Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I very much respect the viewpoint of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), and I want to be clear: I believe in fossil fuel. I think that the real conundrum in this debate is who is best able to determine whether or not areas off of where they happen to live should or shouldn't be developed: Should it be decided from Washington, D.C., or should it be decided by local folks? So I would frame this, fundamentally, as an issue of home rule, that all the points that you are making are very, very valid, but shouldn't that determination be made by folks that are most close and would be most affected by what might or might not happen in the offshore waters off of the coast of South Carolina or Florida or Georgia or elsewhere? So I just go back to, if we found the mother of all lodes, there has been testing out there, they say 132 days' worth of supply might be off the coast of South Carolina, and what people have said is we have a vibrant tourism industry on the coast of South Carolina and we don't think the risks are worth the rewards based on what might or might not be out there. So I very much respect the viewpoint of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), but again, what folks are telling me at home on the coast of South Carolina is, even if stuff is out there, we are concerned about the tourism risk and we are concerned about the infrastructure that would be required to support it.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I will split my time, in the spirit of bipartisanship, with my colleague from Virginia, and I would simply say this: I want to go back to the most basic of all conservative themes, which is we believe that the individual is paramount in the way that decisions get made and that not all decisions should be made in Washington, D.C. And if folks have spoken out as clearly and as loudly as they have with regard to home rule on what should or shouldn't happen off their coast, that voice ought to be respected in Washington, D.C. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for the way that he has worked with other colleagues in terms of trying to move this bill and this process forward. It would take Solomon in all of his wisdom to get it completely right, and in that regard, I give you due deference in the way that you all have put this bill together. Mr. Speaker, I do want to rise in support of what my colleague from California spoke about just a moment ago, which is the fact that neither one of Ms. Lee's amendments were ultimately made in order. I have a problem with that from the standpoint of the construction of this rule, because one of those amendments was tied to, in essence, the base bill that actually passed at the committee level, and then the other one was an adaptation of that same notion. What she is getting at, I think, is incredibly important. I think it is incredibly important, because the saying is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we have been meaning and meaning and meaning and meaning to do something about the Authorization for Use of Force in the Middle East since 2001 in terms of bringing it up to date, but we haven't, for whatever reason, done so. What she is getting at with her amendment is saying, simply, it is time, it is well past time, and I think there is real legitimacy to that point. I would say, secondly, what doesn't work in life are blank checks. In essence, if you sign on to this notion that an Authorization for Use of Force back in 2001 will apply now, why doesn't it apply 30 years from now or 50 years from now, if you follow that logic out. I think our Founding Fathers were so concrete in their constitutional premise that only Congress should declare war because what they knew was that body bags don't return to Washington, D.C. They return to congressional districts and States across this country. And knowing that, they said you have got to go to the people's House to have the Authorization for Use of Force so that you do not put people in harm's way without Congress debating that subject and actually coming up with a decision to the affirmative. Finally, I would simply say this: This is important in terms of sending a clear signal to soldiers and to the public at large that we are behind them, we are behind the soldiers. We say this is what you ought to do. We are going to give you the tools necessary to do the job; and to the public: This is why we think it ought to be done. Authorization for Use of Force is about those two things.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from Illinois for his hard work, and I thank Mr. Olson for his hard work. They have worked, I think, tirelessly and in an awfully well-intended way to craft a balance between the different competing points of view on this whole issue of ozone. I know that he is concerned about people's health. I know that he is concerned about the environment. But on this particular issue, I am going to respectfully disagree and agree with my Democratic colleagues to say that I think that the time to act is now, because at some point there becomes the question: If not now, then when? At some point, delay moves to the point of obstruction of moving forward on an idea that has had its different wrinkles, in fairness to my colleague from Illinois. But at some point, you have to act. Given the fact that people's health does hang in the balance, given the fact that there are another 2,000 cases a day of asthma that are protracted, we need to have a bias for action. I think it is a time for action. I think it is reasonable. Moving from 75 to 70 parts per billion is not exactly a gargantuan change, given what is at play with regard to health. And finally, simply, I believe it fits with the conservative philosophy that I believe in. The conservative philosophy says that my rights end when they begin to infringe upon yours. This notion of privatizing gain and offsetting costs to the public is something I think we always have to watch out for when we talk about this notion of free markets and having them truly work. I, as a boy, grew up down the creek from a place called Campbell Creek, and there was a chemical plant that ended up dumping some stuff in the creek. It turned out not to be so good. It made a lasting impression on me as a boy. They were externalizing their costs, but they were internalizing their profits. Mr. Chair, I think we need to be true to that theme whether we are talking about air or water or anything else. I think that this bill fits under that larger description. For that reason, I do say, with all due respect for the hard work that has been done, that it is time to act on this particular bill.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 1551, and I want to thank Mr. Rice for his hard work on this bill and the way he shepherded it through the legislative process. I think it is awfully important for a number of different reasons. I think it is important for the reason of the environment. I come from the low country of South Carolina, and we are seeing firsthand sea level rise and its effect. We can have a huge debate on what is causing that, what is not causing that. But in the meantime, there is a clear scientific consensus on the idea of increased CO2 emissions being tied to this notion of global warming, which very much impacts my congressional district. It impacts a lot of places around the world. So I think that there is no perfect energy source out there, in fairness to my colleague. But of the available choices out there, I think that something that does address the CO2 emission question is awfully important, and nuclear does. I think it is also important from the standpoint of base load in terms of energy in this country and its importance in terms of competitiveness around the world. Gordon Sullivan wrote a book entitled ``Hope is not a Method,'' and he talked about we may hope for a whole host of different breakthroughs in terms of alternatives, and I do hope that they come through, whether that is solar or tidal or who knows what. I think that there are emerging technologies there, but, in the meantime, we have to handle this issue of base load from the standpoint of our ability to compete with the rest of the world in terms of baseline energy as it relates to business and it relates to, frankly, the ability to cool one's house in the warm air of South Carolina, or I guess the southwest these days. I think it is also important from the standpoint of energy independence. This idea of domestic production becomes incredibly important given the way in which we are dealing with a whole host of different places around the globe that at times don't want what is best for America but want what is best for their region to the exclusion, at times, of what is best for America. Mr. Speaker, this idea of energy independence, I think, is also an important consideration into H.R. 1551. It is for that reason that I come by for a second to thank Tom Rice for his hard work in shepherding this bill forward.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Mary Lee Alcock Pearson, the Dorchester County Treasurer since December 2006. She died March 27 at home in Summerville, South Carolina. Accordingly, I want to take a moment to offer my condolences to a host of family and friends she leaves behind. It was Ernest Hemingway who said, ``Every man's life ends the same way. It's only the details of how he lived . . . that distinguish one man from another.'' In that vein, Mary distinguished her life by serving others--her community, in particular. Indeed, she loved Dorchester County, and she was in turn loved back. Mary was loyal almost to a fault and certainly extended me grace in the ups and downs of my life, and for that, I am indebted. She also cared about conservative ideals and good government. It is for that reason that I appointed her Dorchester County Treasurer back during my time as governor. In short, she was a great friend, a real leader, and a committed participant in the Lowcountry who will be sorely missed. In her memory, I would ask that we take a moment today for reflection, and pause in asking how we can live up to the legacy of giving and care that Mary embodied. For those of us who knew her, she will be missed. I look forward to our reunion in the heavens above. Until that meeting, Godspeed.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.J. Res. 17.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear that I agree with what every Republican speaker has said thus far on the need to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. I want to say how much I admire the Speaker and the leadership team, President Trump and his team, Chairwoman Black, and others on the Budget Committee for what they have brought to bear. My simple question is one of timing. What I tell my boys consistently is: If you don't know, you don't go. One of the things that I think we have to really look at in this bill is one of process. It does do a lot of good things, as has been pointed out by the Republican speakers, but it still leaves in place community rating. It leaves in place the architecture, I think, of a flawed bill that came with the Affordable Care Act. The question is: Can we build on top of that to do the very good things that are talked about in this bill, or do we take just a little bit more time to make certain that we have it right? I think that when you look at this notion of lowering premiums, look at it like rent control in New York. Rent control in New York has done a lot of good for some folks, but it has hurt a lot of others in the process. The question we fundamentally have to ask ourselves is: At this juncture, can we make the changes necessary?

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 637.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of our friend and colleague, Eni F. H. Faleomavaega of American Samoa, who passed away on Wednesday, February 22, 2017. He was the longest serving delegate to the House of Representatives, and I had the honor of serving with him over the past few years and when I was first in Congress from 1995 to 2001. It was at the beginning of that chapter that we, freshman members of the class of 1994, soon realized what a wise man he was, and we often looked to him for wisdom and institutional knowledge throughout the years we served together. I will miss that, and I know all of us here in the House extend our deepest sympathies to his wife, Hinanui Hunkin, their 10 children, and their 15 grandchildren. Know that you remain in our thoughts and prayers and that we grieve with you.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise with the greatest respect for my colleague from the District of Columbia and her passion on this subject and the bill that she has introduced. I rise with equal respect for my colleague, Chairman Barletta, and the way in which he has walked this bill through the process, but I am going to oppose this bill. I am going to do so on the basis of process. I thought it important to explain why, given, I think, the amount of energy that has gone into the bill and the fact that I wasn't able to voice a vote against it when it was voice voted at the committee level. I do so because I think that blank checks rarely work out well for the taxpayer. In fairness to the bill, it is not a blank check. The bill is actually prescribed in three different ways--the way in which it will impact Federal buildings. My problem, though, is on methodology in that the General Services Administration that ultimately gave the numbers to the CBO on which they base their score did not get in final form how many Federal buildings we are talking about. I think that leaves, therefore, something of an open end as to what this bill will ultimately cost; and that then goes to impact the very children for whom the breastfeeding will take place. A child born in America today is going to inherit a giant liability from the Federal Government in terms of the cost of our Federal Government. By accountants from both the left and the right, they have said what we have in place is not sustainable. Therefore, I think it is very important, from a process standpoint, that we look at a final form number on any of these bills that we throw out and we prescribe, regardless of, again, how well-meaning they are and how measured they are, which is certainly the case with this bill. I wanted to stand to give a quick explanation. I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for the way that, on a nightly basis, he comes down to the well and helps inform people. Jefferson, in the writings of our Founding Fathers, talked about how important it was to have an informed electorate. I just really appreciate the way the gentleman gives people clarity and information that they can then digest and make their decisions with. That process of informing is, I think, a vital part of the politic. He does it on the daily basis, and I appreciate it. His doing so matters to me and to the people that I represent. I appreciate so much the gentleman's yielding because I want to talk just a couple of minutes about a bill that I introduced today entitled the REAL ID Privacy Protection Act. It is a bipartisan bill. It is supported from the Republican side by people like Mark Meadows. It is supported on the Democratic side by Democrats like Chellie Pingree from Maine. I think they do so because it is a commonsense bill that gets at some of the deficiencies that one can find in REAL ID. Quite specifically, what it does is eliminate the requirement that your personal documentation and documents be held and archived, in essence, in warehouses for 10 years. It will not require your stuff to be out in government databases for 10 years. Secondly, it eliminates the requirement that the DMV databases be co-linked. Thirdly, it creates uniformity with regard to the way in which extensions are granted. So the bottom line is your driver's license could still be used to get you in the Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort or it could be used to go into Joint Base Charleston or a whole host of other facilities around this country. More significantly, for the average flying public, you could still use your driver's license next year to be able to get on a plane in the United States of America. Why is all this important? It is important because individual privacy matters. It is important because equal treatment under the law matters. It is important because the 10th Amendment really matters. States have a role in which the Founding Fathers intended the Federal Government to fit with the State government, to fit with local government, and to fit with individual prerogative. Now let's examine each one of those couple of things. One, if you look at South Carolina driver's licenses, just as an example, they are secure. We have holograms. We have barcodes. We have a whole host of different things that create security. Yet, in the wake of 9/11, what the Federal Government, Homeland Security, and others decided at that time was that, in essence, what they wanted was a de facto national ID card and for the Federal Government to, in essence, federalize what had previously been a State function, with State's issuing driver's licenses. There is not a Federal driver's license. Texas has driver's licenses, South Carolina has driver's licenses, Florida has driver's licenses. Each State may have a little bit different way of doing so, but it was a state prerogative. In the wake of that Federal requirement--I was wearing a different hat at the time; I was wearing a Governor's hat--I joined with, for instance, Governor Schweitzer from Montana in saying: Wait, this doesn't make sense. The States still have a vital role here. This role does not need to be federalized. We pushed back and, long story short, we were successful with many others in that effort. Yet, what is happening is many of those deadline requirements are now reemerging and approaching. The question we have to ask ourselves in Congress is: What are we going to do about it? Are we going to push back again? Or are we going to try and slow this again? Or are we just going to let the Federal Government come in and steamroll what has been a State function? I think it is important that we act, and that is why we introduced this bill. It, again, gets at three important things. One, privacy matters. Quite simply, if government doesn't need your stuff, they don't get your stuff. I think that is a simple premise. Again, let me say it again. If government really doesn't need your stuff, it shouldn't get your stuff. What do I mean by that? What I mean is, if the requirement, as is now the case, is that the Federal Government take your personal information and they archive it for the next 10 years, do you really feel that you are more secure? I would argue that is not at all the case. I would argue that it is much better to have a system that, when you take your birth certificate, you take your marriage license, you take your divorce papers, you take your citizenship papers, whatever it is that you have, take it all, let folks at the government level decide whether you are who you are or whether you are not who you are, and then give your stuff back to you. They don't need to house it for the next 10 years. That is all this bill does. If you house it for the next 10 years, in fact, there is a considerable cost. The unfunded mandate to States is $17 billion. So what we are saying is make the determination. Take, again, all your stuff, look at it, but then give it back, rather than requiring States to archive this stuff for the next 10 years. It also matters because, again, of individual human privacy. Whether it is a divorce decree, whether it is a marriage license, whether it is citizenship papers, whatever it is, we have been in hearings over the last couple of weeks where it was proven that the Russians were quite involved in hacking of American databases. Why do we want to open that up to Chinese hackers, Russian hackers, to whoever it is, if it isn't required and necessary from the standpoint of security? Two, this bill simply gets at the notion that States matter. The 10th Amendment matters. Patton was once attributed with saying that, if you tell a soldier to take a hill, tell them to take the hill. Don't tell them how to attack the hill. The same is true of the Federal Government as it relates to States. Give us a secured requirement, but then allow Texas to go about their way of taking the hill and South Carolina to come with its way of attacking the hill, as long as we take the hill, which is the necessary security requirement. I think it is also important from the standpoint of security that one thing we have learned over time is that centralization of data does not make data more secure. We have a host of different breaches that have occurred at the Federal level that prove this point. I think that one of the things that is interesting about Pearl Harbor is that the boats were in one spot and it was one-stop shopping for the Japanese. So, in fact, what we have seen in terms of military strategy going forward is people spread assets out. They don't want them congregated all in one spot so that an attacker would be able to take down a multitude of different assets with one particular raid. I think the same is true in the information age, as it relates to databases. Finally, this bill is about equal treatment under the law. I think that what many States--South Carolina would be among them--are concerned about is: Is this too subjective? If you happen to be a blue State versus a red State, does that have some degree of determination in the way in which you get an extension or you don't get an extension? Eighteen States and territories have been granted extensions. Seven States have been granted very limited extensions. All this bill does is say, Let's make that process transparent so that States can look one to the other and say, How was it that you got an extension but I didn't? I think that that level of uniformity would make sure that nobody suspects this system of being arbitrary or capricious by nature. That is in simple form what the bill does. Again, it is about your privacy. We have had a long debate over the course of our country on security versus freedom, and what we don't want to do is give up certain, in essence, soul conditions, if you will, for freedom, including this notion of federalism, in our efforts to be secure. It is about recognizing that States are not wards of the Federal government, that a $7 billion unfunded liability really does matter to the taxpayers of different States. Finally, it is about equal treatment under the law. Again, the bill is called the REAL ID Privacy Protection Act. I would ask Members to join us on that bill. I would ask folks out there listening to talk to their House Member about that bill because I think it is one that makes a whole lot of sense. I would say, again, how much I appreciate the gentleman from Texas yielding. Most of all, I thank him for the way he comes down to the well on such a regular basis to inform the American public.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Rotary Club of Hilton Head Island on its fiftieth anniversary. It is my honor to recognize the club and all of its members on this important milestone, which marks the lasting contributions its members have made, and continue to make, toward the lives of a whole host of people through their work, most of whom they will never personally know. They range from buying the first ambulance for Hilton Head Island, to members providing dental care on trips to Chile and Romania. They have raised money and helped with many other local groups, such as the Deep Well Project, Happy Feet, and Memory Matters, but my point here is this is a group that has consistently done great work for others in our community. Rotary is a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders dedicated to high ethical standards and humanitarian service. Approximately 1.2 million Rotarians belong to more than 31,000 Rotary clubs located in 166 countries. Since receiving its charter on April 13, 1967, the Rotary Club of Hilton Head has embraced the high ideals of Rotary. The members of the club have developed opportunities for service and maintained high ethical standards in business and professional ventures, and done countless things to improve the quality of life on Hilton Head Island and beyond. With that, I would again ask that you please join me in congratulating the Rotary Club of Hilton Head Island on its fiftieth anniversary and in wishing its members the best of luck as they continue their work and service to others.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about a bill that Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and I have that we will be offering tomorrow. I think it is an important bill from the standpoint of advancing and perpetuating this American notion called freedom. It is a bill that had 130 sponsors in the last Congress. I am joined on the bill by Tom Emmer and Mr. Poe and Mr. Amash as original cosponsors as we drop the bill tomorrow. It is quite simply entitled the Freedom to Travel to Cuba bill. It does what the name suggests, to lift the current restrictions in encumbering Americans' ability to travel to Cuba. Why is that important? I think it is important for a number of different reasons, first of which is tied to the basic, fundamental notion of American liberty. American liberty is built of many different things. The Supreme Court has actually determined that as real as what you choose to wear, what you choose to eat, or what you choose to read is this basic, fundamental right to travel. In the American system, we can travel as we see fit. I can go here, I can go there. I am going to visit my grandmother in Des Moines, my cousin in Chicago. We choose without government control and without government edict where we come and where we go. It is a far cry from what we saw in the former Soviet Union where you had to have your papers to determine where you could travel. I have a map of the globe here. Did you know that you or I could travel to any country on this globe except one? You or I could travel to North Korea. You or I could travel to Syria. You or I could travel to Iran. You or I could travel to Iraq. It may not work out well for you, it may not be the best of trips, but you or I could travel without government prohibition to any spot on this globe except one, and that one is Cuba. That may have made sense in 1960. For security reasons in the time of the cold war, it may have made sense to have that prohibition in place. But the question is: Does it make sense today? I don't think it does for a whole variety of reasons. One, this is about the basic, fundamental American right of travel as we see fit, not as government sees fit. Two, this is about the American liberty and this fragile notion of, if we don't protect it, government tends to grow. Jefferson talked about this theme a long time ago. He talked about the normal course of things for government to gain ground and for government to yield. So if we don't push back--and this is what the REINS Act was all about--if we don't push back about the government edict or laws that have outgrown their usefulness, what we are doing is we are allowing government to encroach on this fragile notion of liberty. Fundamental to the notion of common sense is, if you tried something for 50 years and it has not worked, may we not try something different? I was here in the 1990s. I signed onto Helms-Burton. But it didn't work, and so we asked: Why not try something different? What Ronald Reagan proposed at the time of the Iron Curtain was for Americans, kids with backpacks, to travel on the other side of that curtain. That personal diplomacy, that one-on-one diplomacy, would be key in bringing down that wall. That was the notion of engagement. So I think this is about saying American policy has been the excuse that the Castros have used for 50 years. We have almost the longest- serving dictatorship in the history of globe there with the Castro brothers. What was oftentimes the case is they would blame the blockade, the embargo, Americans' inability to travel, whatever was going wrong with the country rather than simply addressing the real issue. The problem was communism and the way that it encumbers people and their hopes and their dreams. We gave them an excuse. So this is about pulling back the excuse and trying something different. It is about pushing back on a regulation that has not served its purpose. Three, this is about engaging because that is part and parcel to American liberty. You know, I don't like some of the things that are going on in Russia. I don't like some of the things that are going on in China. I don't like some of the things that are going on in Vietnam. You can pick your country. But what we have chosen, as an American policy, is this notion of engagement, that we ultimately are going to be able to solve more by engaging with other countries. Again, that is why Ronald Reagan embraced it with countries of the former Soviet Union in helping to bring down that wall. So this is about perpetuating the notion of engagement and government regulation. We have just passed the REINS Act, which is all about saying if something isn't making sense, let's peel it back. Let's not have the fourth branch of government going out and perpetuating all kinds of regulations without them going through Congress. Yet, with regard to travel to Cuba, you have to sign an affidavit as to why you are going there. You have to keep receipts for up to 5 years proving where you did or didn't spend money. If you fill out a form wrong, you can be subject to a $250,000 fine. Is that kind of regulation consistent with free travel that we all should enjoy as Americans? Finally, I think that this bill is about bringing about change to Cuba. My interest is not primarily about Cuba. My interest is about American liberty and the need to perpetuate American liberty. But one of the offshoots, one of the benefits is about bringing change to Cuba. Even the worst detractor of the bill, we are all about the same thing, which is bringing more freedom to that country and the 11 million people that make up that country. I think that allowing Americans to go there and to tell folks about what you are hearing from your state-run radio station or television station is not the truth, here is what is really going on. It is part and parcel to bringing about a change in Cuba. It is part and parcel to eliminating the excuses that have been used by the communist regime there. It is continuing the theme of engagement that we have employed for more than 100 years. And most all, it is part and parcel to maintain this fragile notion of American liberty which always needs to be protected. If something has encroached upon American liberty, it is not about a tangible result in the here and the now. It needs to be pushed back. So, fundamentally, this bill is about those five different things. It is for that reason I would ask that viewers talk to their House or Senate Member and ask them to sign on to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I thank the chairman for his work and for the committee's work on this bill in the way that, in essence, it creates a lighthouse on how we might fund infrastructure projects going forward. There is much talk about the new Trump administration and what will come next on that front, but what will be important is the process in the way that we fund infrastructure. We can have our different takes on what should or shouldn't happen in California, but if you look at the bill in its totality, it sets in place a process that, I think, is vital. Second, it is important to take things off the Christmas tree, and this bill does that. I praise the chairman for what he has done. He deauthorized $10 billion worth of projects. That is something we do not often see in Washington, D.C., and it is something we need to see more of. Finally, I thank the gentleman for the way that he focused on Charleston. Any time one can count a resource on one hand, it is a natural resource. Indeed, that is the case with the port in Charleston, which I think will go to serve needs, along with a number of other ports on the Gulf and the East Coast, as the Panama Canal has been widened.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I will ultimately vote today for the National Defense Authorization Act because it's a necessity, and I think it's important we authorize this spending so that procurement, research, and a host of other long-term projects stay on track. That's the good news. The bad is that there are many wrongs tucked into this bill. It continues to use wartime contingency funds for recurring operations. It has an earmark for New Balance shoes. I could go on, but I write to highlight what I think will be the most damaging part of the bill-- exempting women from the draft. In the spring, Secretary Carter made women eligible for combat roles, and this was supposedly about equality. This bill goes a step further and makes it law that woman will be preferentially treated. Doing so is not good for morale and readiness because troops know you can't have it both ways in life. Either we are all on the team together and treated equally--or we are not. I said in February that the Secretary of Defense's new policy of opening front-line combat roles to women would unleash political forces that in the end would make our military weaker. All this could have been avoided if we had been allowed a national debate, but the administration rushed to stack up perceived political wins while it could--and so we are where we are. What happened in this bill is the first of many inconsistencies that will come to weaken one of our military's real strengths: its leadership as an institution in treating people equally as it focuses on but one outcome--the defense of our nation. It needs to be remembered that 6 years before Brown vs. Board of Education, the armed forces had already been desegregated. Actions like this and its focus on equality of opportunity have something to do with Gallup polls showing our military as the most respected of American institutions. The bill creates a daring double standard. Women are now eligible for combat roles but not the draft. It codifies the draft for men but not for women at the very time women are now eligible for combat roles. How is this equal? To be clear, I'm not a fan of women in a draft or being a part of Seal Team 6. I just think we should offer equal roads to getting to the Seal unit, if billets are open to men and women. Our nation asks people in the elite units to do remarkably rugged things that pose serious physical challenge. The Marines have actually looked deeply at this and recently completed a 1,000-page study that concluded that male units overwhelmingly outperformed integrated units in physical tasks. Indeed, Navy Seals comprise but 1 percent of the Navy, Force Recon is about the same within the Marines--while Delta Force numbers are actually classified, and the problem in the elite forces is that physical prowess is not a part of what you do; it is part and parcel to what you do. There is a reason we don't see a lot of women in the NFL, and if we really want to try a social experiment, let's make one-third of the Army football team female and see how it does next year against Navy. For that matter, my sister is a wonderful woman and a far better shot than I am, but she can't carry me very far. We begin to affect unit cohesion when members of a unit believe their counterparts can't carry them out of a bad spot in which they may have found themselves . . . but all this is a debate for another day. The debate that needs to come in the wake of this bill is how we reconcile equality of opportunity in the military with people in this bill being treated quite differently. Our nation's defense is not a social experiment. Lives hang in the balance. For the sake of morale-- so important to what makes our military strong--it's important we circle back on the draft issue this coming year.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Dave Hutton of Daufuskie Island, located in the First District of South Carolina. He died earlier this month doing what he loved--living life fully and at full speed. In this case, he was on a hunting trip with friends. He was only twenty-seven years old. In that vein, Mark Twain once observed that the fear of death results from of a fear of life, but someone whose life is well lived is prepared to die at any time. Dave was indeed an example of life robustly lived, and much of his time spent on this earth was in the service of others. A man of large stature and spirit, his presence was one that welcomed you and that could not be ignored. As a native of Daufuskie Island, it comes as no surprise that Dave was among those who remained behind to watch over it when Hurricane Matthew hit back in October. A member of the so-called ``Daufuskie 100''--the name for the number of residents who rode out the storm, he was someone that those on the island looked to as a leader. Indeed, when I last saw Dave, he was leading the cleanup effort from the driver's seat of his bulldozer. That was par for the course for him. He couldn't help but lead. Even as a toddler, Dave encouraged his mother to give the change to charity whenever they went out to eat, an early indication that a life filled with service was to come. Dave's story is one of leading by example, one of both talking the talk and walking the walk, and I think there is a lesson that all of us can learn from within those pages. In his memory, I would ask that we take a moment today for reflection, and pause in asking how we can live up to his example of leadership. For those of us who knew him, even in the briefest of life's moments, he will be missed. Accordingly, I want to offer my condolences to his mother, Martha, as well as to the other family and friends he leaves behind. Daufuskie has lost one of its strongest spirits. But inasmuch as Daufuskie is a heavenly place for all who are called to its shores, I look forward to landing at the ultimate heavenly place that calls all of us one day home--and seeing him there. Dave will be more than just waiting for us. Perhaps on a shinier dozer, he will have cleared a path for islanders and non-islanders alike. He will be giving perhaps a touch too much direction and leadership--but this indeed is the Dave of Dave. Until that reunion, Godspeed.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I want to first commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for what he has done on this bill. It would take the wisdom of Solomon to get all the competing interests and all the competing views perfectly happy on this bill. What I think the gentleman has done in the Rules Committee is to recognize that this is a bill that cannot wait. It is a bill whose time has come. He has absolutely the courage of his convictions. He has got a whole lot of heart and a whole lot of soul, and he has worked with other Members to say this is a bill as best constructed as we can get it and we have got to move. The question on the underlying bill that I think Ranking Member DeFazio and Chairman Shuster have worked so hard on is one that is complex in nature but incredibly simple in what it produces. It produces a couple of things that, I think, are worth consideration. First, it produces something that has everything to do with what Mr. Woodall was just talking about on the way that our budget used to be configured. There used to be a budget in the United States that was built around what are we going to do, what are we going to invest in our country to make our country more competitive. We have gone on to an entitlement budget that both the Republican and Democratic side would say doesn't work for a lot of folks out there and is a financial train wreck. I thought it was fascinating, in fact, that Mario Draghi, who is the head of the European Central Bank, said in Brussels yesterday that it is ``not enough for delivering real and sustainable growth in the long term'' if we continue down this road of low interest rates. In fact, he said a continued path of low interest rates has harmful side effects. I think we have seen that with a lot of retirees out there. A lot of folks who have pension plans that are depending on what comes next in financial markets are being hurt with this financial engineering. What he said, in short, was to be competitive in the world economy, you cannot continue to rest on this notion of financial engineering as a way to get you there. So what this bill is ultimately about, as Mr. Woodall was just pointing out, we have got to move from the European Central Bank's financial engineering as the way in which we are supposedly competitive as an economy and go back to the basics, back to the basics of where we are on tax policy, back to the basics of where we are on regulatory policy, back to the basics on spending, taxes. Go down the list, but among the things on that list is this notion of investing in infrastructure. It is important not only in terms of making our economy more competitive; it is also important if you care about the debt and deficit. The only way we can close that gap is not spending restraint, but also by growing the economy; and that this is, in fact, a linchpin to growing the economy and, therefore, it cannot wait. I think he also recognizes what Thomas Friedman talks about in this so-called flat world that we live in; that it is an increasingly competitive world. I thought it was interesting that Hillary Clinton mentioned last night in the debate that 95 percent of the folks in the world live out there and 5 percent live in the United States, and we have got to trade with them. And disproportionately, the way in which we trade, almost 90 percent of what we buy in markets around this country got here by container. So we have got to go about this business of upgrading our port facilities, for instance. That is why I think that, as Representative Wasserman Schultz was just mentioning, it is important what is happening in Port Everglades. It is important what is happening in the port in Miami. It is important to what is happening in the port in Lake Charleston. Do I have a hometown component to the fact that I like Charleston and South Carolina? Yes. But it has everything to do with the growth of the region based on the Panama Canal being widened and based on post-Panamax-sized ships coming to the East Coast, Gulf Coast, and West Coast ports in this country. To be competitive, we have got to be continuing this process on a regular basis of upgrading our infrastructure. Finally, this is about a change in process, if you look at the underlying bill. The Founding Fathers talked about e pluribus unum-- from the many, one--and too often we have gotten away from that; we have gotten to a Balkanized look at the way districts work.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, we have got to go about looking at the national needs of this country as opposed to just the regional needs or the local needs. We got off on the notion of earmarks, and at times our answer is just to cede to the executive branch that deliberation. I think that what this bill correctly does is it pulls back to Congress that which the Constitution vested with the Congress in deliberation of these kinds of matters, which makes it incredibly important.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I just want to come to applaud both the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this important measure. I think this bill is incredibly important because, in the simplest of forms, conflicting signals never work with regard to foreign policy. Some people have said that the Korean war was, in many cases, in large measure created based on a void as to uncertainty as to what the American Government would or wouldn't do in the event that North Korea was attacked by South Korea. I think you can look at a long host of different examples that point to the simple fact that conflicting signals are never a good signal when it comes to foreign policy. I just want to thank the gentlemen for their resolution and to stress its importance. I think if we learned anything in the days leading up to World War II, with the actions of Neville Chamberlain, it is that appeasement doesn't work and that unchecked aggression always creates problems. I think this is about sending a clear message to the Russians, but it ultimately sends a message to more than just the Russians. This is, as well, about a message to the Chinese in the South China Sea or other parts around the globe. In that regard, I think that this bill is ultimately about things that are ultimately much bigger than Ukraine and Russia. Let me give you two examples. One, this is about reminding our allies and even ourselves that, for sovereignty to mean anything, a border has to mean something. That means a border can't be porous. It means that a border can't be regulated and controlled by whoever your biggest and strongest neighbor is in the region. I would say, secondly, that this is about what it means to be an American ally. I think that the Budapest Memorandum was unequivocally clear that, if you give up nuclear arms, we will do certain things in terms of your security. So the question that we now have to ask as Americans, and I think what this bill ultimately does so forcefully is to say: What does that mean and what are we going to do about it? Indeed, that is the question.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Royce so much for his indulgence in terms of time. I had the pleasure of going to Georgia over the recess with Congressman Duncan, and we had an incredible experience in that we saw firsthand the very thing that you are talking about with regard to the Russian occupation of nearly 20 percent of the landmass of Georgia. It is having a real-world impact in terms of a threat to that part of the region, a threat in terms of investment, and a threat in terms of further economic development to that country. What has been, I think, impressive are the market reforms that have taken place there, the way that the economy has burgeoned as a consequence of those market reforms, but, again, the way in which the Russian threat threatens all of that in terms of the growing democratic movement, the growing economy, and the change in people's lives. So I just want to praise the gentleman from California and thank him for bringing this resolution to the floor because I think it does make a difference in terms of a signal to that part of the world wherein people that we met with and saw firsthand are seeing the consequence of the Russian occupation.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear that in just a few moments, I am going to be withdrawing my amendment. Before I do so, I just want to say a couple of things because this amendment was a very simple and straightforward amendment that did nothing more than allow Americans to travel to Cuba, which is to say this amendment ultimately was about American liberty. We just heard a long conversation about Iran, and yet, as an American, you can travel to Iran. You could travel to Syria. You could travel to North Korea. There is no prohibition for any other place on the globe, except for one, and that is Cuba. And that may have made sense 50 years ago. The reality of today is that it does not make sense today. And so this has ultimately been about American liberty. It has been about the bundle of rights that come with liberty. The Supreme Court has said that as real as the food that we eat or the clothes that we wear or the books that we read, the ability to choose where you come and go, where you travel to, is an American liberty. So Jefferson said 200 years ago that the normal course of things was for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield. And I think it is very, very important wherein we run into policies that have outlived their usefulness, that may have made sense 50 years, that don't make sense today, that we push back against them. That is what this amendment was about and, again, affording people the true American way, which is to travel as they choose, not as government sees. Two, it is about bringing change. I signed on to the original Helms- Burton language. The definition of insanity is continuing the same process and expecting a different result. We have tried this approach for 50 years. We have the longest-serving dictatorship in the world in the form of the Castro brothers in Cuba. And it would seem to me, if it hadn't worked in 50 years, might we not trying something different? It was Ronald Reagan that encouraged engagement. In fact, that has been the policy of this country. So I don't like what goes on in Russia or in China or in Vietnam, but we allow Americans to travel there, believing that that personal diplomacy is part of changing those places. Finally, this is about government regulation. It is interesting that we are at the eve of real connections, real flights going down to Cuba. But we will have to sign affidavits. We will have to store records for 5 years. We will be subject to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in penalties if we fill out a form wrong. And so this is also about easing government regulation. So, in my closing, I would just like to say a couple of thoughts. I want to thank Kevin Cramer, Tom Emmer, Rick Crawford, Ted Poe, Jim McGovern, Kathy Castor, Barbara Lee, and about 130 other Members of this House who signed on to this bill. I want to thank Senators Jeff Flake, Jerry Moran, Mike Enzi, and others over on the Senate side. I want to thank the U.S. Chamber, who is going to key vote this vote tonight, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Washington Office of Latin America, Engage Cuba, the Farm Bureau, the Americans for Tax Reform, and a long list of others who said that this is something that makes sense. Finally, I want to say, there is real momentum. As I just mentioned, just today U.S. transportation is outlining eight airlines that will be able to travel to Cuba. Last night, I think there was something of a deal struck between ag interests and the ability to export product or a deal that will be formed in exporting product to Cuba. I think that makes sense. Given the fact that the Speaker is working against this amendment, I see the handwriting on the wall. I think it best to withdraw, so that is exactly what I am going to do. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of the nine men and women who were murdered in my district at the Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina on June 17, 2015. With it now being just over a year since the tragedy occurred, our thoughts and prayers continue to go out to the victims and their families. Their names once again are Cynthia Graham Hurd, Susie Jackson, Ethel Lance, The Reverend DePayne Middleton-Doctor, The Reverend Clementa C. Pinckney, Tywanza Sanders, The Reverend Daniel Simmons Sr., The Reverend Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, and Myra Thompson. I submit this poem penned in their honor by Albert Carey Caswell. in the darkest of all nights In the darkest of all nights When all hope seems to taken flight While, such heartache begins, so ignites As evil has its day Only then can faith upon us shine its bright light As from out of these the darkest of all nights To so fight the good fight Of Good vs. Evil, for we are all God's chosen people to wipe out this blight And when it all seems without reason or rhyme, all in hatred darkest of times Seasons Remember it is not by chance, for this battle has always raged since the beginning of man For there is darkness, and there is Light We choose the side upon which we wish to so fight Let us enjoin now as Black and as White As American's first, colorblind to hatred's sight For we all have the same heart For we are all are born to live and to die, and to play our part As all of those Mothers who now stand with tears in their eyes and broken hearts But remember my friends, over The Darkness of Evil we all can so fend Because The Darkness is no match for The Light, if together we enjoin in this fight If we ask our Lord for the strength for this battle to win In this most unspeakable of all crimes in our Lord's house in this sin As they knelt down to pray, as around a total stranger their arms they had laid To commune and speak of our Lord, as together they prayed As those nine future Angels were so soon to be on heaven's way As they did not realize before them what Evil so lay But remember my friends, the face of evil can so easily be hidden away In these The darkest of all nights, darkest of all days As nine beautiful souls of gold, were taken from all of us this day From our world in evil's blight as they prayed As our world has been cheated of The Light that they gave As nine families across South Carolina so weep on this day And hate is hard, and oh how upon me it so weighs When, I see all those tears in your families faces As we now so weep all in what their beautiful lives were to keep But through all of this darkness we all must somehow be brave And if we look closely, we can still see their light through all of that pain As all across Charleston on this night but comes a gentle rain Washing down upon their loved ones to so ease their pain for these are the tears of our Lord, upon them to remain Until, up in Heaven you all meet again, and you won't have to cry no more Take heart my brothers and sisters, all of your loved ones in Heaven remain as Angels the same And you will hear them on the wind And when you awake, you will feel them next to you where they've been For they are Angels now in the Army of our Lord To watch over you time and again To fight this war which has always been Now, let us find rest Let, us find peace Let us be as strong as once had all these all in their beliefs Let us not us find the same such dark hatred which evil so keeps As united together we stand, let us put arms around each other women, child, and man Black or White, let us not follow the hatred's same disease As it's time to bring all of our love and light to fight The Beast And from a distance what seems like the worst Perhaps isn't, for up in Heaven we all wish to wake As its down here on Earth, in the darkest of all nights we must fight evil curse Goodness. Evil. Darkness. Light. Those braves hearts who Evil must fight Who bring their Light As together enjoined, as we battle on into the darkest of all nights And its in our faith this day which will help us move on For Evil and Darkness are no match for The Light In these the darkest all nights Amen!