Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I just want to come here to praise what he is doing because I think this amendment is not only constitutional, I think it is common sense. I would say that at three different levels. I would say first it is about accountability in government. One of the reasons that people back home have told me they like the Trump candidacy is because they believe he would actually fire people in Washington, D.C., something that doesn't ever seem to happen. Whether you like the Trump candidacy or not, this notion of something other than an endless trail of words being the only measure of accountability in Washington, D.C., is something that, indeed, makes common sense to most regular folks that I talk to back at home. Two, I think this is about common sense in affirming Congress' power of the purse. In fact, the only real power that Congress has is the power of the purse, not ultimately for the executive branch or the judicial branch to decide, but for Congress to decide what do we fund, when do we fund it, and how much do we fund it by? Finally, this is about common sense in reasserting authority with regard to Article I, section 9, clause 7. People talk about too much in the way of executive overreach. They are weary of it. What article I says there is that ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.'' What I think is interesting--with due respect to my colleague from the Midwest in what he just raised--is I am sure that he voted to defund Planned Parenthood, and I am sure he voted to defund ACORN. I have raised amendments that would, for instance, defund the Alaska regional commission where there is one employee. Congress has that power to go out and say that this does or doesn't make sense, whether there are one, 50, or 500 employees at a given locality. If we lose that right, we lose real jurisdiction in moving forward within the three-branch system of government. So I think that this is both constitutional and common sense. I think it is important that we assert this authority. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak on the amendment.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, in the confusion that marked this night, I did not hear the second vote (rollcall 338) and missed the vote. I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against:

Mr. SANFORD

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

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, in simplest form, would block section 808, the so-called New Balance provision, by defunding it. I want to say before I get into the content, I want to compliment Bruce Poliquin, Bill Huizenga, and Martha McSally. We just had a fascinating conversation in the Cloakroom just a few moments ago. I think that, if their constituents and the American public at large could see the degree of thoughtfulness, their forthright approach, and the intellectual weight behind the things we just discussed in trying to find some kind of a solution here, they would be most impressed. It is with reservation that I offer this amendment, based on respect for each one of them, but I do so based on some concerns that I have in looking at the base language's approach and what it would mean for the average recruit out there. I offer this amendment based on, one, a concern for the troops. Right now, if you look at ballpark, the average new recruit, not all, but many of them have about 13 different choices in terms of shoe size. Fundamentally, this would bring it down to one, hopefully two, as Saucony came on line, and maybe two or three models of those different shoes in time, but it would begin to limit choices. I think that, for the average recruit out there, when there are very, very few choices, there is a wisdom to having more choices based on the notion of one size never fitting all. There have been any number of different Army and other military studies that have shown a correlation between injury and fewer choices. Secondly, I would say that this amendment is in the interest of the taxpayer. We now spend about $100 million a year in the recruit cycles on musculoskeletal injuries, 80 percent of which are tied to the lower extremities; disproportionately, those are tied to training injuries in, again, the new recruit cycle. Again, there is a degree of correlation between injury and fewer choices. I think that this amendment gets at that. Finally, I think this is about process. The military has allowed cash allowances for some time because they have recognized, again, the need for personal choices and personal matters. For instance, for women's undergarments, people are allowed a personal choice in picking the woman undergarments that work for them. Yet there is nothing more personal, at the end of the day, for a new recruit than their shoes. I think that, from a standpoint of process, preserving this notion of military cash allowances is important. I think it is for that reason that this amendment is supported by the Association of the United States Army, the White House, the DOD, a variety of different conservative groups, and more. But before we get into that, so that we might have a little bit further debate on this issue, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I would just make two points in this conversation. One, this debate before us is, really, about this notion of individual choice. I think that liberty is the hallmark of the American experiment, and I think, wherever possible, we need to preserve it. So this is not about taking away American jobs. It is about saying that I believe that American companies, based on the products that they produce, can compete on the world stage, and we don't need a mandate to ensure that they do. It is not about taking away New Balance as a choice. It is just saying: Can it be among a range of different competitive choices out there for the new recruit? Secondly, I would make this point that, actually, if you look at the New Balance shoes, two of the three options were offered. Stability and cushioning, they approved, but the DOD has still not signed off on motion control. So, actually, only two of the three choices are available. I would add that. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I would say a couple of different things. One, if you look at section 418 within the NDAA, cash allowances are absolutely Berry-compliant. It is something that we have done for a long number of years. That notion of preserving a choice has been something that has been consistently offered through all armed services. Two, people care about things that they can control, and I would argue that the average new recruit out there is going to be that much more vested in a decision that they have control over versus one that they don't. Finally, I think there are whole hosts of people who care deeply about our Armed Forces and our readiness--people like John McCain and Joni Ernst, who spent I think 20 or 30 years of her time in the military and who is now in the U.S. Senate--and who are against, again, this particular provision and who have been working on language over on the Senate side. I think it is why the White House opposes and the DOD opposes, and why a range of different conservative taxpayer groups opposes. It is not because they don't care about the DOD. It is because they believe, from the standpoint of the recruit and training, it is better for the recruit, and from the standpoint of taxpayer compliance and in watching out for the taxpayer, it is better. Again, I have heard very loudly and clearly what my colleagues have said on this. I admire the way in which they have advocated, but I, respectfully, take a different viewpoint on this one. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, with it being Primary Day back in South Carolina, I returned home to vote but unfortunately did not make it back in time for the first vote series in the House yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on roll call 299, ``aye'' on roll call 300, and ``yea'' on roll call 301.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of Greg Connell, a stunt pilot from South Carolina, who unfortunately passed before his time while performing several weeks back in the Good Neighbor Day Airshow in Atlanta. Accordingly, I want to take a moment to offer my condolences to his wife, Ginger, as well as the host of additional family and friends he leaves behind. It was the inventor Leonardo da Vinci who once said, ``Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.'' Greg's eyes indeed always looked up. The heavens were his domain, and it is to them that he has returned. He followed in his father's footsteps and started flying back in 1989 at the young age of 13, and his love of flight was obvious in the way that he lived life. Indeed, he flew at the Annual Water Festival down in Beaufort, South Carolina on numerous occasions, and my brother, John, flew with him many times. At a personal level, I spent New Year's down at the farm watching him do what he loved best: fly. And that he could. He made the impossible look all too easy. With grace and flair, he was mesmerizing in the way he took to the sky. Greg's story is that of pursuing with passion a quest for excellence, and I think there is a lesson 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 live up to his model of excellence in all we do. For those of us who knew him, we will miss him. I look forward to our reunion in the heavens above.

Mr. SANFORD

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

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I think what I have before all of us is a commonsense amendment. It simply says that the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing loan program will continue to exist, but there can be no additional loans. The reason that I do so is, when I came and offered this amendment last year, I had a cutting amendment last year, but what was explained to me was that, if you cut the program, then you wouldn't have money to administer the existing loans that were out there. So, as a result, I have altered this amendment so that it again leaves in place the appropriation, which is more than $5 million, so that you could continue to administer the existing loans that are in place, but there would be no additional loans. Now, why do I think that that is important? I think it is important for a couple different reasons. I think, from a Democratic standpoint, what we would say is that we all believe in equality and that there shouldn't be subsidized loans for major corporations, global corporations, here in the United States while your cousin's pizza business is struggling or your friend's landscaping business is struggling. They don't get subsidized loans. Why should a big business? So, from a Democratic standpoint, I think we would hold that belief. From a Republican standpoint, we would say we need to watch out for the taxpayer. If you look at the default rate on these loans, unfortunately, it has been relatively high. You would say: I don't know if government is in the best spot to be making these kinds of loans to businesses. I think that ultimately is the role not of government, but of business. Let them do what they do. I think from both vantage points it is something that makes sense. I would add just a couple of additional thoughts and then I would yield. I would say, one, there have been only five loans made since 2007. This is not a huge program. This is a very limited program. Two, two out of the five loans made since 2007, in fact, have defaulted. That is a 40 percent default rate. I don't think that that is the kind of thing that we would like to see in government. There have been no loans made since 2011. And then the GAO came in March of 2013 and said the costs outweigh the benefits of this program. They followed that up with another GAO report in March of 2014 and said: We recommend shutting down the program unless the Department of Energy can show real demand for the loans. Then they followed that up with a final GAO report in March of this year, and it said that there hadn't been a sufficient level of demand. As a consequence, their words were this: Determining whether funds will be used is important, particularly in a constrained fiscal environment. This Congress should rescind unused appropriations or direct them to other government priorities. I think the simple issue with this loan program is that there could be other priorities where you take that $4 billion of loan authority and let other parts of government use it or turn it back to the private sector and use that money much more effectively. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I very, very much appreciate what the chairman pointed out. Again, that is why I think it is so important to simply codify this notion that we won't go forward. The money is in there for administration of existing loans. It is just saying that we are not going to go out and administer new ones, given the other needs that exist within both the public and the private sector for funds like this. Mr. Chair, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I would agree with much of what my colleague said just a moment ago. I think that innovation is, indeed, the gateway to the future, but I would argue that great innovation has been led by the private sector, not by loan guarantees to major corporations. You think about Steve Jobs and his partner opening up that business in basically what amounted to the basement of a house. That is not what we are talking about here. I think some of the great innovations will come from small businesses that don't see this kind of financial advantage. Two, I would make the point that this is not about just helping American companies. One of the largest loans out there was to Mazda, which is not an American company. Ford is--that is one of the other big loans, but Mazda is not. I would put this in the larger classification of Reagan's words: The closest thing to eternal life is a government program. This is one of those government programs that has not proved successful, and I think it is important that we wean government programs. We prune them where they don't make sense. Forty percent is, in fact, the default rate. If you add up all the numbers, it amounts to 2 percent. But most people when they think of default and what the American Bankers Association would think of when they think of default is divided by the number of loans out there, what percent defaulted, and that number happens to be a real 40 percent, not 2 percent of the aggregate amount of the total loans out there. Finally, I would again go back to this simple point. I agree with my colleagues about what they have said on the need for innovation and for reform, but I don't think it will be led through a loan program that has seen any number of defaults in the process. That money could be redeployed to education and a whole host of our primary needs in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD

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

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise with a very simple amendment. It would do nothing more than call for a GAO report of the maritime security fleet. I do so because I think that we would all acknowledge that knowledge is power, and the ability to look very closely at what is happening within that fleet, I think, is important. I would also say that, as a believer that defense is a core function of the Federal Government, we would want to have transparency in the way that we expend those funds in pursuit of our Nation's defense. I think that this is important in light of the fact that overall funding has risen by about $89 million here over the last, I guess, funding cycle. You have seen the per-ship stipend go from $3.5 million to $5 million. There has not been a study of what is happening within that fleet of ships for more than 12 years, and so, again, this is not in any way prescriptive in nature as to what should or shouldn't happen or the merits or demerits of the program. It is simply saying might we not learn a little bit more of what is happening within that fleet, and that is it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I would say to my colleague that, again, what we would all recognize is that OMB is different than the Government Accountability Office. The OMB is fundamentally executive branch in nature. I think there is a real value to having a third party independent look at what is happening with the study. Again, it is not prescriptive in nature, but having that third party look, I think, is that much more important in all of our justifications of this program or other programs like it. I would also say this, in terms of ``waste of money,'' as we know, GAO is funded through the legislative branch. This would not involve an additional expenditure of money. It would be incorporated into the expenditures that currently take place within the legislative branch and, again, GAO, by extension. In that regard, I think it would be a good use of taxpayer money to take a look that has not been taken in more than 12 years. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would say this: in essence, we already have outsourced this. I think the question about the maritime security fleet is that it is currently run by a foreign-flagged fleet of vessels. If I am not mistaken, it is almost exclusively run by Maersk, which is a foreign-flagged vessel. The question of this amendment is to say: Might not there be other ways of doing it? Maybe this is the best way to do it. Maybe there are other ways to do it. But this notion of not being willing to look, not being willing to have a third party validate or, if you will, take a look and say this makes sense or, no, there is a better way of skinning this cat both for the military and for the taxpayer, I think again warrants, in this case, the study by the GAO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would again go back to the basics. This stipend goes to Maersk presently. It has been raised from $3.5 million to $5 million. Maybe that is the best thing in the world to do; maybe it is not. But I think it is worthy of study, particularly given the fact that we have raised the stipend by $89 million over the last year, particularly given the fact that we have not looked at this issue from the standpoint of an outside third-party validation from the GAO for more than 12 years. It is for that reason I simply say, again, in no way prescriptively, it is worth a look. And again, given the fact that the Government Accountability Office does regular studies on a whole host of different issues on a very regular basis, I think this is worthy, given the additional $89 million that was spent last year. I would ask for a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, because I was in Nashville, Tennessee attending my son Landon's graduation from Vanderbilt University today, I was not present to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 190, ``aye'' on rollcall 191, ``yea'' on rollcall 192, and ``nay'' on rollcall 193. Personal Explanation

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the SOAR Act. I want to talk for a moment about the elephant in the room, and that is the way in which it has become something of a tug of war between those who believe in choice in education and those who don't. I think that, on the one hand, you have, for instance, taxpayer advocates who say: Wait a minute. If we are spending about $30,000 per student and getting the results that we are out of the system, something ought to change. There are other people who are advocates for the children of D.C., people like the former Mayor of this city, Anthony Williams, who said: Wait a minute. The scholarship program worked and it made a difference in people's lives. There are people who are advocates for the marketplace who say: Wait a minute. There has been a revolutionary degree of change in technology and in output and in productivity as a result of marketplace forces, and maybe those marketplace forces ought to be at work in education as well. I think, most of all, there are folks who acknowledge the fact that God makes every child different and that one size never fits all with the plethora of different personalities in children that are out there. On the other hand, you have folks who say: Wait a minute. Let's do it the way we have always done it. We had schools set up this way in the 1970s, in the 1980s, in the 1990s, and in the 2000s. Let's do it the way we did it. But, in that process, kids may be locked into schools that aren't working for them and for their families. They may be literally imprisoned in schools that aren't working. So I think that what stands out about the SOAR Act is that it represents a set of keys so that kids would have additional choices. If we really believe that education is the cornerstone to opportunity in the 21st century, why not give kids as many keys as possible? It could be a key to a charter school, a traditional public school, or a private school. It is a key of their choice because kids are indeed so different. That is what this bill acknowledges. I commend the gentleman from Utah for what he has done on this front.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my colleagues from Kansas and from Colorado for their work in crafting this bill. I think it is awfully important. I think it is what people expect. When they think about government, they want a government that works for them. Part of having a government that works for them means actually updating laws as technology has changed. So I think that, at the core, this is about keeping current with the rate of change in the world of technology. It is amazing to me--I pulled the numbers--that there are roughly 205 billion emails sent every day around the world. If you presuppose that America's economy is about 20 percent of that world pie, that means around 40 million or more emails are sent across this country every single day. In contrast is the U.S. Postal Service. There are about 600 million letters that go across this country every day, which is to say, mathematically, you are saying that about 1.5 percent of the communication flow, either via mail or electronic means, are sent by the Postal Service. The other, in essence, 99 percent of the communications are sent via email, which is to say we have a real problem with a law that was created in the 1980s that doesn't take into account the way the world has changed. So I applaud the crafters of this bill for what they have done in recognizing technology change. I applaud them for the way that they stayed true to the Fourth Amendment. Our Founding Fathers were so deliberate in recognizing the notion that you didn't want to have British soldiers coming into a house and rumbling around until they finally found something to charge you with and then moving forward. The Fourth Amendment is about protecting individual liberty. Jefferson said: ``The natural progress of things is for the government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.'' Fundamentally, what this bill is about is pushing back in the way that the government has now encroached on that space of individual liberty. Finally, I would say simply this: This is about recognizing how true history is on the importance of protecting liberty.