Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I have one here right now.

Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just rise in support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), because I think if there was ever a case such as a terminal illness when it comes to stupidly spending money, I think this is the case. It is amazing to me, if we look at the Forest Service program, basically we have 191 million acres spread over 144 forests throughout this country. If we add all that up, basically it is the size of Texas. If the gentleman or I were given all the forest lands in Texas, would we or would we not be able to make a dime? If the gentleman was given all the forest lands in Georgia, in South Carolina, in North Carolina, would we or would we not be able to make a dime? Yet the GAO reports shows that the Forest Service has lost $2 billion basically over the last 6 years. So we have a real terminal problem here with the way that money seems to be spent within the Forest Service. I think this is just another excellent example of what is being spent.

Mr. SANFORD. Have I personally read the study? No, but I will tell the gentleman what it says: ``Voices from Southern Forests, ``examines the changing social, economic, attitudinal, and other voices of southerners, and speculates about the meaning these changed voices might have on the future of forest wildlife management in the South.'' That is a wacko theme. Does that study mean much to the gentleman?

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the study that I have looked at is the ultimate study, the GAO study that shows the Forest Service has lost $2 billion basically between 1992 and 1997; that is the real issue, $2 billion. Let me add up the board feet we are talking about here. If the gentleman was given a $220 billion asset, because again, another GAO report showed that if we added up all the forest land, not in the recreational assets business, just the linear board feet owned by the Forest Service, the National Forest Service across the country, it adds up to 1 trillion board feet, which basically equates to about $20 billion, would we or would we not make money on a $220 billion asset? Most people would say if we put $220 billion in the bank, just based on interest on that $20 billion, I would make money. I think that is the issue we are dealing with right here, rather than spending more money on studying the voices of southern forests.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, one last point on that very front. It is amazing to me that we can have a land block the size of Texas.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to, and say good-bye to, a dear friend. Gordon you will be missed, but not forgotten. Gordon Bynum was the living definition of the word, ``friend.'' This spring, on what turned out to be his last trip down to Coosaw, he called my wife Jenny ahead of time to say he wanted to come early to get things ready for the party. He was there and helped. This was part of a well worn pattern in the way he lived his life. Getting there early, staying later--going the extra mile--was what he thought normal. If I had ever found myself in real trouble with the option of only one call, it would have been to Gordon. In his forty-four years he did not spectate on life, he lived it. When Atlanta was still sleeping, I remember leaving town in the early morning hours to go on one of his crazy mountain canoe trips. Exotic locations, atlases, wilderness maps were part of Gordon's world; Jenny and I still have at the house National Geographic books he had sent after our wedding. In fact his birthday card to me, this year, one I received two days after his death, had penned at the bottom. ``Adventure soon?'' Finally, he lived a life that towers as an example to each of my four boys. At dinner on Tuesday upon hearing the story of Gordon's death a friend asked, ``Was he a Christian?'' I said, ``Absolutely.'' Whereupon he asked, ``How do you know?'' I said because Matthew 5:16 says let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works give glory to your father who is in heaven. He had the light, you could see it in his eyes and in his actions. One of those actions was his work at the Sheppard Clinic. He loved the patients and they loved him, despite the fact volunteerism is a trait lost on most bachelors. In short, he didn't spend his time talking about his faith, he lived it. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self control are what the Bible calls the fruit--the byproduct--of the spirit. He had it in abundance. He would have given love and more generously to Laura Lee, who he was to have married two weeks after his death. Love was the easiest word to describe him, and I suppose what I will most miss. Good-bye.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, just as much as I can shed light on this for the benefit of my colleague from California, I guess it was the year before last there had been basically authorization within the Federal highway bill for an interstate to run down to Charleston, South Carolina. Our environmental community did not want that road running down to Charleston, and so we were actually able, with the help of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), to take it out and stop the road in Georgetown, South Carolina. So I do think there is historical precedence here.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SANFORD. No, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the amendment. It was a last chance to save the taxpayers $1 million. We had indeed passed this section of the bill, but, nonetheless, I wanted to try. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would applaud the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), I would applaud the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), I would applaud the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) for what they have done to in essence refine this bill as we go through this process here on the House floor. What this amendment does is it basically continues that simple theme of refining and focusing this bill, because this bill looks at the Transportation Administrative Service Center which was basically founded by the Department of Transportation back in 1997. It last year was funded at about $109 million. This year it is projected to be funded at about $148 million. All this amendment does is it takes one of those million dollars of increase, and again, there are roughly about $50 million of increase, it takes one of those million dollars and it cuts it. The reason it does that is because it is basically a shot over the bow to this service center to say, ``Let's really look under the hood at some of these expenses and really examine closely whether or not they are in the best interests of the taxpayer.'' A lot of the things that this service center does basically for the Department of Transportation makes a whole lot of sense. Whether it is with photocopying or telecommunications services, there are certain advantages to one-stop-shopping which this center does. But some of the expenses when we really looked at them to me did not pass the litmus test of best interests of the taxpayer. Let me give my colleagues just a few of those. First of all, it has like career development seminar and workshops designed to assist organizations in promoting employee empowerment. It goes on to say, ``Emphasis is on providing employees with the tools, the information, the resources they need to seek opportunities that will make them more marketable and enhance their careers.'' That is a good thing, but I do not know that it is really in the best interest of building more roads and bridges and airports across this country. Similarly, another component of the center was fitness center equipment consulting. I read from their own web page: ``If you're thinking of purchasing exercise equipment for your employees but are not sure what it should cost, what's most effective, what's currently popular, let our staff with over 50 years of experience in exercise physiology and fitness equipment handling assist you to facilitate your plans.'' That is a very nice thing, but again it is almost a bureaucracy within a bureaucracy. I do not think the taxpayer really wants to see a lot of those. Another one here I see, responding to employee stress. It says here, ``These are difficult times, downsizing, changing work styles, uncertainty about the future, family stresses. The effects of too much stress can start showing up in the workplace in big and small ways. Let us help you help them.'' A lot of these things, I am sure, are very reasonable things. That is why this bill only cuts $1 million of the basic $50 million of increase, asking them to carefully look under the hood to really examine whether or not all these expenses are warranted. I think the committee has already taken up the Inspector General's study which basically discontinued the computer operations over at the service center. This is again a shot over the bow. It is nothing more than that.

Mr. SANFORD. No, it was not.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to, and say good-bye to, a dear friend. Gordon you will be missed, but not forgotten. Gordon Bynum was the living definition of the word, ``friend.'' This spring, on what turned out to be his last trip down to Coosaw, he called my wife, Jenny, ahead of time to say he wanted to come early to get things ready for the party. He was there and helped. This was part of a well worn pattern in the way he lived his life. Getting there early, staying later--going the extra mile--was what he thought normal. If I had ever found myself in real trouble with the option of only one call, it would have been to Gordon. In his 44 years he did not spectate on life, he lived it. When Atlanta was still sleeping, I remember leaving town in the early morning hours to go on one of his crazy mountain canoe trips. Exotic locations, atlases, wilderness maps were part of Gordon's world; Jenny and I still have at the house National Geographic books he had sent after our wedding. In fact, his birthday card to me, this year, one I received two days after his death, had penned at the bottom, ``Adventure soon?'' Finally, he lived a life that towers as an example to each of my four boys. At dinner on Tuesday upon hearing the story of Gordon's death, a friend asked, ``Was he a Christian?'' I said, ``Absolutely.'' Whereupon he asked, ``How do you know?'' I said, ``Because Matthew 5:16 says let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in Heaven.'' He had the light, you could see it in his eyes and in his actions. One of those actions was his work at the Sheppard Clinic. He loved the patients and they loved him, despite the fact volunteerism is a trait lost on most bachelors. In short, he didn't spend his time talking about his faith, he lived it. Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control are what the Bible calls the fruit--the byproduct--of the spirit. He had it in abundance. He would have given love and more generously to Marilee, who he was to have married two weeks after his death. Love was the easiest word to describe him, and I suppose what I will most miss. Good-bye.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask for the help of my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), in bringing just compensation and closure to the surviving families of a tragic accident involving United States servicemen. On September 13 of 1997, a German Tupelov aircraft veered off course and collided with a United States Air Force C-141 off the coast of Namibia. Nine American servicemen perished in the collision. Accident investigations conducted by both the United States Air Force and the German Ministry of Defense both concluded that the fault of the collision lay with the German crew, who had not only filed an inaccurate flight plan, but were also flying at the wrong altitude. Five months after this accident, as we all know, a United States aircraft clipped a ski gondola cable in Italy, causing the deaths of 20, 7 of whom were German nationals. As has been customary, the United States Government is preparing to make financial settlement with the families of those victims. Unfortunately, the German Government has been slow to show a reciprocal sense of responsibility and concern for the loss of 9 American lives. Senator Strom Thurmond has attached a resolution to the Senate defense authorization bill calling for the German Government to make a prompt, fair settlement with the families lost in this tragedy. This is similar to a resolution that I, along with 15 other bipartisan cosponsors, have introduced in the House. I appreciate the strong support the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services has already given the surviving families of this accident, and I ask that when the Defense Authorization Act comes to conference the gentleman will accede to the Senate position with regard to the families of our lost airmen.

Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his support.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, there is no greater friend of the farmers than the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). He has been a consistent advocate of farmers; I profoundly respect that. I think the particular amendment, though, of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) in no way cuts overall research funding, but simply cuts out what seems to be an oxymoron, and that is $300,000 for competitiveness research in a quota-based system.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, if there was ever a sensible amendment, this one is it. I do not know what could be more clear cut. How many think it would be a good idea to put $300,000 to efforts to study democracy in Cuba? How many think it would be a good idea to put $300,000 to study the democracy that exists in Iraq? How many think it would be a good idea to put $300,000 to study good government in Libya? None of them exist. That is exactly what this amendment is about. This is a study of $300,000 for competitiveness in peanuts, which is something which does not exist. We have a market quota system. If you have a quota, you basically get to sell your peanuts for double, more or less double the price of anybody else. For instance, I grew up on a farm down in Beaufort County, down in South Carolina. I am trying to pass on a few of those traits to my boys. Can I imagine my boys raising peanuts in the backyard, and then being penalized simply because they do not have a quota? What this quota means, if you happen to live in Los Angeles, if you happen to live in Chicago, if you happen to live in New York and you have a quota, you can sell that quota. So you have fat cat quota owners that basically get double what somebody else does simply because they have the quota. That is not something that makes sense, but more significantly, what it says is this amendment does make sense, because to spend $300,000 studying competitiveness in something that is fundamentally not competitive is big government, at best. That is what this amendment does. It makes common sense. It highlights, I think, the lunacy of some of the quota systems we have in place. Can Members imagine a watermelon quota system? If you have a quota with watermelons, you can sell your watermelons for what my boys can raise them for in the backyard. Can Members imagine a cantelope quota system? If you have the quota you can live in New York City, you can sell your right to produce quota cantelopes to somebody who is down struggling on the farm. This is something that penalizes the family farmer. Again, this is not something that makes sense. It is the equivalent of saying let us spend $300,000 studying the democracy that exists in Cuba, $300,000 studying the democracy in Iraq. We do not have competitiveness in the peanut program. This simply says, let us admit that and not spend $300,000 of taxpayer money on something that does not exist.

Mr. SANFORD. What I find interesting about that is, let us assume it took 20 hours we have been on the floor, what the gentleman from Oklahoma is trying to do is basically save $200 million. I mean, that is over $10 million an hour that he would be saving the taxpayer. To me, that would be time well spent.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would agree, there certainly is a lot of valid research in any of the land grant colleges. My particular reason for offering this amendment, though, ties to part of the research goes, for instance, into better harvesting methods. Though Maine does not have the mosquitoes that South Carolina has, I know that you have a few mosquitoes in the summer. The old saying is, necessity is the mother of invention. I cannot imagine a more resourceful person than that person laying under a logging truck or laying under a skidder, getting bit up by a mosquito-- you have those--we call them dog ticks in South Carolina, they will be the size of your thumb coming at you. That person is going to be pretty resourceful in coming up with the quickest way to move a tree from a stump to a mill. The reason for this amendment was not to in any way discount some of the valuable research that takes place but to say there is also some stuff that is probably extraneous and probably better done by the Joe Youngs of the world in Georgetown, South Carolina.