Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, there has been much talk about cuts, and as my colleague just pointed out, this amendment does not cut, it simply freezes. But with the conversations that have taken place, I would have thought there would be leaking roofs, walls falling in. I want to suggest two places, in addition to again this being a freeze, where savings might come in. One, the State Department itself, as of October 1995, had a list of over 100 properties for potential sale valued at over $467 million. I want to say that again: $467 million. That would take care of, again, any of these shortfalls that have been suggested. The other thing is a lot of the spending that is proposed in this bill, I mean, for instance, $178 million, we have to multiply these numbers by two; but $178 million for the International Tropical Timber Organization? How about $234,000 for the International Natural Rubber Study Organization? Or how about $134,000 for the International Hydrographic Organization? How about $203,000 for the International Cotton Advisory Study Group? Or $51,000 for the International Copper Study Group? There are a host of places wherein we could come up with the savings that would keep our embassies doing what they ought to be doing.

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

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I suppose it would be a matter of viewpoint on that. Again, in 1983 the State Department was funded with $1.9 billion. Today it is funded with $3.97 billion. To me that would not be a cut.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman show me any of those cuts?

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

Mr. SANFORD. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Does that mean, then, that the morale is very high, for instance, in Argentina, where the Embassy is appraised at over $20 million?

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment here that would save U.S. taxpayers $265 million in 1998 authorization, and it would save them $265 million in 1999 authorization. That seems to me something worth doing for a couple of different reasons. First, it seems to me to be in line with what the taxpayers are asking for. What taxpayers are consistently saying to me in my home district is that if we are asked to do more with less, why cannot Government do more with less? Individuals are asked to do more with less, businesses are asked to do more with less. What this amendment does is not to ask the State Department to do more with less, but simply to do what they are doing with what they have, because this is just a freeze, and I stress that word ``freeze,'' at 1997 levels. Too, I think this is of interest and again an amendment worth passing because I think it is what our children are looking for. Lawrence Kotklikoff up at the University of Boston did a study on a thing called generational accounting, and in this study they looked at the imputed lifetime tax for a child born into America today; I mean for each of my three young sons, Marshall 4, Landon, 3 and Bolton, 1, for each of those children, the imputed lifetime tax is 84 percent. To me that is unconscionable. That either means the equivalent of economic enslavement or it means the end of the capitalistic system as we know it, but in either case it means unpleasantness for each of my three boys or any of our respective kids or grandkids. Here is a chance to lower, in essence to lighten, the burden by $265 million off one shoulder and $265 million off the other shoulder. That, to me, seems worth doing. The third reason that I think that this amendment again makes sense is it is consistent with the math. What we talked about in committee last year when we talked about merging two cold-war-era programs, U.S. Information Agency and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, both of which were designed to counter Soviet influence, when we talked about merging those two programs, we talked about billions of dollars worth of savings. Yet if we look at the funding here, as we can see by the bill, it goes up by $265 million. This is a chance to take advantage of that savings that we talked about in committee. A fourth reason that I think this makes a lot of sense is that it reflects reality. If the Berlin Wall had not fallen in 1989, I would not be offering this amendment. But the Berlin Wall did fall, and with it many things changed. If our spending on diplomatic missions and embassies and a whole host of other section 150-related expenditures was to reflect that change, we would have seen a dramatic decrease. But instead, funding has gone up from 1987 to 1994, it dipped slightly after 1994, and now it is on the way back up. To me, that does not reflect reality. In fact, if we look at State Department funding, State Department funding has in essence doubled from the early 1980's to present. Again, I do not think that reflects the change that came with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Lastly, I would just mention that a whole host of groups, whether it is Women for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Americans for Tax Reform or the Association of Concerned Taxpayers, think that this amendment is in the best interest of the American taxpayer, and I would urge its adoption.

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

Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree that our Ambassador staff, our Embassy staffs around the globe do a great job. What I am struggling with is the same thing that the American taxpayer is struggling with. That is that many of them live not in $200 million homes. I have a long list of residences that are appraised at over $1 million.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in other words, I would call a cut a cut from what we are spending today. I think we both know this is simply a freeze at 1997 levels.

Mr. SANFORD. I am on that committee and that is why I am offering it.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately my plane was delayed and I missed the vote on H.R. 1420, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Had I been here to vote, I would have supported the bill.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I learned yesterday afternoon of an awfully interesting woman, a woman by the name of Osceola McCarthy of Hattiesburg, Mississippi. I think to a great degree she represents what the American dream is all about, because the American dream is built around the very simple idea of being able to get ahead, of actually being able to build something, of actually being able to build wealth. Because what is interesting about Osceola McCarthy, a woman of age 87, is that she worked her entire lifetime as a washer woman. Yet toward the end of her life, she went to the local college and said, ``I'd like to help out.'' They were thinking, well, maybe she will give us a cloth doily or maybe a bath mat or something that she had made. Instead she gives them a couple of hundred thousand dollars. The New York Times found this story so interesting that it actually went down and asked her, ``How did you end up with a couple of hundred thousand dollars only working as a washer woman?'' She said, ``Well, I put a little bit away whenever I got a chance, and I put it away for a long time.'' I think in doing so, she hints at what could be one of the keys to, I think, saving Social Security as we know it. Because Einstein was once asked, ``What is the most powerful force in the universe?'' His reply was, ``Compound interest.'' As we all know, it is amazing what one can end up with at the end of a working lifetime by simply putting a little bit away over a long enough period of time. Because what the Social Security trustees have said is that if we do nothing, Social Security goes bankrupt in 2029, and it begins to run deficits in 2012, such that either we have got to look at raising payroll taxes by about 16 percent or we have got to look at cutting benefits by about 14 percent. Neither one of those seem to me to be acceptable options. If we look at the other options that are out there, I think they are non-options as well because the other options basically are driven by the fact the demographics have changed. A, as a country we are living longer. That is a great thing. Every year that I grow older, I hope that medicine keeps making medical advances such that they keep moving it out on that front. Average life expectancy when Social Security was created was 62. Today it is 76. That creates a real strain on a pay-as-you-go system. The other demographic fundamental that we are not going to change is that we have gone from having big families on the farm to having relatively small families today. We have gone from having 42 workers for every retiree to having 3.2 workers for every retiree, to being well on our way to having 2 workers for every retiree. Again, that is a fundamental that we are not going to change. So the question I think we are all left with is what do you do? I think that what Osceola McCarthy did has a lot to do with what we can do. That is, build a system that is based on the simple power of compound interest. When one talks about changing Social Security, we need to define what that change might be, what it might look like. Change for me does not mean in any way yanking the rug out from underneath seniors. My mom is retired. She has no ability to alter her income. You do not go and yank the rug out from under people like my mom. What it means is we leave people 65 and older alone. But what I think it can also mean is we give people below that age simply the choice. If you want to stay on existing Social Security, great, do so. But if you want to look at the idea of personal savings accounts, to build on Einstein's power of compounding, then you can do that, too. What are some of the benefits that might come with that? One benefit that I think is definitely worth noting is that you could choose for you your retirement age. If you think about it, our existing system comes at a tremendous cost in terms of human happiness. Because in my home State, we have got Strom Thurmond who wants to work until he is 100, yet I have got plenty of other friends that say, ``Work is great but fishing is even better. I want to retire when I'm 50.'' With your own personal savings account, you could decide for you when you want to retire rather than a Congressman or a Senator or a bureaucrat defining for you your retirement age. I think that to be a big benefit. Again we have so many choices in America, we can choose between 25 different kinds of toothpaste, 30 different kinds of detergent, but you cannot choose for you when you want to retire. Mr. Speaker, I can see I am beginning to rub up against my 5 minutes, I will yield back the balance of my time, but again want to leave in everybody's thoughts the idea of Osceola McCarthy and this simple theme of compound interest.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, ISTEA will be reauthorized this year. ISTEA sets the funding formula by which gas taxes are spread across our country, and I think with it will come the chance to make a real stand for the simple theme of fairness. Fairness is the most fundamental of all American precepts. It is the idea on which the Revolutionary War was built. It was the idea behind the Boston Tea Party. It was the idea behind the civil rights movement. Yet right now with our gas tax formula, we have a formula that leaves South Carolina losing $50 million a year, California losing over $200 million a year, Florida losing over $200 million a year, while a handful of States up in the Northeast receive disproportionate amounts of money. That is not fair. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), and myself have a Highway Trust Fund Fairness Act which would address this inequity. There are a number of other proposals to address this inequity. The point that I think we all need to remember is that it needs to be addressed and it needs to be fixed.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Michigan [Mr. Smith] just talked about some of the problems facing Social Security if we do nothing to address what the trustees; again, not what Republicans or Democrats have said, but what the trustees have said if we do nothing. I would like to talk for just a moment about not just the problems inherent in Social Security, because it has done a lot of great things for my mother, for my grandparents, but we need to address some of the benefits that might come if we looked at changing Social Security. I think, first, we might want to define what we mean by changing Social Security. I do not believe, and I do not think anybody believes, that changing Social Security ought to mean taking Social Security away from existing retirees or those about to retire. However, what I do believe in terms of changing Social Security is that we ought to begin at least talking about the possibility of, while leaving seniors whole, looking at and exploring options for young people. Mr. Speaker, what I have consistently heard from young people in my district is that they do not think they are going to get all of the Social Security that is due them. One of the interesting things to look at is I guess a number of the benefits that might come with change. One of the benefits would be just saving the system, because what the trustees have said is that if we do nothing, it goes bankrupt in about 30 years. But more important than just saving the system, the whole purpose of Social Security ought to be a noble retirement. If one earns more with their Social Security investment, they can retire with more. What the Social Security trustees have said today is that on average, people today earn about 1.9 percent on their quote ``Social Security investment,'' and most of the folks I talk to in my home district say that they could earn more than 1.9 percent on their retirement investment. What this means is, if you take somebody earning $24,000 a year and if one group earns 1.9 percent on their investment and another group earns 5 percent on their investment, it does not take a rocket scientist to know that second group is going to earn more and end up with more in their retirement, and I think that to be a very big benefit of this possibility of changing Social Security. Another benefit that I think is worth mentioning is the whole notion of retirement age. A pay-as-you-go system, I think, comes at a tremendous cost in terms of human happiness, because with a pay-as-you- go system, we all have to retire at the same age. Yet I can walk down the grocery store aisle and look at 25 different kinds of detergent, I can look at 30 different kinds of toothpaste, I can look at a long magazine stack of different kinds of magazines, but I cannot choose for me when I want to retire, and I think that that, again, comes at a tremendous cost in terms of human happiness, because we are all different. In my home State of South Carolina, we have Strom Thurmond, who would like to work until he is 100 or 150, I am not sure, but he wants to work basically until he dies. And I say God bless him; go for it. But I have many other friends who say that work is fine, but fishing is even better. I want to retire when I am 50. With the idea of personal savings accounts, you could choose for yourself when you want to retire rather than a Congressman or a Senator or a bureaucrat in Washington choosing for you when you want to retire. Another benefit I think worth mentioning, and again, there are many, but one other worth mentioning would be we could do something about the national savings rate. Right now in our country we have a savings rate that bumps along somewhere between 3 and 5 percent. Well, in China, they have a savings rate of about 40 percent. In Singapore, they have a savings rate in the mid 30's. In South Korea, they have a savings rate in the high 30's. In Chile, where they instituted this system, they have a savings rate in the high 20's, and here we are bumping along at 3 to 5 percent. We cannot advance a modern industrial society on a 3-percent national savings rate, because the thing that politicians leave off while they will talk about the fact that we need to do something about standard of living in America, they will not talk about what it is that affects standard of living in America, and that is that savings drives investment, which drives productivity gain, which drives standard of living. In short, if you were to have a wood-cutting contest in the backyard, and you gave one fellow a little hand ax that cost you 3 bucks, and you gave another person a chain saw that cost $300, the person with the $300 chain saw, however much weaker or however slight, would be able to end up with a bigger stack of wood and consequently more in the way of income. I know that I am eroding away at my 5 minutes here, so I will call it quits. But the point is to say that there are many benefits that might come with this proposed talk of changing Social Security so that we save it for the next generation and so that my three boys get Social Security as well.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I had the good fortune this past weekend of going to the bipartisan retreat in Hershey, PA. There we discussed many issues, many problems common to the Congress, but one thing that we did not discuss was a thing called Social Security. What is interesting about this issue is that not only is Congress not talking about it right now but the White House is not talking about it. Yet by anybody's definition, Social Security is on its way toward bankruptcy because what the trustees have said, and let me say that again, what the trustees have said, not what Republicans have said, not what Democrats have said, not what Ross Perot has said, but what the trustees have said is that if we do nothing, Social Security will go bankrupt in 2029 and it will begin to run deficits in 2012 such that either current benefits have to be cut by about 14 percent at that time or payroll taxes have to be raised by about 16 percent. Any of the young folks that I talk to say, ``I don't like the idea of payroll taxes going up by another 16 percent.'' Any of the older folks I talk to say, Mark, the idea of cutting benefits by 14 percent is just not acceptable.'' And so what you are struck with is, is there another way out? I think that brings us to some very good news that there is another way out because what has been tried in a host of places around the globe, whether it is in a number of countries in South America or whether it is with changes being made in Australia or with changes being made in Great Britain or in a number of countries or even States within our own country, what folks have tried is the idea of personal savings accounts. When you switch from a system of sending your money to Washington and then hoping it comes back 30 or 40 years later to instead a series of personal savings accounts, wherein it is a public- private partnership, it is still a mandatory savings, it is still watched by the Government. Again, if one wants to, I guess, go gambling, you would go to Las Vegas, you would not use these accounts, so it is controlled, but by having money in your own personal savings accounts, a number of very good things seem to happen. One is that you save Social Security because again by the trustees' own numbers, the current rate of return for most people out there working today and paying into Social Security is 1.9 percent. If you let somebody earn more than 1.9 percent on their retirement savings, then consequently they end up with more at the end of the day and can retire with more, again have more each month day in and day out in their retirement years which is what I hear from most people working today as something that they would very much like. Another benefit that I think is worth mentioning is that you can choose for you when you want to retire. In my home State of South Carolina, we have a fellow by the name of Strom Thurmond who wants to work until he is 100. I say go for it. Yet I have got a lot of other friends who say, ``You know, work is fine, Mark, but fishing is even better. I would like to retire when I'm 50.'' With a personal savings account, you could do that. Why should a Congressman or a Senator or a bureaucrat in Washington choose for you when you want to retire? Yet with a pay-as-you-go system, that has to happen, because for one person to retire early while the other person was working would mean one person subsidizing the other and that could not happen. Or, for that matter, another benefit, I think, of personal savings accounts would be moving it off the political playing field. Right now seniors very intently listen to all those political ads as one politician points his finger at the other saying what the other one is going to do with his Social Security check for good reason and, that is, Washington controls it. If you move that control out of Washington again back to the individual, you would not have to listen to those ads. Another great benefit again of personal savings accounts. Let me stress here, what we are talking about is a voluntary program. I do not believe that you should go out and yank the rug out from underneath seniors. What we are talking about is leaving Social Security the way it is for people that are retired and simply giving people the choice. If one wants to stay on existing Social Security, do that and if you do not, that is fine, too. But by doing that, another one of the benefits would be saving more. We have a very low savings rate in this country. It is around 3 percent. In China it is around 40 percent. In Singapore it is in the mid 30's. In Chile it is about 30 percent. It is actually about 29 percent. A host of places around the globe have higher savings rates which means that they can invest more in, whether it is a chain saw or whether it is a plant that makes American workers more productive, and that is something that we need to be cognizant of and watch out for. Again, this is not anything that is going to happen anytime soon in Congress. It is not even being talked about in Congress. But I think for us to avoid the avalanche that is coming our way, we need to begin talking about it. Again what we need to begin talking about is a way of transitioning from Social Security and leaving seniors alone. I do not think we should ever yank the rug out from underneath seniors, but again transitioning to a system that would allow young people the choice.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate him letting me borrow a little of his time.

Mr. SANFORD. I do. As we both know, it will not save Social Security in the long run, because we have this giant demographic shift coming our way as the baby boomers begin to retire in 2012, and there are 730 million. They are about double the size of the generation before and double the size of the generation after. In other words, it will not save us from that avalanche of graying in America, if you want to call it that, that is headed our way, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction. And most importantly, as the gentleman suggests, if Washington is to be trusted, we have to have, in essence, honest accounting. For us to say a trust fund, but it is not really a trust fund, is not honest accounting. For us to use Social Security moneys to in essence mask the size of the real operating budget here in Washington again is not an honest accounting. What I hear from folks back home in my district say is that they would like to see honest accounting, and they would like trust fund money to stay in its trust fund.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. In our limited time I will not really go into a proposal we are working on, but what I would like to do for just a few minutes is talk about the problem that is before us, because as the gentleman suggested, we have a very considerable problem if we do nothing. There is the old saying of hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, the three monkeys. That seems to be the way Congress is at this point approaching Social Security. It is the most important program we have in this country and it is absolutely vital that we save it. To save it, we have to begin, as the gentleman suggested, by talking about it. What is interesting about this problem is not what Republicans have said, not what Democrats have said, not what Ross Perot has said, but what the trustees for the trust fund itself have said; that if we do nothing, Social Security will go bankrupt in 2029, and it will begin to run deficits around 2012 when those baby boomers begin to retire, such that either we have to look at raising payroll taxes by about 16 percent, or cutting benefits by about 14 percent, or growing the deficit by roughly the same number. What I hear from folks back home in the district is, Mark, I am struggling. The idea of raising my payroll taxes by another 16 percent makes no sense to me. When I talk to seniors, they say, Mark, I am struggling. The idea of cutting my benefits by 14 percent is not an option. What is really interesting are the demographics behind what is driving this change. They are, one, that people are living longer. When Social Security was created in 1935, the average life expectancy was 62 years of age. Today it is 76. Every year that I grow older I hope it keeps moving in that direction, but it creates real strains on a pay- as-you-go system, which is what our system is right now. The other demographic problem that is headed our way, and again it is, I guess, a mixed blessing, is that we have gone from having big families on the farm to having relatively few families today. As my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, suggested, again, when Social Security was created there were 42 workers for every retiree. By 1960 there were, or 1950 rather, there were around 16 workers for every retiree. Today there are 3.2 workers for every retiree. We are well on our way to having two and then one worker for every retiree. Again, that is a demographic phenomenon we are not going to change. For me to suggest to my wife--we have three little boys--Jennie, what do you think, another six or seven children and I think we can maybe help to solve this Social Security problem, is not going to fly. So we are looking at demographic trends we cannot change. That leaves us with a number of, I think, crazy options. We can wait and do nothing and let Social Security go bankrupt, which I do not think is an option. We can wait and do nothing and raise payroll taxes by 16 percent. I do not think that is an option. We can wait and do nothing and cut benefits by 14 percent. I do not think that is an option. We can grow the deficit by roughly 14 to 16 percent. I do not think that is an option. We can lower life expectancy or change fertility rates. Those are not options. That leaves us with one option. That one option is letting people invest their own money in their own savings accounts and letting that grow and compound over time. Einstein was once asked, what is the most powerful force in the universe? His reply was, compound interest. It is amazing what you can end up with at the end of a working lifetime if you put a little bit away into your own account that politicians cannot get their hands on, again, over a working lifetime. I just wanted to touch for a few minutes on the problem. I will be back on many other visits to talk about many of the benefits that would come with change, or our specific ideas on the subject. But I did not want to interrupt my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, for more than just a couple of minutes.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the intent of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act [CBRA] to remove Federal incentives for new construction on undeveloped coastal barriers. However, we should not deny Federal flood insurance to individuals who purchased property in developed communities. One example is Huntington Marsh, SC, which was erroneously included in the 1990 Coastal Barrier Improvement Act. For this reason, I am introducing a bill to make technical corrections to maps relating to the Coastal Barrier Resources System. In 1988, the Department of Interior issued a report to Congress recommending coastal property for inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System. In a letter I received from Noreen Clough with the Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], she stated: ``The service [FWS] did not recommend inclusion of Huntington Marsh area into the CBRS (report to Congress in 1988).'' There is no information indicating why Huntington Marsh or the surrounding area known as SC-03 was included in the final map approved by Congress. According to her letter, ``Neither the Department nor the service contacted individual landowners that were potentially affected.'' Had this community been allowed the opportunity to voice objection, they would not have been included in the act because the property qualified as a developed rather than an undeveloped area. Under the description of the bill, developed communities are exempt from inclusion in the act. A community is considered undeveloped if it contains less than one structure per 5 acres. In 1990, more than 10 homes were built on the 20 acres located in the Huntington Marsh subdivision and many other property owners had plans for construction of homes on their property. This illustrates that the community would have been considered developed under the law. Adding or removing areas from a CBRA unit requires an act of Congress. This bill does not amend the CBRA, it merely redraws the boundary to omit the 20 acres of Huntington Marsh from the restrictions under the act. This change will only affect property on the southwestern edge of SC-03 along Highway 17 that was erroneously included in the first place. I urge your support for this legislation.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because it seems to me that fewer years yields more in the way of benefits when it comes to term limits. I say that for a couple of different reasons. First, it is consistently what I hear about from my constituents back home. They do not say more or longer terms. They say shorter terms. Second, it seems to be the will of the Founding Fathers, when they talked about our Congress, this institution, they talked about a citizens Congress, and fewer years would yield that. Last, I think that fewer years would yield more in the way of benefit in terms of cutting our Nation's debt and deficit. The National Taxpayers Union did a study. What they found was that there was direct correlation between the length of time in office and propensity to spend taxpayer money. This amendment would make a difference on that front. For that reason, I support it.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that to properly control crime we first have to control spending. To properly control our borders, I think we first have to control spending. If we do not, a child born into America today will one day pay an 82 percent tax rate just to keep our government solvent. What I want to focus on, instead of the facts and figures that I think we all know, though, is the human side of this cost. We are talking about $466 million. We are talking about a 1.9 percent cut that we argue we cannot make in Washington. I would argue that we can and we must because, if we take for instance the small town that I grew up in, Dale, SC, that had just a few hundred folks living in it, it would take them working and then paying taxes for the next 800 years simply to make up this 1.9 percent. Or if we went back into my district near Charleston, it would take 155,000 people paying taxes for 1 year to equal the 1.9 percent for the $466 million that we are talking about. Those may not be real numbers in Washington, but they are very real numbers over 1 year or 800 years of sweat and toil back home in South Carolina. For that reason I would urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, high school students from across the Nation have recently visited Washington to compete in the ``We the People,'' program. I am proud to say that South Carolina's winner is R.B. Stall High School from the First district. They were kind enough to drop by my office, and I had the opportunity to personally meet and congratulate the students, teachers, and coaches. At a time when only about one in six citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 even register to vote, it was heartening to meet so many young people who are shining examples of a new generation of leadership for our Nation. The teacher of this winning class is Karen Cabe Gibson, who is no newcomer to success. She has produced winning classes for South Carolina all but twice since the competition began. As a result of her countless hours of dedication and with the support of fellow teachers Marshall Ward, Grace Perreault, and principal James Hampton, she once again brought out the best of a class of eager and knowledgeable minds. I trust these students will now go on in life to practice all they have learned. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to individually recognize the students from Mrs. Gibson's class: Sheri Aiken, Nahal Badiian, Richard Carawan, Allan Casanova, Dewayne Cid, Timothy Dasinger, Becky Doscher, Treva Floyd, Michael Gale, Nicole Gethers, Jeff Harvey, Kalynne Kay, Kim Kay, Michael Kay, Trent Legare, Andrew May, Carlos Medina, Jonette Mullineaux, John Pizarro, Desmond Rollins, John Sageser, Cherie Tetterton, Danielle Towns, Timothy Whaley, and Sean Womersley. I would be remiss if I did not thank the South Carolina Bar, the Charleston County School District and the many volunteers who served as judges and timekeepers during the competition and practice. The program could not have been successful without their backing.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, Rick Towne, who runs a small auto supply and parts store in Charleston, SC, came by my office yesterday. His belief was that this budget was about creating, not destroying. In fact, he talked about how is it that we get the economy growing again so that middle class, hard-working families are not hurt the way they are today? His belief was a fairly simple two-part formula. He said first, you got to get government out of my pocket; and, second, you got to get government out of my way. I think that this budget reflects that. There is a saying back home farmers use, you can only squeeze so much blood out of a turnip that talks about taxes, and I think we all know the detrimental effect of taxes on economic growth. So instead, I would like to focus on the second part of his formula, which was getting government out of his way. My mom used to say that too much of a good thing is actually a bad thing. Similarly, Ben Franklin urged moderation in all things. Well, there was a recent joint economic report that said if government spends too much money, it actually begins to hurt the economy, actually begins to be a drag on the economy. Above the point at about 17\1/2\ percent of the size of our economy, from that point forward, we are now spending about 22 percent. From that point forward, it is a drag on the economy such that for every $100 of spending cut, we get about $138 of economic benefit for the Rick Townes of the world working in an auto parts store back in Charleston, SC.