Tim Scott

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it's odd that as the American people continue to watch Congress asking for a bipartisan approach to what we do here, it's very odd for us to find ourselves in that position today saying to the American people, we are finally on the right page of a bipartisan approach. And as it relates to the whole undermining of the health care act, the President himself has released a statement, an administration policy statement, that simply says that he supports H.R. 2576. The fact of the matter is if we are going to find ways to save Medicaid and keep it available for the next generation, we must do things in a bipartisan approach that actually solve the problems without increasing the system necessarily. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Diane Black.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 448 provides for a closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 674, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of 3 percent withholding on certain payments made to vendors by government entities, and H.R. 2576, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the calculation of modified adjusted gross income for purposes of determining the eligibility for certain health care-related programs. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bills. What we have here is something very simple: a bill to save jobs in America and a way to pay for it through a simple technical fix in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is supported by the President and many Democrats in this Chamber. H.R. 674, or what I call the Saving American Jobs Act, would repeal the 3 percent withholding requirement on government payments to businesses, both large and small. This is truly a bipartisan bill with more than 60 Democrats among the 269 cosponsors. Even the President supports changing the withholding tax. The tax is a job killer, plain and simple. Beginning January 1, 2013, government agencies at all levels-- Federal, State and local--will have to withhold 3 percent of their payments to businesses for goods and services. For many small businesses, this has the potential to completely wipe out their profit margins. At a time when we have a desperate need to create jobs and to create the environment for job creation, the withholding tax does the exact opposite. For many State and local governments, the implementation costs will be huge at a time when their budgets are already stretched thin. For example, in my home State of South Carolina, the State Comptroller estimates the implementation costs associated with this tax will take up 11.5 percent of its budget. This tax punishes all businesses for the sins of a few, automatically and wrongly assuming all job creators who do business with the Federal Government are somehow evading full taxation. The last I checked, we should be encouraging people to follow the law, not penalizing them for doing so. The tax also treats all businesses the same regardless of their taxable incomes. In the construction industry, for example, where unemployment is currently at 13.5 percent, companies rarely have a pretax profit margin of more than 3 percent. Therefore, a 3 percent withholding tax would completely wipe out their profit margins. As a former small business owner myself, I can assure you this is not the kind of math that leads to job creation. This tax will also harm local governments that are already hurting for dollars by placing on them an unfunded mandate to collect a Federal tax. Again, as former chairman of the Charleston County Council, this is more math that just doesn't add up. With unemployment still at 9 percent, our job creators need capital to invest and long-term certainty in the Tax Code. Taking hard-earned dollars away from our job creators will only lead to higher prices, lower wages, and lost jobs. 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 bills, 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 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. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 448 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves at a place where we should have been at for many, many months, and that is working in a bipartisan way to save American jobs. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that we have this opportunity to have the President's support with those of us on the right, to have the Democrat leadership joining us, 269 cosponsors on this legislation that simply says to the job creators: We believe in you. Mr. Speaker, today we have a very simple vote. We can remove an impediment to job creation from the backs of small businesses with no overall increase in government spending. That should be our vote today. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, history is a measure of progress. And when it comes to the two topics that I keep hearing from Mr. McGovern, my good friend to the left, it's openness and job creation. So let's examine history. In the 111th Congress, I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, can the gentleman tell me how many open rules he brought to the floor in the last Congress as the vice chairman of the Rules Committee? The answer is none; no, not one. Under Speaker Boehner, our record of openness in this Congress is one we can be proud of. All of the general appropriations bills have been debated under completely open rules--all of the general appropriations bills, open rules. We've brought several authorizing bills to the floor under modified open rules, only requiring preprinting of amendments.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. The good news is the gentleman from Massachusetts has once again highlighted the fact that while he looks in one direction, he refuses to look in the mirror and answer the question that simply, no, not one, not one in the 111th Congress, one open rule did he bring to the floor of the House. But I would say that the Democrats in the last Congress simply gave up on openness. They just gave up on openness and allowing the American people to see real debate on the floor of the House. On the issue of job creation, since February of 2009, the current administration lost 2.2 million jobs. Two million Americans now out of work since February 2009, and my good friends from the left continue to talk about demagoguing and demonizing an issue when they simply have nothing to prove and nothing to show for what they've done. I would say this, though: that this week alone in the House of Representatives we have had the opportunity to empower the job creators of America to create over 500,000 jobs in just this week. We compare our record every day to the current administration. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the House has passed multiple bills which would stop burdensome government regulations from destroying jobs all across America. I ask that we do so today. Enough is simply enough. We cannot allow the EPA--or any other government agency for that matter--to unnecessarily kill hundreds of thousands of jobs when our national unemployment is as high as it has been in the last 25 years. This is a responsible, forward-thinking bill which everyone in the Chamber should support.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. We are prepared to close; so we reserve our time until then.

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

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Jeff Duncan.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. John Shimkus. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia, Mrs. Shelley Moore Capito.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts so much for taking the time to clarify that which is not clear as it relates to the President's objectives of creating a one-size-fits-all, take-it-or-leave-it jobs bill that doesn't create jobs but that does create another $500 billion hole for the taxpayers to take care of. What we're talking about, however, sir, is a bipartisan approach to legislation in the House. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, with a vote of 35-12, 6 of the 23 Democrats supported this bill; of the Boiler MACT, 41 Democrats supported that bill; of the Cement MACT, 25 Democrats supported that bill. What we've done here is to create an atmosphere that is conducive to a bipartisan approach to solving the environmental concerns and challenges of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'm confused. It doesn't take a lot to confuse me, but I'm confused today. The gentleman from Massachusetts consistently talks about the fact that there's been 281 days without a jobs bill. I want to know the definition of a jobs bill, because if you create jobs, my assumption is that we're talking about jobs bills. There is no question that the current legislation that we're talking about saves up to 316,000 jobs. I'm going to call that a jobs bill. There's no question that the free trade agreements create about one- quarter of a million jobs. Those are jobs bills. The Boiler MACT saves jobs, and Cement MACT saves jobs. So what we've done in this Congress, in this House, is talk consistently about how to rein in the regulatory environment to not only create jobs but to retain jobs. So my perspective is simple: When you have legislation that comes before the House that actually creates jobs, those are jobs bills. It is not an ultimatum. The President's jobs bill is simply an ultimatum, do it all or nothing at all. There is no question about it that even the Senate cannot find cosponsors of the President's legislation and pass the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. David McKinley.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. I would just say to my good friend from Massachusetts that the President's jobs perspective seems to be, since February of 2009, a loss, a net loss of 2.2 million jobs. So let's just absorb that for a moment. We ought to get serious about not using the American people as a pawn for partisan politics and get serious about working in a bipartisan fashion, as we have on the Boiler MACT, the Cement MACT, and now on this current bill. If we work for Americans' future, we will find more jobs created and saved in America. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Larry Bucshon.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. House Resolution 431 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, and makes in order six amendments. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying bill would provide for a consistent, safe management of coal combustion residuals, or coal ash, in a way that protects jobs, while encouraging recycling and beneficial use of these materials. This legislation, simply put, is one of the best job creation bills we can bring before the House of Representatives. By allowing States the opportunity to take control over their individual disposal needs, instead of being forced to follow an intrusive and overreaching EPA rule, we will save as many as 316,000 American jobs. The EPA proposed regulation will increase the electricity cost and the construction costs around the Nation, while costing electric utilities and business owners up to $110 billion. While we all agree we must be responsible in protecting our environment, I am struggling to understand why on Earth the EPA continues to propose rules in a vacuum, as opposed to considering the overall impact on our country. Coal ash has never been proven to be toxic. But what it has been proven to be is extremely useful in strengthening everyday products from concrete to sheet rock to bowling balls. In my district, South Carolina's First, the American Gypsum Wallboard Plant in Georgetown County uses coal ash from Santee Cooper, our local electric utility, to produce environmentally friendly wallboard. American Gypsum has invested $150 million in this facility and created more than 100 jobs while redeveloping an old steel mill for their facility. The EPA's proposal to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste threatens industry's ability to recycle this material in beneficial use. This, along with the increased regulatory, electric, and construction costs, is jeopardizing jobs all across America. This legislation puts in place appropriate controls--and let me emphasize ``appropriate''--for the safe management and disposal of coal ash, while still encouraging investment in recycling and beneficial use. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This is the way Federal regulations should be implemented, and it is the way we will protect American jobs while protecting the environment at the same time. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill. 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. Thank you, sir. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 431 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 639, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act.

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in the heart of Charleston, South Carolina, lies Cannon Street; it's a modest street spanning just a few city blocks. However, within its history lies the story of what Dr. Creighton Hale, the former CEO of little league baseball, called ``the most significant amateur team in baseball history.'' In 1955, the area surrounding this street was one of economic blight and social unease. In an effort to keep kids out of trouble and teach skills that only team sports can provide, the local YMCA organized four little league teams for the neighborhood kids. The Cannon Street YMCA All-Stars would advance to the Charleston City Little League playoff games, but would never be given the opportunity to earn a spot in the Little League World Series. It was not because they were unworthy players or because they could not afford to go. The color of their skin stifled the dreams of these twelve-year-old boys. The Charleston playoff games were boycotted in 1955 to preserve racial segregation. Because teams again refused to play against them, the Cannon Street All-Stars advanced past the state and regional playoffs. The National Little League invited the All-Stars to the Little League World Series as special guests; they could not compete for the title because technically they hadn't played their way to the championships. They returned to Charleston, dismayed and disappointed. As children, they embodied the very characteristics that organized sports aim to impart--teamwork, courage and respect. As adults they have worked in productive and valuable careers such as architecture, law enforcement and education. As they have grown older, they are now volunteers in their communities--giving back, yet again. While they never had the opportunity to compete, their story has demonstrated where we have come from as a nation. Last month members of my staff had the opportunity to meet several of the original Cannon Street Little Leaguers who traveled to Washington, D.C. to be recognized at Nationals Stadium before the Nationals- Phillies game. Their story remains powerful more than 65 years later, and I know my staff will never forget having the opportunity to meet them. Today, the neighborhood that encompasses Cannon Street has developed into an integral part of the Charleston education and science community. It is home to a number of colleges and universities and a world-class research hospital. The boys of the Cannon Street Little League Team are men who through their careers and service to the community have become assets to their neighborhoods. In spite of the adversity they encountered and the challenges they confronted, these young people illustrated to the world the absurdity of segregation and the hatred inherent in racism. In the fifty-five years since they were excluded from competing to earn a spot at the Little League World Series in their own right, America has matured. I'd like to believe that a handful of twelve-year- olds contributed to our maturity. It is with great admiration that I share their story and my respect for these men with you, my colleagues.