Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Of the available choices, I mean, it seems to me that the most reasonable of those three choices would be growing the assets of the trust fund at a higher rate. And then the question simply is, well, do we do that collectively, which is essentially what the President had proposed with investing a portion of the trust fund in equities, or do we do that through individual accounts? I just think it is worth stressing that in my look at this problem, the idea of an individual account and not a laissez faire, good-luck- grandmom-hope-you-make-it-when-you-retire kind of account, but the idea of a controlled personal account with a lot of different safeguards, just as a janitor here on Capitol Hill would have through the Thrift Savings Plan.

Mr. SANFORD. Correct.

Mr. SANFORD. I know that the primary focus of our brief visit this afternoon is on government expenditure, it is on truth in advertising, if you want to call it that, because the government has been, I think, disingenuous with the way it has called this a surplus, because this is not what folks at home would call a surplus, it is not what business would call a surplus. But tied to it is this issue of Social Security. There is one point that I think is worth mentioning, because it frankly sounds alluring. As you mentioned earlier, which is not related to reserving the surplus for Social Security but in the larger context of the Social Security problem, that the trustees, not what I say, not what you say, not what the gentleman from Michigan says but what the trustees have said is that if we do nothing to save Social Security, it is going to have real problems down the line. The choices are fairly limited as we all know. You can cut current benefits, you can raise taxes, or you can grow the assets of the trust fund at a higher rate than they are now growing at.

Mr. SANFORD. I would follow up with, as we look at ways of doing that, I think it is very important that we focus on the big problem. At times in Washington, we get so caught up in actuarial balance of the trust fund and it will extend it from 2030 to 2035 and 2030 to 2045, all kinds of strange numbers focused only on the trust fund but not really focused on the big picture. The big picture to me would be that Roosevelt when he and others designed this system, the promise was we will create a system that creates for you a better lifetime in retirement. In this whole debate, I think we ought to keep focused on not just actuarial balance of trust funds, because we can do that. We can do that by cutting benefits a little bit, raising taxes a little bit. In other words, we can get to actuarial balance in the trust funds fairly easily. Taxes have been raised almost 50 times or benefits cut almost 50 times within the system since it was created. But I think we could do that and still miss the main point. The main point is are we or are we not keeping Roosevelt's promise of a better lifetime in retirement? As you correctly pointed out, there was a recent UCLA study that showed for a young person born in 1970, they would have to live 110 years just to get their own Social Security taxes back out. Not even a return on the Social Security but just the taxes themselves back out.

Mr. SANFORD. And could I add on that point? I do not know if the gentleman has looked at the analytical perspectives within this year's budget, but there are assumptions that could make those red numbers, frankly, a lot bigger. Because one of the assumptions built into the Social Security plan is that domestic discretionary, which is basically every other spending outside of Medicare and interest and Social Security, is going to go dramatically down. Right now it is about 7 percent of GDP, again, the collective activity of all working Americans, and what they assume is that it goes down to 3 percent. Now, they had to assume that, because to keep the amount of money going into Washington within historic bounds, which is about this 20 percent number, and given the fact we have 70 million baby boomers starting to retire around 2012, and we know entitlement spending is going to go up, to keep it within that realm of reasonableness, they had to shrink the other number. I think that is a crazy assumption. Because what it means is if all of a sudden Congress does not get real tough in this other area of government spending called domestic discretionary, what that means is a tax cut down the road, which goes straight back to the gentleman's grandkids.

Mr. SANFORD. On that point, I think it is interesting that Economist magazine, which is certainly well regarded, ran an article in the last 2 weeks called ``Counting Your Chickens Before They're Hatched'', and what the article talked about are the projected surpluses that are supposed to one day materialize and yet how maybe that might not happen. And, therefore, if we commit it to other forms of government spending, in other words, these projected surpluses, if we commit them to different forms of spending, we are kind of locked into a situation that could cause us to leave this place running big massive deficits. Larry Lindsey, who was a member of the Fed, wrote an interesting piece about 6 months ago breaking out the revenue stream to the Federal Government. In other words, the taxes that are sent in by Americans across this country up to Washington. His argument was that a large part of this job of balancing the budget has, as the gentleman correctly pointed out, not been done by folks in Washington by actually cutting spending but it has really been done on the shoulders of working Americans. Because what had happened is the historic average, basically since the time of World War II, in other words, government's take as a percentage of all the activity in America, what they call GDP, has been about 20 percent. We have been basically at or slightly below that number. Well, right now we are at a post-World War II high in terms of Washington's take as a percentage of the collective activity of working Americans. And if we actually really break out the number, what we see is a large part of that income stream to the Federal Government is due to capital gains income and it is due to bonus income. It is tied to this bull market. Well, most certainly, at some point, this market is going to cool off. And Mr. Lindsey's argument was that when it does so, all of a sudden, since it is income tax that is solving the problem rather than spending cuts, it is going to cause us to run big deficits again. So the importance of what the gentleman is stressing here, which is actually keeping a lid on government spending, I do not think can be overemphasized. Because here we have a member of the Fed saying how important this is, which is exactly what the gentleman is saying right now.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, what I think is interesting about that is that is not a fault of the designers of Social Security. In other words, back in 1935, when they created this system, I mean nobody could have anticipated that a baby boom generation was coming our way. So I think that they did create a great system. It did a lot of good for my mother, for my grandmother. But the question now is, because of what has been going on here, in other words, because of the way Washington has been borrowing against these Trust Fund balances, we have a real problem. The question that the gentleman correctly raises is, what are we going to do to protect those balances? Last year, when Washington borrowed $101.3 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund, they did it without people making a lot of noise back home. A lot of people did not realize that, one, the money had been borrowed, or those that did, it did not feel that real. It did not feel like it was out of their pocket. But if that same money was housed in individual accounts, and I do not mean laissez faire, good luck, hope-you-make-it-when-you-retire kind of accounts, but accounts with a lot of controls, just as all Federal workers have, for instance, with the Thrift Savings Program, if we had those controls in place and people got a monthly statement and they knew to the penny how much was in their Social Security account, and then Washington came up $100 billion short, and they said, ``Well, let us see, Mr. Coburn, your pro rata share of that will be $734.53. Would you mind cutting a check and sending it to Washington?'' people would go berserk. So I think that, as Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, very correctly pointed out, we need to create a real firewall that protects basically people, Social Security money from the political forces in Washington.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, what I think the gentleman from Oklahoma is pointing out here is something that really the American public is way ahead of us on. Unfortunately, he is exactly right in that this is beginning to show itself in the confidence that people have in government. Because I do not know if my colleagues have seen the Roper poll, but there was a Roper poll. It has been commissioned every single year, basically, for the last 30 years. In that poll, back in 1963, they basically said to the American public, ``Do you have confidence that people in Washington, that your government, will make the right decision?'' And 73 percent of Americans said, ``Yes, we believe that Washington, our government, will make that right decision.'' That poll, when it was taken last year, what people found was that 19 percent of Americans thought that Washington would make the right decision. That is reflected in the UFO poll that the gentleman mentioned. I saw some other crazy questions that were asked in a recent poll. One of the questions was, ``Which of the following is more likely to happen: You collect all the Social Security money that you are entitled to, or a pro wrestler is elected President?'' Believe it or not, more people thought that the pro wrestler would be elected President. Another one was, ``If you had $1,000 to bet on the Superbowl or $1,000 to pay into the Social Security system, which one would give you a better return on your money?'' Again, I think this is horrible, but more people believed in the Superbowl bet than the Social Security bet.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today very reluctantly to voice opposition to H. Res. 612. If this resolution is truly about honoring our servicemen and women, I would vote differently. However, it is clear to me that voting for this resolution is tantamount to endorsing the President's capriciously-timed, to use a euphemism, invocation of the War Powers Act. That is something my conscience cannot allow. I have the most profound respect for our nation's military and it is for just this reason that I cannot support this resolution. I have come to this floor on innumerable occasions to provide for my unconditional support of those initiatives which prudently and honestly promote our armed forces. My support of H. Res. 322 in November of last year which urged military action to assure full Iraqi compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, for example, delineates my record on the use of military force in the Persian Gulf. It is the right thing to do at the wrong time. The timing of Wednesday's air strikes on Iraq raised too many red flags for me. I am left with too strong a perception that our men and women of the military are being put in harm's way for political reasons. I say this for several reasons: Red Flag #1--On several occasions over the past few years, we have walked to the brink of further military engagement with Iraq. In every instance, we have walked away from that brink. Yet on the eve of a historic vote, one that has not occurred for the last 130 years in the House, we choose to cross the line? For thirteen months, the President has watched and dithered, then, after 400 days of inaction, hours before the House vote, the President decides that this is the day to take America to war. The President declared Saddam Hussein a ``clear and present danger''. But, he has been a clear and present danger for 400 days. Now all of a sudden, kowtowing is out and the danger is present. Red Flag #2--There seems to be discrepancy in the messages that we get out of the White House. Rowan Scarborough's article in The Washington Times pointed out that the White House notified the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Sunday that President Clinton would order air strikes this week. Now that's a full 48 hours before he saw the United Nations report declaring Iraq noncompliant. However, on Wednesday night and in a number of press briefings since then, Administration officials insist that Mr. Clinton made the decision to strike based on the U.N.'s finding of noncompliance. My question is: which version is it? Did they decide it on Sunday or did they decide on Tuesday? This, at minimum, undermines their argument that they learned about it Tuesday and had to act Wednesday. Excluding the two interim reports and several infringements they knew about it for weeks and days and chose to strike Wednesday. Red Flag #3--Though I agree with what the President said on Wednesday night, the problem lies in the fact that it is old news. In some ways it's old news over the last year, and it has certainly been reinforced several times over the last several months. Scott Ritter, a former United States Marine Corps officer and Gulf War veteran, resigned his post on the U.N. Inspection Team in August. In September he testified before Congress on the reasoning behind that resignation. In both his testimony and his resignation, Mr. Ritter's reasoning and facts were the same that the President suggested was new information on Wednesday. In fact, since mid-November, the Iraqis have thrown a series of impediments in front of the U.N. inspection teams. As you might remember, the inspections team returned to Iraq on November 17th and within days their efforts were being thwarted on November 25th, November 26th, November 29th, December 4th and December 9th the Iraqis hampered our efforts. The government of Iraq thwarted UN Inspection Teams in a number of different efforts ranging from proposed schedule of work to inspections of a variety of different sites. The White House knew about each of these incidents and in fact, Richard Butler produced two interim reports. Suddenly, this week, the Administration has painted Saddam Hussein as a ``clear and present danger'' when his actions are no different now than they were last year or earlier this year. Red Flag #4--I am struck with the unconventional use of force. Any of the Pentagon folks that I've been around over the last several years have suggested that the American military typically places overwhelming force at the beginning of engagement to minimize the risks of casualties to Americans. That is certainly not the case in this present conflict with Iraq. In 1991, we had a full six carrier battle group in the Persian Gulf. Today, we have just one. Even on November 15, the date of our last staredown with Saddam, we had 2 carrier battle groups in place in the Persian Gulf. Now, we are told by Secretary Cohen, another carrier battle group is on the way and will be there by the weekend and that more aircraft are on the way. This raises another question: Is our new military strategy to amass a force slowly after the initial moment of engagement? On this point, not only have we amassed our forces slowly, we have little over 200 planes prepared for this engagement, while we had 2,700 aircraft in the Persian Gulf of 1991. More significantly, we've essentially made no efforts to build support in the region for our undertaking. In the Persian Gulf War, we had 36 allies. In this engagement, only Great Britain has joined us in risking military personnel. Red Flag #5--This hasty engagement broke previous procedure used prior to the use of force. I spoke with Porter Goss, head of Select Intelligence Committee in the U.S. House of Representative, who learned of this incident the same way I did--on CNN. This is highly unusual policy. Typically in a military engagement or a buildup to a military engagement, he would have been forwarded and briefed. Red Flag #6--We are not sure of our strategy. Some have suggested that because of the onset of Ramadan, a month of peace in the Muslim world, we will be wrapping up our efforts in a matter of days. If so, this pin prick effort is sure not to do any great damage to Saddam. Using 2,700 aircraft in a 42 day engagement, he stayed in power. Does he have to do little more than hide for a few days if he knows an engagement is going to be curtailed by a religious holiday? Red Flag #7--With air strikes limited to just a few days, what is the outcome we hope to get? We were told that we want to thwart his ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and yet the very nature of biological or chemical weapons makes them very difficult to detect. If one was charged with hiding gallon-sized milk jugs across the state of Texas, and then someone else 30 days later was charged with bombing those gallon sized milk jugs, my bet is that at the end of the month there would be plenty of well-hidden milk jugs absolutely unharmed. Similarly, we can tear down buildings maybe 4, maybe 40, maybe 400, but if they are not buildings that weaken what the military calls his center of gravity, his access to strength, then it will do little to no good. If we're serious about this we ought to be aiming for his Republican Guard and other pieces of the formula that's keeping him in power. There are no clear efforts to weaken these components of his power. In summary, as you walk through these red flags, too many of them suggest that the timing of this engagement may have been politically motivated. I think we should make every effort to ensure that even the appearance of that politicization doesn't come back to rest on the shoulders of American troops. We can do better than that and the men and women of our armed services deserve it.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, David Schippers, Chief Investigative Counsel for the Committee on the Judiciary, lifelong Democrat and former head of Robert F. Kennedy's Task Force on Organized Crime in Chicago, summed up the one thought that I would like to contribute to this debate. He said before the Committee on the Judiciary, ``The principle that every witness in every case must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is the foundation of the American system of justice, which is the envy of every civilized Nation. If lying under oath is tolerated and when exposed is not visited with immediate and substantial adverse consequences, the integrity of this country's entire judicial process is fatally compromised and that process will inevitably collapse.'' I met with Mr. Schippers in the Ford Building this afternoon and became all the more convinced on the need to do something about this principle that he talked about. For those of you in search of a censure, I have come to believe that the constitutional way in which you bring about censure is by sending articles of impeachment from the House to the Senate that go nowhere. But whether the Senate convicts or not, I think we have to get at what Mr. Schippers was talking about, because, if not, we leave in place one of two very cancerous thoughts. The first would be the President lied, I can too. If people come to believe in a municipal court, a state court, a district court, that when they raise their right hand and promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, that they can do otherwise, we will have substantial harm to our judicial system. The other cancerous thought would be I do not know if he lied, but we have two different systems of justice; one for important people like presidents, another one for the rest of us. If we let either of those two thoughts grow, cancerous thoughts grow, we will have substantial harm to our system. Scott Peck wrote a book several years ago called ``The Road Less Traveled.'' He talked about how often the right road was the hard road, and, therefore, the less traveled road. I think we are on that road tonight, and encourage a vote on impeachment.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill for a number of different reasons. Fundamentally, I rise because this Omnibus Bill validates the idea that we are running surpluses in Washington, when in fact, by any normal accounting standards, we are not. This year we will borrow $100 billion from the Social Security Trust Fund that will, in turn, yield what Washington calls a surplus. This bill will take $20 billion, one-third of that ``protected surplus'' and spend it, and yet doing so would break the President's commitment to saving every dime of the surplus for Social Security. If Congress is unwilling to pass the tax cut, and I took the President at his word because we want to save this so-called surplus for Social Security, how can we possibly take that money and spend it? I do not think we can and that is fundamentally why we should vote against this bill. It, as well, establishes a horrible precedence of going over budget. When people back home write an overdraft on their checking account, they have to pay the finance costs. They are normal repercussions for families or businesses when they exceed a budget, and yet Congress just creates a new category called Emergency Spending and says, ``Oops,'' and moves on. $20 billion is hardly an ``oops'' by the definition passed to me from people along the coast of South Carolina. Even what has been thrown into this emergency category is a stretch by any imagination. The Inman Report, in 1985, listed 126 embassy facilities that should be improved to thwart attack. Forty buildings were improved upon, the rest were left as they are. While the attacks this year in Africa were tragic, they were hardly an emergency in that the possibility has been talked about for over 13 years. Similarly, the Y2K problem, of which billions are in this bill, is certainly a great problem, but not an emergency. Connie Morella and Stephen Horn have held numerous hearings on the Y2K problem facing this Nation. There are other examples like that, and in fact, within the embassy section $100 million is there for a Capitol Hill Visitor Center. The Capitol Hill Visitors Center has been the subject of much debate over the last 2 years. How a topic of conversation for 10 years becomes an emergency, I do not quite understand. Finally, this bill offers sham offsets and sham reforms that I do not think pass the litmus test of common sense. The offsets are peculiar. For instance, in this bill, the Federal Government takes over the pension fund liabilities of the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia now invests in conventional investments like stock and bonds, and will take those assets, sell them in the marketplace and use that money to pay for current spending and call that an offset. Meanwhile, we ignore the fact that the pension one day will have to be paid as people retire. That is not really an offset, that is picking up a liability and yet we call it ``offset'' in this bill. Similarly with the IMF, while it has a real expenditure of $18 billion, which I think is basically disguised foreign aid, its reforms are no more than fig leaves in substance. We had a very small amendment that would simply list IMF expenditure like every other expenditure in the Federal Government. My own leadership, for some odd reason, yielded to the views of the Executive Branch and prevented this reform. I think it makes sense because right now if the Federal Government buys 100 thousand acres of land in Wyoming or buys a new Federal building, it is viewed as an expense. However, if we invest $18 billion in the IMF, it is viewed as picking up an asset as we pick up the drawing rights. Most people I know would much rather have as collateral 100 thousand acres in Wyoming or the Federal building in Georgia than drawing rights for a loan made to the Soviet Union. In fact, the last $4 billion the IMF sent to the Soviet Union, by all accounts, has been squandered. There are other reasons this bill does not make a lot of sense. Particularly, the fact that we are not seeing what we are voting on. The idea of voting for something you can't see is, I think, a particular disservice to your constituents that you represent in Washington and I think it is a gross act of mismanagement to fund a third of all government spending in a process that is jammed into a 2 or 3 week time frame. I don't know of any businesses that could survive if they operated in this fashion. For these reasons, it's validating a surplus when we do not have one, setting a precedent of going over budget, incorrectly defining non- emergency spending as emergency, and its sham offsets say to me that a ``no'' vote is a vote that makes common sense. It is also one that does not rob from the Social Security Trust Fund, which I thought was something that the Democrats and the President were serious about.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, I have heard from literally thousands of folks back home on the President's matter. On Thursday, I had to digest all that I had heard, read and thought about this, and simply vote yes, or no, on whether or not to authorize the Judiciary Committee to proceed with an inquiry of impeachment. I voted yes and owe you an explanation of how I got there. I agree with opponents of the process who have suggested there has been far too much grandstanding and moralizing on this issue. Frustration with politicians grandstanding, however, never moved me into the camp that believed we needed to quickly move on to ``the nation's business.'' In fact, since this story broke in January, I have tried to listen carefully and in no way have forgotten about issues like Social Security or national security. However, I have come to believe that in the long-run, the current debate is probably just as relevant to the lives of Americans. Here is the reasoning that brought me to this conclusion. At the core, representative government is built on trust. Thus, maintaining trust in the leaders who run the many components of government is every bit as important as the individual functions of government. In other words, ``national security'', or ``moving onto the nation's business,'' without trust in the people running it is an oxymoron. In our system of representative government, every free citizen has ceded over to our school board member, our county council member, our Senator and our President a little bit of our authority. We place our trust in them. If the President raised his right hand and lied to a grand jury, we have a major problem because he is the chief law enforcement officer of this land. If people felt free to lie in our municipal, state or district court system after raising their hand and swearing to tell the truth, our criminal justice system would not work. I fear that if we ``leave it alone,'' we would be sending a message to everyone that since the President lied, they can, too. Or, worse yet, that two systems of justice exist--one for ``big people,'' like Presidents, and another for regular people. Since I don't want to pass either one of these messages along to my children or yours, I don't believe we can simply leave this issue to fester. David Schippers, Chief Investigative Counsel on the Judiciary Committee and a life long Democrat who headed then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's organized crime task force in Chicago, summed this idea up well in his testimony before the committee: ``The principle that every witness in every case must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is the foundation of the American System of Justice, which is the envy of every civilized nation. If lying under oath is tolerated and, when exposed, is not visited with immediate and substantial adverse consequences, the integrity of this country's entire judicial process is fatally compromised and that process will inevitably collapse.'' For these reasons, I have come to view the beginning of impeachment proceedings differently than many do. An inquiry does not impeach the President, but instead simply looks at the charges and the evidence behind them. It is a chance to clear this matter and to truly put it behind us in a way that leaving it alone never could. To date, we have had a prosecutorial endeavor with Judge Starr and the Office of Independent Counsel. They have made their case but it has never been tested by the defense in a ``courtroom'' setting. In an impeachment inquiry, this would change. Democrats on the Judiciary Committee will have the chance to cross-examine witnesses, challenge evidence and tell the President's side of the story. In this process, one of two things can happen: (1) the President is absolved of all charges because the evidence does not hold up after it is cross- examined, and we can therefore truly have this behind us; or (2) there is enough credible evidence to warrant sending it to the Senate. Scott Peck years ago wrote a book titled ``The Road Less Traveled.'' Its premise was that doing the right thing was often the more difficult, and therefore less traveled, course. An impeachment inquiry fits under the same umbrella. You do not see them in Malaysia, Pakistan, or Zaire. Even the possibility of an impeachment is unique around the world. The key now is that we treat a process this special and unique with the proper consideration. This means sticking to one of America's most cherished values--the idea that we are a nation of laws, not men.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Madam Speaker, I rise today because in many ways we are a country in search of heroes. We look back through the history pages for heroes. We look at George Washington. We look at Patton. We look at William Wallace. We look at Colonel Joshua Chamberlain and his group of bedraggled soldiers in the battle of Gettysburg. We look at movies, where there are all kinds of different heroes that may or may not have existed, but we look at them in movies. We look around the world for heroes. In Tiananmen Square, the young student stands up in front of a tank, because he has ideas that he believes in. A young student in Moscow back in 1991 stands up in front of a tank, again because of ideas he believes in. Yet, when we look at movies and we look at history and we look at events around the world, what we oftentimes forget is that in fact, heroes live at home. Heroes live in our midst. What I want to say for just a few minutes today is that I stand here in praise of one such hero. That hero is a young 15-year-old boy by the name of Keith Putnam, who lived in Hanahan, South Carolina. This boy was the quintessential low country boy. I grew up in the woods and waters of the low country. When you get it in your veins, it stays in your veins. It was certainly in his, because this boy loved hunting, he loved fishing, he loved sailing, he loved the water; he loved all elements of the low country. This boy was athletic. He had played on the soccer team for the last 2 years. This boy was an achiever. He was in Who's Who in American High School Students for the last 2 years. He was a hardworking, good person. He had wanted to buy a car. He was not given money to buy a car, he went out and earned money to buy a car. By cutting grass for a whole summer in different yards across North Charleston and Hanahan, he managed to end up with enough money to buy himself a 1965 Volkswagen Beetle; and he did not do it just on Sunday mornings, because he was an usher at Peace Lutheran church. The boy was known for the way he helped other people. In short, I would say that he was everything that is special and unique about being American. In fact, he was as well a dreamer, because he dreamed of going to the Citadel, and then going on to the Air Force Academy, and then ultimately becoming a commercial airline pilot. Yet, those dreams came to an end about 2 months ago, because Keith Putnam was killed in Hanahan, South Carolina, about 2 months ago. He was killed trying to save the life of another. He and a friend were driving down the road one evening, and they looked and saw a car lodged on the railroad tracks there in Hanahan. They jumped out of the car. He jumped out of the car. He pulls a woman with her 3-year-old baby out of the car, gets her to safety. He goes back to the car. He pulls another woman out of the car, gets her to safety. He goes back a third time to make sure that there is nobody else still in the car, and tragically, the train hits the car and drives it into Keith, killing Keith. So I just wanted to say here today how sorry I am for what the Putnams have been through, and most of all, to thank Keith for the life that he lived. Because though I did not know Keith, his life stands out as one of those special lives. William Wallace, 600 years ago, stood on a battlefield totally out numbered. He said, Remember, men, they can take from us our lives, but they can never take our freedom. He went on to say to his men, Men, every man has to die, but not every man gets to live. I think what is special about Keith's life is that he actually lived it. He shows us about being engaged and being involved in life. Most of all, what he shows us is that, in fact, heroes do live in our midst. For that, I thank him.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I admire the intention of my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) on this proposal, but I would respectfully ask that my colleagues reject it. I would say that for four different reasons. I would say, first of all, that the notion here is that this time it will be different. How many times have we heard that in Washington, D.C., this time it will be different? In other words, what we have been doing in Washington is borrowing against trust fund balances for the last 30 years, and what is proposed with this super-duper trust fund, if you will, is that this time it will be different. What people back home tell me is that they do not buy into the idea that this time things will be different. Two, I think it offers false hope. If we look at what the trustees have said, the trustees would say, whether this proposal went through or not, Social Security would begin to run shortfalls in about 15 years, and it would be out of money, unable to pay its obligations, in about 30 years. That would not change with this. Thirdly, I would say that it moves us in the wrong direction. We are going to go in one of two directions in this debate, over the long run, on Social Security. We are going to either move towards greater personal control of one's savings, which I think is the real way we keep politicians' hands off our money, or we are going to move toward collective investment. I think there is nothing more dangerous than the idea of collective investment. This sets up the mechanism for collective investment, wherein $400 billion a year could go into the private sector. What people back home who care about limiting the size and scope of government tell me is that that is not a good idea. For these reasons I would ask that we reject the Rangel proposal.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I would just rise in support of what the chairman has been saying here. I think what he is talking about in his point of order is something that ultimately watches out for the American taxpayer. And lest we forget, this body is designed and built for ultimately watching out for the taxpayer of the United States of America. I think that is exactly what his point of order does. I would just make this one point, and that is, I have here a rate sheet from Goldman Sachs, which is the place where Robert Rubin, our Secretary of the Treasury, used to work and used to head, and this could be found not just at Goldman Sachs, it could be found at Merrill Lynch or any of the investment banks, looking at the rates which the private markets are charging for government debt in Russia. I have here rates looking at 2001 paper yielding 32.31 percent. I would look at 2005 paper yielding 52.63 percent. I would look at 2015 paper yielding 65.43 percent. And what those high rates are basically saying is that the marketplace out there asks for a risk premium, in this case a very substantial risk premium, because the private markets think that they ultimately might not get paid back. So what this point of order is simply doing is saying since we might not get paid back, we ought to watch out for the taxpayer rather than just handing out the IMF money. The July piece of debt that was issued by the IMF was at 4.5 percent. Can my colleagues imagine how giant that spread is, between 30, 40 or 50 percent interest rate, and where the IMF was? If we want to help shore up Russia and say we ought to just issue grants, issue aid to Russia, that is one thing. But do not call a loan a loan when, in essence, it is not a loan, because that is exactly what we are talking about. And that is what that point of order is all about.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. He has already touched on the significance of markets. He has touched on the significance of fairness. I would just add one little postscript to what has been already said on how important the Royce amendment is; that is, simply the issue of effectiveness. If you think about effective individuals, they are individuals that actually focus. If you think about effective corporations, whether it is McDonald's or Holiday Inn or Sears & Roebuck, they focused. The same can be said of governments, governments that try to do too many things ultimately are ineffective. If we are to get monetary policy right and defense policy right and Social Security checks on time, this government too has to be limited. And for that reason alone, I would stand in support of the Royce amendment.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because it is a very simple amendment. This amendment simply freezes the research and related categories funding area of NSF at about $2.5 billion. It freezes at this year's level of spending. The reason that this amendment is offered by Mr. Royce and myself and the reason supported by the National Taxpayers Union, the reason supporting it by Citizens against Government Waste is because it makes common sense. It, in the whole, boils down to one very simple thought, and that is the issue of priorities. When I stand in front of a grocery store back home in my district and talk to folks, they talk about how they have to set priorities within their homes. When they are given the choice between, let us say, the study of people's reaction to dirty jokes, specifically to sex and fart jokes, and cancer or diabetes research, they say that a study of sex and fart jokes is interesting, but not vital, and that they would rather see those same dollars go into cancer research or diabetes research. On that same vain, again, this is simply an amendment about priorities. Again, it leaves in place $2.5 billion for funding for the National Science Foundation research. It simply says let us put our house in order. I mean, the same folks that I talked to back home, they say, if they had to set no priorities, when they walked into Wal-Mart, they would essentially walk out of Wal-Mart with everything that is in the store. But they cannot do that. They have to set a budget. They have to set numbers. They come up with what they can spend overall. So this amendment is simply a way of signaling to the National Science Foundation please look at those things. Because the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) himself last year offered an amendment that said there was a grant that, as I understand it, would have studied, for about $174,000, why some people choose to run for office or choose not to run for office. Again, interesting but not vital. I think that we ought to look more at what is vital when we fund these grants. I have other examples that have come up in this year's list. An example is $334,000 to develop methods for routing pickup and delivery vehicles in realtime. Again, that has something that is interesting, but not vital. The part that is vital is vital to the likes of UPS or FedEx. If that is at the case, why can UPS or FedEx not pay for them? It has $14,000 to study the long-term profitability of automobile leasing. Interesting, but not vital. The part that is vital is vital to Budget or Hertz. Why can they not pay for it? It has $12,000 to cheap talk. It has $137,000 to study how legislative leaders help shape their parties issues outside the legislature particularly in the media. Interesting, but not vital. I could come up with others, but I think the main point is quite simple. That is that the National Science Foundation in funding research needs to look at two things: One, a clear criteria that answers the question for the taxpayer, is this interesting or is it vital? And that it answers the question of, is it worth the cost? Because you can simply turn on the Internet and see that there is all kinds of information out there. The question before us, though, is not, is there information, but is it vital information?

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, my father always taught me that there was no higher calling than to do your duty. In the words of Robert E. Lee, ``Duty, there is the sublimist word in our language. Do your duty in all things . . . You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less.'' A few great Americans have had the honor of lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda. They have ranged from President Abraham Lincoln to the unknown soldiers of the wars of this century. But few Americans have done their duty to their country better than the two officers we are honoring here. These two Americans represent the best in our nation's values. They were both devoted family men, leaders in their churches and neighborhoods, and always ready with a kind word and a smile. I cannot regret more the sacrifice that gained them fame, but we cannot do better as examples to hold before our children. I am honored that Officer Chestnut comes from Myrtle Beach, SC. He grew up among the palmetto trees and beaches, and some of his family remains there to this day. Officer Chestnut will never get to use the new golf clubs that his brother gave him for his retirement next month. However, his sacrifice, and that of Special Agent Gibson, will remain a legacy that his family can turn to for comfort in the years ahead. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record a copy of the editorial from this morning's Myrtle Beach Sun-News: Jacob J. Chestnut, True American Hero The death of a front-line hero in the cause of freedom and democracy crashes around us all the harder because it is supposed to be peacetime. The firing of bullets in the Capitol on Friday, apparently triggered by a shooter's unhinged response to a directive to get back in a metal detector queue, makes death more unexpected than on a war's battlefield, but no less tragic. Such is it with Capitol Police Officer Jacob J. ``J.J.'' Chestnut, who lived in Maryland with his family but who, according to his family, called Myrtle Beach home. Chestnut died in the line of duty, attempting to create at his Capitol post what precious little safety there can be in a democracy that prides itself on openness. If this were a police state--God forbid!--Officer Chestnut might have had a chance to survive because there would not have been an entrance for the public to what is called ``the people's house.'' But after 20 years in the Air Force and 18 in the Capitol Police, nearing a second retirement, Chestnut would not have stood for anything less than freedom of movement, within few guidelines. This is a man who must have sincerely understood from its benefits what freedom is all about. He must have relished the ability to enjoy what the government has provided through its institutions and its lasting policies. This is a man who enjoyed his family, close to him in Maryland and Myrtle Beach, where he doted on kinship. In praising Chestnut and Capitol Police Special Agent John Gibson, who also died in the shooter's fusillade, President Clinton argued, ``I ask you to think about what our Capitol means . . . We must keep it a place where people can freely and proudly walk the halls of their government. And we must never, ever take for granted the values for which it stands or the price of preserving them.'' Added Speaker Newt Gingrich, ``No terrorist, no deranged person, no act of violence will block us from preserving our freedom and from keeping this building open.'' Those are among the values for which Officer Chestnut died. He knew they were worth it. We sympathize with his family, but glory in his heroism. We here in Myrtle Beach must find a way to honor for all time the officer, this man.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I stand in essence where the gentleman from California, my colleague, stands, and that is, it has been said that it is but a straw that can break the camel's back, and that is where I am with this vote, because on the one hand I very much believe in free trade. I look back at the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) back there, who has been courageous in leading for free trade around the globe, and I believe with him in that very simple concept. But I also believe that we in Congress have a fiduciary responsibility to send a message where we think a message ought to be sent, and that is where I am struggling. Because if we look right now, I would say that there is a growing sense that there is an expansionist policy in the South China Sea with China, and that we ought to send a signal that says that is not okay. Now, admittedly, using MFN to send that signal is a very blunt instrument, but as a Member of Congress it is the only instrument that I have that will mean something to the Chinese. So it is with great reluctance that I will be voting against MFN, but I do so because of what is happening. We look at for instance what happened in the Straits of Taiwan last year when they opened democracy. Taiwan was trying to hold its own elections when China had military exercises. We would say we have a problem. If we look at what happened with Mr. Fareef or the Spratly Islands, you would say we have a problem. When China moved natural gas drilling rigs into what was clearly identified as territorial waters of Vietnam, you would say we have a problem. I think we ought to send a signal that says expansionism is not okay. So other people may have a problem with human rights or trade or a variety of issues, but for me it comes down to one very simple thing, and that is an expansionist policy is bad for the region in Southeast Asia and it is bad for our allies in Southeast Asia.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this is a technical correction that has been brought to our attention by the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is one offered by myself and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch). It is one that has been discussed with the majority and the minority without objection.

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

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding this time to me. I rise not so much in opposition to this authorization, but frankly against the appropriation which will come later this week, because it seems to me that last year on this House floor, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) offered an amendment to cut $174,000 out of the bill which at that time would have studied the reasons people do not run for elected office, of which I assume there are many. Basically what they are trying to signal to the Science Foundation was that we need a tighter grip on the way they spend money; that when people back home think about spending a dollar, they really run through a lot of priorities, and they run through a lot of interests that they have before they decide on actually spending that dollar, and that this organization ought to do the same. And so I rise to, in essence, follow up on what they tried to do last year in sending a message on the importance of sharpening a pencil, because when I look at the grants that have come since then, and there are a list of several that have come since then; I look here at, as my colleagues know, $210,000 to study ATMs, I look at $17,000 to study interactive video-on-demand services for popular videos, I look at $220,000 to look at why women smile more than men, and I guess there are many reasons there. As my colleagues know, $193,000 to study collaborative activity on poker, or $147,000, and I cannot quite figure out what this means, but to study how globalization has transformed legal consciousness and personal injury in Thailand, or $334,000 to study methods for routing pick-up and delivery vehicles in real time, or finally, $12,000 to study cheap talk. I look at again a little bit more in the way of pencil sharpening that it seems to me that needs to be done, that we do have a duty, if my colleagues will, to authorize the study of basic sciences in this country, but we also have a duty to watch out for the taxpayer, and that is why later in this week I will be offering an amendment in the appropriations bill to tighten the pencil a little bit because it seems to me that some of this at minimum could be done by the private sector.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because I believe it makes common sense. Ultimately I think this debate is really not about sugar, it is not about the sugar subsidy program. What it is really about is 300 years of economic theory and economic practice. If you think about the words of, whether it is Adam Smith or Milton Friedman, if you were to boil all of those thoughts down, 300 years, you would boil them down to this, and that is to do the most good for the most people, let markets work. Unlike so many economic theories, if you look at the last 300 years of economic practice, it has validated that. I see that daily with tomato farmers and watermelon farmers and cucumber farmers in my district who live by the markets. In fact, if you were to look at the fall of the Soviet Union, what you would see is not nuclear arms or not armies that brought it down, but markets brought it down. So the fundamental question in this debate is do we want to let markets work? Should there be a floor price for a product? If you say yes, you are saying the opposite of what economic theory said over 300 years. If you were to say no, if you were to say there should be a floor price, then why not a floor price with computers? Or, they are striking in Detroit, why not a floor price for cars? Or why not a floor price for homes? We do not do that because it does not make common sense and it does not do the most good for the most people. This is a case where we have a sugar subsidy program that does a lot of good for one particular family. They get $60 million a year in personal benefit, the Fanjul family down in Palm Beach. But for the common farmer, it does not do good, and it does not do good for the consumer. Therefore, I rise in support of this amendment.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Which is a great thing. In other words, that is what we are charged to do by the Founding Fathers. I think in the same way, it is a very legitimate point, a very legitimate point to say that, in this debate, we ought to look at limits on the degree to which people can influence a giant $1.7 trillion yearly machine.

Mr. SANFORD. I think that is the jump in logic. In other words, to suggest that limiting of soft money is eliminating of speech is not the same thing.