Tim Scott

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. My assumption is my friends to the left truly believe if you say it often enough, it might become true. Even if it doesn't become true, if you say it often enough, perhaps someone watching will assume that the words being spoken are somehow true. We've heard it several times in the last hour, things that have been said over and over again because we are obviously once again in an election year. After hearing the arguments made by the other side regarding the previous question, there is no doubt that we are in an election year. To clarify, any future changes in benefits to Social Security or Medicare would also and always apply to Members of this body. There are no exceptions, Mr. Speaker, no, not one exception whatsoever. There are no carve-outs in the law giving special treatment to Members of Congress under Social Security or Medicare. But if you say it often enough, perhaps someone, somewhere watching somewhere in this Nation will come to the conclusion that it must be right. Let me say it one more time. Members of Congress will comply with the law as it is on Social Security and Medicare. Secondly, we have heard consistently over and over again--and this is another part of that alternate universe that doesn't exist unless you want someone to believe something that is simply not true--that somehow recapturing overpayments of health care subsidies is now considered a tax. I would say that at a time when we face a $16 trillion debt, we cannot afford to not recapture all the money owed to the Federal Government. My friends on the left want people to believe that if you recapture the dollars that were given inappropriately that somehow, some way this becomes a tax increase. Let me say it just in case folks listening didn't understand the words that I was speaking. Requiring people to return money not correctly given to them, this is not a tax, and it certainly is not a tax increase. It is simply a matter of honesty and integrity. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about the health care bill that took $500 billion from Medicare. We're talking about the health care bill that takes $500 billion out of the pockets of everyday, average middle class Americans in the form of tax increases. There is one tax increase on those folks who own property, $123 billion through a new 3.8 percent tax. Today we find ourselves in the position of repealing a $29 billion medical device tax because the people who need the medical devices will end up paying that tax. I think we are in a position today, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that over 423,000 Americans who are employed in this country are able to continue to work. I believe that we are in a position, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that the health care of millions of Americans continues to be a critical part of the discussion. Mr. Speaker, we are in a place to make sure that new taxes, $29 billion of new taxes, don't continue to destroy American jobs. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not only to vote for the rule but to vote for the underlying legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting and almost hilarious that my friend to the left would talk about tax increases when in fact embedded in this health care bill is $123 billion in new taxes on property owners. Really? $123 billion of new taxes on property owners in addition to the $29 billion new tax they were talking about today, in addition to eliminating $500 billion from Medicare in order to fund this health care plan. I think the conversation about tax increases is a conversation we could spend a day on, and we'd be happy to have that conversation. But today, I'm going to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Sessions.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 679 provides for consideration of H.R. 436, a bill to repeal the 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices enacted as part of the President's health care law. It also provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5882, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. The legislative branch appropriations rule is typically the only structured rule in the appropriations process, and we are continuing that bipartisan tradition here today. We are voting here today to stand up for more than 423,000 American employees and the health of millions that their work protects. A new $29 billion tax on medical devices, passed as part of the President's health care package, threatens to stifle innovation in the health care industry. If medical device manufacturers are punished with this new tax, we are all punished. Our health is punished. Our parents' health is punished. Our kids' health is punished. Yesterday, I talked with one of my constituents, Dan Denson, who owns a medical device company in Summerville, South Carolina. He shared two concrete examples of how this new tax will hurt his company, the health care industry, and most importantly, it will hurt those in need of medical care. For Dan's home health company the profit margin is about 10 percent. That profit is used to pay their employees, improve technology, and expand when it's needed. So if you cut into it by 2.3 percent, you're cutting into their ability to create better devices that then provide better care for patients. As Dan put it, ``I can assure you that any additional impact to our cash flow will reduce the money available for innovation. Dan also talked to me about his fellow medical device companies who make the hoses for oxygen tanks and other devices which make life bearable for so many Americans. They are absolutely dependent on these devices. And what happens when we add a 2.3 percent tax to these smaller companies? Well, these companies work on a margin of around 3 percent. So you don't have to be a math major to figure out that when you have a 3 percent profit margin and you have a new 2.3 percent tax, you are pretty close to zero. You simply cannot afford to run a business in this environment. You certainly cannot start a new business in this environment. We're not only hurting our medical device companies, we're also discouraging new entrepreneurs and innovators from being able to enter the ring. I felt it was so important to share Dan's thoughts today, as it shows in clear terms how this new tax will not only affect Americans' wallets, but it could impact the health of Americans in this country. If our medical device manufacturers cannot continue to adapt and move forward with new and better technologies, our medical care system will slow down right alongside it. Because of innovation, life expectancy in the United States has increased by more than 3 years from 1986 to 2000, and the burden of chronic diseases representing more than 70 percent of the overall health care cost has been reduced. This tax affects devices ranging from cardiac defibrillators to artificial joints to MRI scanners, or, in plainer terms, the very devices that identify and treat patients in their time of need, and even those devices that could save lives. These days, technology is improving every single day. Why in the world would we want to put our innovators at a disadvantage? Why in the world would we want to take another $29 billion worth of investments out of our future, out of our health care industry and put it in the hands of this government? There's no good answer to these questions, and there's no good reason for another new tax. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 679 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate President Ma Ying-jeou of the Republic of China (Taiwan) on his inauguration on May 20th, 2012. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is the first nation in the ethnic Chinese world where democracy has taken root. Today Taiwan celebrates freedom and democracy. We hope China will one day transform itself into a democratic and free country based on the example set by Taiwan. For the past four years, under the leadership of President Ma, the relationship between Taiwan and China has improved dramatically, with increased economic and cultural exchanges as well as reduced military tension across the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan and the United States have always had a strong partnership, built on cooperation, trust and shared values. In 1979 the U.S. Congress enacted the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the cornerstone of our bilateral relationship. While the U.S. and Taiwan do not have formal ties, relations between the two sides have continued to strengthen. For instance, the support of the U.S. Congress for Taiwan has never faltered. We trust that the relations will grow in areas including trade, science and technology, educational exchange, military sales based on the Taiwan Relations Act. On the occasion of Mr. Ma's second inaugural, we celebrate with him and his people by affirming our appreciation for their successes and by expressing our continued commitment to Taiwan's security and well being.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, it is time for us to move forward in this debate. The conference committee has done their job and brought us a compromise, which is exactly what the American people have been asking for from Congress, and that is for us to work together. Supporting the rule for the conference report signals that we are ready to finish this debate and move on to the most pressing issue facing our Nation today, and that is creating the environment that creates jobs. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I do not at this point.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Joe Barton. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California, Chairman David Dreier. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, my good friend on the left, Mr. Hastings, talks a lot about taxes this morning, and that's probably an appropriate conversation to have. I will say, however, that as we examine the facts around the capital gains tax, let us not forget that President Clinton lowered the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent, according to the American Thinker. But we also have to keep in mind that the most tax-driven piece of legislation in the last 3 or 4 years is, in fact, the folks on the left and the national health care reform, a $500 billion increase of taxes and fees on the middle class. Let us not get lost on the fact that those on the left continue to find ways to tax the middle class. When I think about the notion that we're going to have a conversation about taxation, it kind of gets me excited. I'm looking forward to this opportunity to debate the worthiness of the payroll tax deduction and how both sides have come together. This is a good thing; we've found some common ground on the issue of the payroll tax. But where we will not find common ground is on the issue of slicing taxes for the middle class. My friends on the left, they talk a good game, but they don't walk the talk. Because when you look at the national health care program, you must concede that $500 billion of new taxes is a bit much for the middle class. You must say that the surtax on investment income-- another $123 billion to start 11 months from now--that is a pain for the middle class. It's a pain for the middle class. When I think about the excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans--$32 billion just a few years away. When I think about the hike on Medicare, another payroll tax--$86 billion of new taxes starting in another 11 months. My friends on the left, they seem to have this concept that if we just wait a little while, the American people will forget who, in fact, is raising the taxes on the middle class. I would say that my good friend from Georgia wants to chime in on the debate, so I'm going to yield, Madam Speaker, 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 554 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 554 provides for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3630, a bill to extend the payroll tax deduction, protect Medicare payments for doctors, and begin responsible reform of the unemployment benefits system. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule. Today, we are taking up legislation that does three things: extend the payroll tax deduction, reform our unemployment benefits system, and protect Medicare payments for doctors. First, on the bright side, Republicans and Democrats were able to find a compromise to pay for two very important things: much-needed reforms to the unemployment benefits program and protecting Medicare payments to the physicians who serve our seniors. In regard to the payroll tax deduction, unfortunately our friends on the left did not think it was important to pay for the extension. Spending without making the proper adjustments is a notion I am not fond of. My voting record makes no secret of that. This is what makes this vote so difficult today. You cannot always get exactly what you want; but, today, I applaud both sides for attempting to get fairly close to it. We cannot continue to pay unemployment benefits for 99 weeks indefinitely. We cannot allow payments to our doctors to be affected, as that will only turn around and affect the care available to those in need. And we cannot raise taxes on American families. By voting for this rule, we are signaling it is time to move forward, plain and simple. Once again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I submit an article on behalf of Mallory Factor expressing his opinion regarding the need for transparency with respect to the different roles of our military. ``What's the Real Defense Budget?'' [By Mallory Factor] The new Congress won the election by promising to cut spending, and unsurprisingly the defense budget is on the table for the first time in more than a decade. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently announced $78 billion in defense spending cuts over the next five years, including reductions in troop levels for the Army and Marine Corps. These types of cuts suggest that the military is working to become leaner and more efficient. Still, many Americans and congressmen are calling for deeper cuts. Not counting the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Defense budget is expected to be $553 billion in 2012, up from $549 billion in 2011. That outlay currently represents 19% of the entire federal budget and over 50% of U.S. discretionary spending; cutting it would go a long way toward reining in government spending. But before further slicing the military budget, Congress must reconsider the military's mission and what activities it should undertake. The purpose of a large standing army is to provide for our national defense. In essence, the defense budget is an insurance policy that protects the U.S. against threats from other nations and groups. But in recent years a growing percentage of that budget has been spent on activities that don't involve traditional national defense. These include nation-building, policing foreign nations, humanitarian missions and ferrying executive- and legislative-branch leaders and their attendants around the globe. While these activities may be tangentially related to our standing in the world, they do not enhance our war-fighting capabilities; rather they relate more to the success of our foreign policy than to our national defense. This increase in nondefense missions has been accompanied by a dramatic shift from war-fighting to nation-building. The official White House website now describes the function of the Department of Defense as to ``protect national interests through war-fighting, providing humanitarian aid and performing peacekeeping and disaster relief services.'' Is war-fighting just one among the many functions we want our military to perform? Rightly or wrongly, we give our military these various assignments because we don't want to pay someone else to do them, and other government entities currently can't. Yet just because our military can do these jobs doesn't mean that it should. Indeed, these assignments shift focus away from the military's core missions: keeping America safe and winning wars. Right now it is difficult for Congress to determine how much money is spent on protecting the U.S. The ``military'' budget gives an exaggerated impression of the cost of our national defense. When Congress adds burdens to the military, direct costs like fuel, food and relief supplies may be calculated and expressed in the budget. But these items are just a small part of these missions, and the larger costs get buried. These hidden costs include recruiting and training extra troops, purchasing and servicing additional equipment, additional layers of bureaucracy, and maintaining and enlarging bases, none of which are separated out in the budget as relating to nondefense missions. The military's nondefense activities may or may not be warranted, but their total costs must be transparent. If Congress does not consider these costs separately, traditional defense missions and essential equipment upgrades will be crowded out. America is a compassionate nation and would surely engage in humanitarian activities even if their true costs were known. But why charge these costs to the defense budget and then hide them? Only by demanding that the military budget be limited to legitimate defense activities can Americans know how many dollars we are actually devoting to our national security. Some military leaders have privately estimated that if these nondefense-related activities were eliminated or given a separate budget, defense spending could be substantially reduced and at the same time the military's war-fighting capabilities increased. Given this uncertainty, before any additional cuts are made to military spending, Congress must demand transparency with respect to the different roles of our military.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I submit an article on behalf of Mallory Factor expressing his opinion regarding the need for significant reforms and spending cuts in spite of the social unrest they may cause. ``Occupy Wall Street . . . Next Stop, Athens?'' [By Mallory Factor] In the past few weeks Americans have watched with interest, bemusement and anger as protests and sit-ins on Wall Street have sparked similar demonstrations around the country. With vague goals of combating corporate greed and calls to rectify all manner of social and economic inequality, this movement seems, to the press at least, to capture a mood of deep discontent among the American people. But if you think a thousand protesters on Wall Street is a trouble sign for our nation, wait until you see the civil unrest that follows the reforms and cuts to government programs needed to bring our national debt under control. Just look at Greece, where government is being reformed, drastic cuts are being made--and the society is unraveling. In Greece a series of severe austerity measures has been imposed as conditions for recent bailouts by the International Monetary Fund and the other members of the single European currency, the euro. Yet the economy continues to spiral downward. And with each new round of reforms in Greece, misery and unrest are on the rise. Strikes and angry street protests are a daily occurrence, as unions fight decreases in pay and benefits for their workers, students protest the lack of opportunity and ordinary citizens resist reforms and tax increases. The confrontation with authorities is impeding business and destroying tourism, deepening the crisis further. Some of that struggle is for naught. The Greek government couldn't reduce austerity measures if it wanted to. Fiscal policy is now out of its hands and likely to remain so for decades, perhaps generations. And while most Greeks agree the bloated state must be streamlined, they're stiffening their resistance to reform. That's why many in the euro zone believe Greece must default in order to rebuild a more efficient government. America isn't in that predicament--yet. But there are cautionary lessons to be lifted from the outraged streets of Athens. As the Greek example shows, government largesse is easy to expand but difficult to cut back without inflaming people. For years our politicians have framed increases to government benefits as compassionate and obligatory. Now all that overspending must be pared back and government programs reformed to curb the federal deficit. But each round of needed cuts and reforms will likely cause misery--in an amount substantially greater than the happiness generated by spending increases. Behavioral economics, which uses social and psychological factors to predict a population's decision-making behavior, captures this paradox in two fundamental principles. First, the principle of ``loss aversion'' explains that people hate to lose something more than they value receiving something. So, even if many Americans don't value existing government programs and spending very highly, they will likely be very unhappy about the loss of those same goods and services. Second, even if you streamline our government and make programs more efficient, the ``endowment effect'' predicts that people will still oppose changes to the benefits they receive. This is because people tend to value the goods and services they have more than they do equivalent replacement goods and services. The endowment effect makes it very difficult to exchange existing benefits for new ones and thus to ``reform'' government programs. Whether we cut spending and make reforms now or later, course correction will be difficult and even potentially dangerous to our nation's stability. Just look at the resistance of public employees in Wisconsin, Indiana and elsewhere to relatively minor cuts to see how people will contest vigorously any decreases to their benefits and programs. Behavioral economics teaches us that any time we make changes and reduce government benefits and programs, we can expect people to be very upset about those decisions--and likely resist them. Still, we need significant reforms and deep cuts to put the U.S. on track toward a balanced budget. Paring back government will undoubtedly cause misery and social dislocation. However, ``death'' by a thousand small cuts will intensify civil unrest and may produce revolutionary fervor unlike anything we've seen in America in our lifetime. Our nation will be better off by reforming our system radically, in a single dramatic turn, rather than piecemeal--or face something very like the furious streets of Athens.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today is day 1,000; 1,000 days since the Senate Democrats last passed a budget. To put that in perspective, I asked my Twitter followers and my Facebook friends to tell me what they've done in the last 1,000 days. I'd like to share some of the comments. One says, Between my home and my small business, over 60 monthly budgets have been taken care of, and they are getting harder and harder to balance. Another said, Cut our family debt by $60,000 in 1 year, removed two car payments, and finished my bachelor's degree while working full time being a father and getting ready for a business launch. Another said, Finished 75 college credits, watched over 100 films, directed 16 hours of TV, and tutored over 1,000 hours. Final one. My son made one overseas deployment, started his second one, finished his master's degree at Georgia Tech since the last budget. Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear: The American people are working hard. The House of Representatives, we are working hard with 27 jobs bills and counting fast. The only question, Mr. Speaker, is when will the Senate join us.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Randy Hultgren.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Hypocrisy is nothing new in the House of Congress, unfortunately, and even in this House. My good friend from Colorado talks about what we're doing on the right-hand side. There's no question, however, that Mr. Polis himself voted for the Democratic Caucus budget proposed by Mr. Van Hollen, which would have increased spending by $4.5 trillion more than the Ryan budget. There is only one way to reduce the debt at that level of spending, and that's higher and higher taxes on the middle class. It's bad enough that, in one bill under the Democratic-controlled House, they increased taxes on the middle class by $500 billion and at the same time raided Social Security, men and women on a fixed income, by $500 billion--or a half a trillion dollars. It's unfortunate that not only were they increasing taxes, but they specifically targeted the middle class, creating a new 3.8 percent surtax on investment income on folks who have a middle class income. It is very unfortunate that the President went a step further than even the Democratic Caucus budget. He increased spending by $6.2 trillion more than the Ryan budget. So everything we hear on the left right now about the spending and the debt, we need to frame it in the real conversation around what the left has already done under the Pelosi House $1.4 trillion annual deficit. In addition to that, we need to think to ourselves and ask the question, do we need $49 trillion of spending over the next 10 years that's been proposed by some on the left? Can we afford taking our national debt from $16.3 trillion, $16.4 trillion with this credit card extension into the $27 billion range at the end of this decade? The answer is obviously ``no.'' But the hypocrisy is just business as usual from the left. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is very clear. You either stand for reducing spending here in Washington or you don't. It is as simple as that. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to close.