do, because there are some folks on this side of the Potomac who believe we actually have Federal dollars. There are no Federal dollars. Every penny we spend in Washington comes from a taxpayer somewhere. There are no Federal dollars; there are simply taxpayer dollars arriving in Washington to be used in some way. I am only suggesting that the average American can spend their money in the way best for their family significantly better than we can. So I hope the good people of this country who are paying attention to this very important debate will be able to remember 4:24 p.m. so they can review the tape, review the video, the DVR--or whatever you call it nowadays--and see for themselves what was said or go someplace online and figure out, at the end of 2018, the middle of 2018, the beginning of 2018, has something actually changed other than that you have more money in your paycheck? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Ohio. I say to Senator Portman, may I see that list? I have been on the floor and, unfortunately, I have not been able to get a copy of the list. Obviously, you have been able to have your staff get it or go online and get a copy of this list. I think my good friend from Oregon said they needed their good friends who are lobbyists to supply them with a list. I am not sure what the other side is missing. They had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for a couple of years, and they increased spending without doing anything about revenues, other than trying to have a tax increase a few years ago, $630 billion of tax increases, and somehow they have missed the correlation between higher taxes and lower revenues. We have gotten it right that oftentimes lower taxes actually increase revenue, which has been proven from the twenties, sixties and eighties. It is good news that my friends on the left are finally thinking about the national debt. We had a couple hundred years of life in America that produced about $10 trillion of national debt. Eight years after Democratic leadership, we have a national debt of $20 trillion. I find it a tad disingenuous that my friends on the left are going to counsel us about debt when, in fact, their record is so clearly obvious. When it comes to the benefits this bill has for those folks who are working paycheck to paycheck, as the country saw its debt double in the last 8 years, what they did not see double were their wages. As a matter of fact, their wages were stagnant. Why? Because when you take money out of the private sector economy and place it into the hands of the government, you do not grow the private sector economy. It is a simple formula. While wages were flat, the economy grew at an anemic 1.9 percent, even though they doubled the national debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. It is fascinating that my friends on the left, looking for ways to create lobbyist loopholes, are on this floor lecturing anybody about debt. We, on the other hand, aren't thinking about lobbyists or our friends on the left. We are thinking about the American people, the hard-working group of individuals who find themselves too often at the end of too many weeks with too little left in their pockets. We are not asking the American people to just believe us. What we are saying with great clarity is, starting in paychecks in 2018, because of our tax cuts targeted toward the typical American family, you will see in your paycheck more of your hard-earned money. This is how we say there is proof in the pudding. It is simply to take a look and see how much of that money is left. To my good friend from Ohio, my friends on the other side of the aisle are starting to overcook my grits just a little bit. I don't mind having a vigorous debate on facts, but to sell fear--as I said a few minutes ago, fear being false evidence appearing real is just turning the heat up on my grits. I have to tell you, this leads to an unhealthy outcome for the American people because at the end of the day, the goal is not for us to be right and for them to be wrong. I don't think their goal is for them to be right and for us to be wrong. It is kind of simple. The goal is, and always should be, for the people we represent to be better off because of our decisions in Washington. I can tell you, passing this tax reform bill will leave the typical American family with 60 percent--60 percent--of a tax cut. I yield back.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, many people are asking the question: What is the difference? I believe my good friend from Michigan is sincere in her desire to see the middle class succeed under any tax reform package, and I agree. The fact of the matter is that we are not talking about Republicans versus Democrats when it comes to tax reform. We are talking about the American people. I wanted to make a list of those benefits that will go directly to the middle class--to every single tax bracket we have. Every bracket gets a tax cut. The typical American family makes around $73,000 a year. They will see their taxes come down about 60 percent. If you are a single head of household--a single mom like mine--raising a couple of kids, making around $41,000 a year, your taxes under the new tax reform plan comes down about 75 percent. We are actually going to help by nearly doubling the standard deduction. If you are a single person, your current deduction is $6,300. Under our plan, it goes to $12,000. If you are a single head of household, it is $9,300 now. It goes to $18,000 under our proposal. If you are in a dual-income household, the current deduction is around $12,000. We double it to $24,000. We double the child tax credit to $2,000. I will tell you that there is a lot being said on the floor, and much of it is hard to follow. I like to keep things simple. If you are a single head of household with $41,000, put simply, there is a 75- percent cut in your taxes. If you are the typical American family earning around $73,000, the average tax cut is around 60 percent. We are doubling your standard deduction. We are doubling the child tax credit. There is a whole lot in this bill that benefits hard-working, everyday Americans. I am glad that my friends on the left are finally concerned about the debt. This is a good thing. Under the last 8 years in the previous administration, our debt climbed from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. So it is good news that we will finally have an opportunity to address that debt. If we are going to address the debt, we are going to have to grow our economy. Growing our economy requires us to do a couple of things. No. 1, we have to make sure that our Tax Code is competitive in a global economy. Today, 35 percent is the highest in the industrialized world. Our competition is around 23 percent. We have to be in a competitive position so we grow our economy here at home. We do that with a 20- percent rate. If we want to make sure that the economy of the future is built here at home, we also have to be able to bring home overseas profits, also known as repatriating those dollars--$2.5 trillion--and build factories and build opportunities with that $2.5 trillion here at home, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Our tax reform package focuses specifically where America lives. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I had the privilege of sitting on the floor and listening to this debate on tax reform. Our friends to the left and center have done a really good job of painting a picture of fantasyland, a land that does not exist in America. Frankly, when I think of fantasyland, I think about the fact that sugar-free cookies will not help you gain any weight. Anyone who has had sugar-free cookies and too many of them can attest to the fact that may not be an accurate picture, but these, they may, in fact, be sugar- free. My good friend to the left oftentimes speaks in illustrious language, compelling words, but they are not necessarily always accurate. When I think about our tax reform package, it really comes down to some very simple concepts--families. Too many American families feel invisible because so often we hear folks talking about people before they actually talk to people. When you talk to the average American family, what you will hear, time and time again, is that it is very difficult for the average family to get their ends together, making ends meet. Working paycheck to paycheck is too often, in too many places, the norm. So when we start talking about helping the average American family, when we start talking about helping single parents, we are talking about helping them keep their dollars. In other words, we believe they know better than government how to spend their money. If you are an average American household with only one breadwinner, the fact is, our plan delivers a 75-percent tax cut if you earn around $41,000. Why do we talk about $41,000 for a single-parent household? It is because the average single-parent household with a couple of kids earns around $40,000. So we want to paint a clear picture, not a picture filled with facts but facts that lead you to the truth. That is not what we are hearing all the time in this Chamber. When you think about an average family, a typical American family, with two earners in the household, the average family in America makes around $73,000. Our tax cut for that average, typical American family is 60 percent. Here is what I struggle with. Why is it not a bipartisan objective to deliver tax cuts to hard-working families, too often working two jobs to make their ends meet? Why is there not a bipartisan coalition working to make sure there is a tax break in every single bracket? I just can't figure out why doubling the standard deduction for an individual to $12,000 is not a bipartisan activity. I really can't appreciate why taking a single-parent household from a standard deduction of $9,300 to $18,000 is something my friends on the left are resistant to do. I cannot explain to you or to the folks back in South Carolina why almost doubling the standard deduction from $12,700 to $24,000 isn't a bipartisan exercise. I can't explain to you why families who are strapped with kids in the home, why we can't say to them that doubling the child tax credit is a good thing. Where is the controversy around saying that instead of getting a $1,000 child tax credit, we are going to make it $2,000? Where is the controversy? Why can't our friends on the left be a part of that conversation? Why is it that our friends on the left have finally come to the conclusion that after 8 years of running the Nation from the White House and taking a $10 trillion debt that was accumulated over 230 years and then doubling it in 8 years--now they want the American people to take them seriously about the debt. Let me close by simply suggesting that 4,700 businesses would still be American businesses, according to an EY study, if we had a 20- percent corporate tax rate--4,700 businesses are no longer ours. They have been acquired or inverted because our Tax Code punishes success. In a global competition, our American workers deserve better. In a global competition, our workers deserve the opportunity to work for companies whose tax rates are competitive in a global economy. If we don't do that, more American companies will invert, and fewer Americans will work here at home in places like Alaska, South Carolina, and the Dakotas.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I would like to recognize and congratulate Mr. Pete Selleck, chairman and president of Michelin North America, who is retiring next month. Mr. Selleck is concluding a 6-year tenure in the role. After 26 years of Active and Reserve U.S. Army service, Selleck started his career with Michelin in 1982 as an industrial engineer at Michelin's first U.S. plant. Selleck's career included various roles in North America and Europe, before accepting his final assignment as chairman and president of Michelin North America. As chairman and president for Michelin Group's largest global operating unit, Selleck was responsible for coordinating Michelin North America's business activities across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, which together comprise more than 22,000 employees. Outside the company, Selleck has been recognized broadly by leaders in the community, in business and in industry, across the local, State, and national levels. In recent years, Selleck played a key role advocating for road improvements across South Carolina; advocating for fiscal reform in the Federal Government; promoting dialogue and understanding on matters of diversity and inclusion; developing technical education to support industrial careers in South Carolina; and active support for the community of West Point alumni, the Boy Scouts of America, and the United Way. Congratulations, Mr. Selleck.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, today is a good day. We have both the House and the Senate working on tax reform that will have a positive impact for everyday, hard-working Americans. This is truly a good day. So often when you hear us talk about tax reform, it sounds like a lot of numbers. I am not sure how excited or enamored people get with numbers, but I am the kind of guy who believes tax reform is not about numbers. Tax reform is about everyday Americans being able to keep more of their hard-earned money. Tax reform is about families like the one I grew up in--single-parent households, working paycheck to paycheck, year in and year out, praying and hoping for something good to happen. Today is good news for those single moms and single dads out there. It is also good news for the working-class families--dual income-- making around $75,000 a year, working every day, trying to make sure they have a little left over for dinner out. We want to say to those folks who haven't really had a raise in a decade: We hear you. We feel your pain. We want to deliver to your American family the opportunity to see more money in each paycheck. This is good. And for folks who are looking to start businesses, we have a Christmas surprise for you too. We have lowered taxes on the average family about $1,500 a year--$100 or so a month. Here is what that means. For a family where you are in a single-parent household, you bring home about $450 a paycheck. That could easily become an extra 10 percent per paycheck. That is a lot of money to a single-parent household. We have also expanded the child tax credit to make sure that those folks in the middle-income brackets are able to keep more of that hard- earned money. If there is a focus on our tax reform package, it is to make sure that middle America--hard-working income earners--have a chance to see more money materialize in their paychecks. We have also simplified the Tax Code. People say: Well, how did you do that? There are seven brackets. I understand. It is simple. Simplification means you do not have to itemize. Said differently, 9 out of 10 taxpayers will be able to use the expanded standard deduction to figure out their tax burden, as opposed to going item by item by item and understanding whether you can withdraw it or subtract it from your income. I had the great pleasure to be a small business owner before entering Congress. Many small business owners represent the backbone of our economy. Most jobs created in the future will be created by a small business owner. We are going to lower your taxes so that you can hire more people and make long-term investments in building the greatest economy this country has known in more than a generation. This is a good day, and we have good news.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize and honor the life of a great South Carolinian, Mother Lula Mae Lollar Belton, ``Mom-mo,'' who departed this life on September 20, 2017. Mother Belton was a spiritual, humble, and loving woman who loved the Lord and her community. She worked for the Colleton County Food Service for 31 years, as well as many positions within Buckhead UMC Church, where she was a faithful member. She most notably served as Mother of the Church. Mother Belton always had an open heart to her many children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great- grandchildren, as well as many others in the community and church. She will be greatly missed by the family and community she leaves behind, and I would like to add her name to our October 23, 2017, Congressional Record.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize and honor the life of a great South Carolinian, Dr. Oscar P. Butler, Jr., who departed this life on October 2, 2017. Dr. Butler was a graduate of South Carolina State University and later went on to earn a doctor of philosophy in administration and higher education from Michigan State University. He then spent over 27 years in student personnel development, including as a dean at SCSU. He also served as executive director of 1890 Research and Extension for over 10 years. He has been recognized for Outstanding Service by the N.A.A.C.P., Meritorious Service and Commendations by the U.S. Navy, and given the Distinguished Alumnus Award by SCSU. Dr. Butler was a faithful member of Williams Chapel A.M.E. Church for over 57 years, where he was the recipient of the Unsung Hero Award 2015. Dr. Butler will surely be missed and remembered as a great South Carolinian, and I would like to add his name to our October 23, 2017, Congressional Record.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize and honor the life of Bishop Lewis Nathaniel Taylor, a great South Carolinian, who departed this life on October 2, 2017. Bishop Lewis Taylor deeply loved his family, church, and community. He pastored in San Diego, California, Washington, DC, and New York. He eventually returned to his native Walterboro, SC, where he continued the legacy of his father and became pastor of Greater Saint James Church. He encouraged, inspired, and mentored many people in the community and abroad. Bishop Taylor served not only as a pastor, but as a carpenter and general contractor as well. In short, Bishop Taylor was a builder-visionary who helped design and construct churches across South Carolina. In 2008 and 2017, the mayor of Walterboro presented Bishop Taylor with the Key to the City. He was known to many as ``the little man, with a big vision'' and served his community tirelessly and earned the respect and admiration of all people he came in contact with. He will be greatly missed by the Walterboro community and the people of South Carolina.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam President, I would like to recognize and congratulate Dr. Akil Ross, of Chapin High School, who has been chosen as the National Principal of the Year by the National Association of Secondary School Principals. His nomination is an honor for South Carolina. After graduating from School Without Walls Senior High School in Washington, DC, Akil E. Ross, Sr., studied political science and played football for Duke University. He graduated in 2002 with his B.A. in political science and minoring in history and education. In 2005, he obtained his M.Ed. in secondary educational administration from the University of South Carolina and joined Chapin High School as an assistant principal in July of 2005. After 5 years as an assistant principal, he was named principal in July of 2010. In July of 2012, he completed his doctorate degree in curriculum studies from the University of South Carolina. Chapin High School has received many awards and recognitions under Dr. Ross, such as Palmetto's Finest, national rankings in academics, 12 State championships in athletics, and 3 State championships in marching band. In September, Dr. Ross was named the 2017 South Carolina Secondary Principal of the Year before being selected as the National Principal of the Year. Dr. Ross is an extraordinary leader who has truly succeeded in providing high-quality learning opportunities for his South Carolina students, whom are lucky to be under his care. Congratulations, Dr. Ross.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, so often when you hear folks speak in Washington, it sounds as if we are only speaking to ourselves because most people around the country simply cannot understand what we are talking about when it comes to tax reform. We talk about repatriation and going from a global system to a territorial system and preventing inversions and the number of cohorts on the individual side and passthroughs and corporate cuts. We talk about static scores versus dynamic scores. Too often, too many of us speak in a language that no one truly appreciates or understands. From my perspective, tax reform is really about two very simple pillars. The first pillar is, how do we increase the take-home pay of the average person in this country, and how do we make sure the jobs of the future are created here in the good old U.S. of A? Mr. President, I was privileged to grow up in a home with a strong, powerful, optimistic mother. She raised two boys on her own. I will tell you, when you think about the challenges of single moms today, I think about the one who raised me. I think back to the times when she was working 16 hours each day 3 days a week and 8 hours a day a couple days a week. She was a nurse's aide. She wasn't an LPN or an RN. She wasn't even a CNA. She was simply a nurse's aide, which means for several hours each day of her shift she changed bedpans, she rolled patients over. So when I think about the average single mom, with a couple of kids in the household, whose average income today is less than $36,000 a year, I think to myself, how are we going to make sure that single mother takes home more of her hard-earned money? Tax reform is the fastest way for us here in Washington to actually translate our activities to that household. See, if we take less out of her paycheck, she gets to take home more of her money. Some have joked about the fact that I said hashtag ``keep yo money.'' Why do I say that? Well, it is the way we speak at home, No. 1, and No. 2, it simplifies and crystallizes whom we are talking about. We are simply talking about single moms like mine. We are talking about folks who work hard every day, who are strapped, challenged, with very little margin in their schedules and even less in their paychecks. The average American--I heard that somewhere around 50 percent of Americans do not have $500 in their savings account. When we are talking about tax reform, we are talking about increasing the margin for a family. The second major pillar of tax reform is simply making sure that the jobs of the future are created here at home. Well, simple question: How do you do that? The answer is even simpler. When you look around the globe, you find very carefully and critically and simply that there are countries that have a tax rate on their business production of around 12.5 percent. The competition for countries like ours--say, the OECD, high-income countries; there are about 39 of them--the average tax rate is 22 percent. Our corporate tax rate is 35 percent. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the difference between 35 and 22 is 13 percent, but more importantly, there are fewer jobs created here at home. That is a problem we should solve. We solve that problem by making sure our corporate tax rate is competitive with our global competitors--common sense, some would suggest. I would suggest they are right. But not only that--whether you are on the left or the right, economists on both sides and our current President Trump and our former President Obama agreed on one thing--and we should all stop and celebrate when we have agreement on both sides--they both say that the corporate tax must come down because a part of who pays the price of the corporate tax are the workers. Some have said that 25 percent of the corporate taxes are paid by corporate workers, and others have said it is 80 percent. Here is what we know: Our workers in this country take home less of their money because our corporate tax rate is too high. We can do something about that. So when we talk about tax reform, when we talk about the importance of inversions being eliminated, satisfying the need to grow our economy, let's keep it simple. Let's talk about moms and dads like my single mom, income under $36,000. Can we make sure she takes more of her money home so she can take care of her two kids? The answer is yes, and we should do that ASAP.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I would like to recognize and congratulate the Carolina Youth Development Center, Cummins, Inc., and the Hootie and the Blowfish Foundation on its new partnership to provide youth aging out of foster care an independent living transitional house. The Carolina Youth Development Center has been a blessing to our State for over 200 years with their bold mission. They work tirelessly to empower and equip South Carolina's most vulnerable children by providing a safe environment, educational support, and career readiness. Carolina Youth Development Center has an impressive 227-year history of serving the community's most vulnerable children and families, dating back to its founding as the Charleston Orphan House in 1790. The agency remains steadfast in its commitment to youth in foster care and continues to lead the way, changing lives and transforming communities.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.