Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, 125 years ago today one of my predecessors in the First District of South Carolina, the Honorable Joseph Hayne Rainey, was sworn in as the first African-American Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. I am proud to carry on his tradition of service to our area of South Carolina. Representative Joseph Hayne Rainey was born in Georgetown, SC in 1832. Although having limited education he became a leader in post- Civil War South Carolina. And, in 1867, Representative Rainey became a member of the executive committee of the newly formed Republican Party of South Carolina. He served as a delegate to South Carolina's constitutional convention, and was later elected to the State senate. In 1870 he was elected to fill a vacant seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and served until 1879. While in the House of Representatives, he impressed many people with his floor speeches on behalf of the enforcement of the 14th amendment and the civil rights bill. He was a fervent believer in equal rights for all citizens. But this is what anyone could find out, as I did, through reading the brief biographical sketches that exist of Representative Rainey. What particularly struck me was that Representative Rainey was a man of conviction. He is described, in one of these sketches, as a man who stuck to his principles and was known as a courteous debater who defended his position not through arrogance, but through persuasion. In this respect, I seek to emulate him. I was also impressed by the fact that Representative Rainey after leaving the House served again in South Carolina and then returned to Washington to work in the banking and brokerage business. In this sense, he also represented what I seek to be, a citizen legislator. And I am honored to be able to follow in his footsteps as a representative of the First District of South Carolina. General Leave

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, for the past few weeks a constituent of mine, Gerald Fetcher, has paid for an ad to appear in the Washington Times. The text of the ad follows: ``An Appeal to the Congress of the United States'' Please do not give in to the demands of President Clinton. We must balance the budget in seven years. America is already five trillion dollars in debt, which is over $18,000 per person (including newborn babies). Kids don't have the right to vote, they can't vote on their own future. It is very selfish for politicians to appeal to voters by giving them more benefits (to get votes), and destroy the future of America. Please hang in there Congress and Senate, do not give in to the selfish demands of President Clinton. I commend Mr. Fetcher for taking the initiative to make sure that his voice is heard. He speaks for most Americans. Balance the budget now.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I do not know how much more actually can be added between my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough], my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], go down the list, and therefore I mean you have touched on this idea of 200 American men, best-case scenario, dying. You have touched on the idea of spending $1.5 billion. You have touched on the idea we do not have a clearly defined exit strategy. You touched on the idea of 37,000 American boys being directly involved.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, in Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's last words he eloquently stated his vision for the future. ``I believe there is now a chance for peace, a great chance, and we must take advantage of it for those who are standing here, and for those who are not here-- and they are many. I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace and are ready to take a chance for peace. . . . Peace is not only in prayers . . . but it is the desire of the Jewish people.'' Rabin's life was dedicated to the state of Israel's rebirth, security, survival and freedom. It is only fitting that as we celebrate his life, we speak to what had become his vision--a democratic Israel at peace with its neighbors. His vision was for the future of the Jews, Israel, and the people of the Middle East. In a Joint Meeting of Congress in 1994 Rabin referenced the death of many young soldiers. ``I have come from Jerusalem in the name of our children. . . . Each year as I stand before the parents whose lips are chanting ``Kaddish,'' the Jewish Memorial Prayer, ringing in my ears are the words of [Archibald] MacLeish who echoes the plea of the young dead soldiers: `They say: We leave you our deaths. Give them meaning.' '' It is my hope and prayer, and that of many, that Prime Minister Rabin's death will be given meaning.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the men and women of our armed services from South Carolina who have a long tradition of valor in times of national crisis. From the large communities of Charleston, Georgetown, Myrtle Beach or small towns like Ridgeville, Goose Creek, Aynor, or Awendaw--soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have served our Nation well in war. There is no greater service than to fight for the safety of one's nation and the security of the world. From the Marne to the Philippines, and from the Chosen Reservoir to Khe Sahn, South Carolina has sent its best and its brightest to defend freedom and democracy. As Veteran's Day approaches, I find my self reflecting upon the sacrifices that these men and women made for these United States. Hundreds of South Carolina servicemen in World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam paid the ultimate price through the sacrifice of their lives and lie buried in cemeteries and watery graves around the globe. But for many, the possibility of a simple military grave marker, the return of their remains to their families and loved ones, or even an accounting of their whereabouts still eludes them. South Carolina's First District has no less than 15 POW/MIA's still unaccounted for from Korea and 9 POW/MIA's from Vietnam. To those families and friends who have lost a loved one, and those today who still seek a final determination as to the fates of their loved ones, I pay tribute for the sacrifice of these brave men. Recently, I have worked with organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans Association, AMVETS, the American Legion, Jewish War Veterans, Catholic War Veterans, and other groups to determine how our country might best care for our veterans. People like Tom Burch and Bonny Stilwell of the Vietnam Veterans Coalition who take up the cause of veterans from every era, especially Vietnam veterans, are to be commended for their tireless efforts. As a member of the International Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Asia, I have heard their pleas for an absolute accounting of all servicemen in Southeast Asia. As a member of that committee I voted for language which would mandate a complete accounting of all of our servicemen in Southeast Asia and give immigration preference to those who help identify U.S. servicemen remains or clarify their status as MIA/POW. For all of the veterans' groups, especially to Anne and ``Tank'' Lanford of the South Carolina Vietnam Era Veterans Association I pledge my continued support to bring all of our boys home and put an end to the uncertainty that their families face day in and day out. I would like to leave you all with a story I once heard about our Nation and its veterans. I think that it might act as a reminder to us all of our veterans' sacrifices and our country's duty to them. While camped on the plain at West Point, NY, on a cold winter's night General Washington met with his officers who had gathered in a small hut to discuss the possibility of the Continental Army seizing control of the Congress because of their lack of pay and land grants to the soldiers. After listening to eloquent and inspired speeches from many of the officers who urged their brothers to declare the Government dissolved, General Washington, who had previously sat quietly in the back of the room, rose to his feet. Suddenly, the lively and spirited debate ceased and still fell over the room. General Washington slowly, and deliberately unfolded a letter from a Member of Congress who had written him to urge his soldiers to keep their posts until spring when the Government might be more secure. After unfolding the letter Washington stared at the page for a moment then, for the first time ever in front of his troops, Washington reached into his tunic and unfolded a pair of spectacles, gently placing them on his nose saying, ``Gentlemen, please forgive me for my trouble in reading this letter. For you see, I have not only grown gray, but almost blind in the service of my country.'' That night General Washington read that letter but no one heard it. It was drowned out with the soft sobs and cries of the officers present who had served the country in its struggle for independence. After Washington left the building the officers voted unanimously to continue to serve without pay and our Nation survives today. Years later, on the only occasion when then President Washington spoke of the incident, he simply said, ``A nation can only ensure its longevity and its security by assuring its care of its veterans. Otherwise it cannot hope to muster any army for its defense in the future.'' Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree more. Now, over 200 years, later, it is time for us to renew our commitment to our veterans. I plan to begin by remembering their contributions and sacrifices and continuing the fight for a full accounting of all of our men. As citizens we owe every veteran at least that much. The patriot, John Adams once said, ``I study war so that my son may study politics, so that his son might study philosophy and art.'' This is a dream that I know all veterans share.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of this act. I think that we have heard a lot of discussion tonight, different opinions on, for instance, what is in the strategic best interest of our country and I think we would all agree that having a totalitarian regime with the third largest Army in the Western Hemisphere 90 miles from our coast is not a good idea. Mr. Chairman, we have talked about what is it that will lead toward peaceful transition, away from Castro, and toward a democratically elected government. We have had discussion on [[Page H 9348]] what is it that will actually end Castro's control, his lock-neck control of Cuba, a control so tight that Amnesty International has rated him on the top of the charts in terms of nonhumanitarian work toward other humans, but I would like to suggest that in all these different options that we have heard tonight, maybe the real answer that is never suggested on the floor of the House is that maybe we do not know. Maybe we do not know. I had the good fortune of actually visiting with refugees with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] and others 5 months ago, and in that visit we had conversations with refugees who said the way to solve the Castro problem is not by sending more tourists that will lead to replenishment of his bank accounts, not by sending him more plant and equipment which will lead toward greater industry, which will replenish his bank accounts, not by allowing him to sell off pieces of the island of Cuba which will lead toward him being able to replenish his bank accounts. Instead, the only way that you solve the Castro problem is by tightening the noose. These were people who had risked their lives and left behind all possessions that they owned for one simple thought, and that is the idea of freedom. Yet these were the people saying it is my cousin, my aunt, my uncle who will be the one hurt the worst as you tighten the noose, but do it because it is the only way to solve the problem. With that, I would simply like to say that if the people most affected by the decision that we are contemplating say this is the way to solve the problem, then maybe in this case they are the ones that know the answer.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. They would either be in real big trouble or they would have to head back home to their districts, which is again how I think the finding fathers wanted it.

Mr. SANFORD. If I may, you are talking about the American public getting the message or trying to send the message. Getting back to what we were talking about earlier with your charts in terms of PAC contributions, one of the messages that I think has been mixed are folks that say, there is really no difference, again, between an individual contribution and a PAC contribution. One of the things that I think stands out on that front is not only the difference between the single issue and sort of the wide ranging issue, wide range of issues held by an individual, but as the recent Forbes article pointed out, it was here in the last year, I do not know if you saw it. I think it was very interesting. It tells a tale about how specific money is tied to certain issues in a way that is destructive to our democratic system. It was a study done by the American Tort Reform Association on, of all things, the American Trial Lawyers Association. This is a Forbes article of October 24 of last year. What was interesting about this study was they studied contributions by the American Trial Lawyers Association to California, Texas, and Alabama. Between the dates of January 1990 and June 1994, during that period, they contributed $17.3 million. By election time it was right at $20 million. And if you took it across all 50 States, you would be at about $60 million. What is interesting about that number is the point of the article was, did these folks get a good return on their investment. The answer was, absolutely yes, because most attempts at sort of meaningful reform in terms of tort reform have been stymied in large part due to the $60 million. So I think, one, it is interesting the way the money flows to specific issues, but as well the bundling factor which is not talked about often with PAC's, which is that PAC's can contribute up to $5,000 per election cycle to a campaign, which means, for instance, in my race I had a primary and then a runoff and then a general, they could give $5,000 in the primary--$15,000.

Mr. SANFORD. One group.

Mr. SANFORD. Speaking for PAC mania, I was looking at numbers from the Federal Election Commission showing numbers for PACS; December 31, 1974, they were right at basically 89 corporate PAC's total, 89 corporate PACS; July 1, 1994, 1,666 PAC's. You can see this explosion in terms of the way special interests have manifested themselves. So you are right when you say the word PAC mania.

Mr. SANFORD. That is exactly right. Mr. Speaker, on that point I would like to bring up the fact that a lot of people say well, there is no difference between PAC funding and individual funding, and as I think all three of us know, there is a fairly considerable difference, because a PAC is all about focused special, specific interests. That same amount of money coming from an individual; for instance, if I was to go back home to the fellow that runs the corner hardware store and say, well, it costs money to run a campaign and I sure would appreciate you helping out, and that person is not only concerned about business or concerned about that particular community, but they have children or grandchildren, so they care about education, they care about the Social Security system. There are 1,001 issues that make up that individual, and so you begin to get a general interest as opposed to a very specific interest, and I think that distinction is awfully important.

Mr. SANFORD. Hopefully, that is what is different about our class. People will actually step to the plate, whether it is on term limits or whether it is on campaign finance reform, and stay that for too long people, as you have said, have just pointed the finger saying we need to reform all of this out here but never us. Hopefully we are beginning this cleansing process for beginning with ourselves.

Mr. SANFORD. Right.

Mr. SANFORD. Exactly. They could get together with three other PAC's and you could be looking at $45,000 from one group, and the American public is looking at it and saying, wait, this does not pass the common sense test.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman is exactly right, in that if you look at the number that you were just pointing at, the really interesting number is to look at the difference between incumbents and challengers. If you look at that 11 percent number that goes to challengers, what you really begin to see is corrosion of the democratic process. For instance, in the 1992 election cycle, if you were to break the numbers which you would be looking at, is that roughly, challengers picked up around $15,000 per election cycle from PACs, while incumbents picked up about $212,000 per election cycle from PACs. That is not exactly what we call a level playing field back home in South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, again, $15,000 as compared to $212,000, and that is that kind of difference in terms of funding of campaigns that has a lot to do with the fact that we have a 90 percent reelection rate in Congress. What people have been saying with the term limits movement is that we want to break the back of this sort of permanent political working class, and instead, they want to see a citizen legislature that goes in for a little while, tries to make a difference as best they know how, and then goes home. One of the keys to leveling that playing field is this money thing that we are talking about.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Madam Speaker, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight held a field hearing in early July in Cleveland. Amongst those who gave testimony were the mayor of Philadelphia, Edward Rendell. Madam Speaker, I was fascinated by his story because 3\1/2\ years ago Philadelphia stood at the brink of financial disaster. They were a quarter of a billion dollars in debt. Their bonds had [[Page H 8313]] been rated junk. Vendors as lowly as toilet paper suppliers said, ``No more. We are not dealing with Philadelphia.'' They had lost 30 percent of their tax base. Taxes had gone up 19 times over the last 11 years. Yet today, Madam Speaker, the city enjoys a $29 million surplus. They have investment-grade bonds. For the first time since World War II, they have had a tax cut. How did they do it? One, they created an entrepreneurial environment wherein government was to view customers as king, and in this case, the taxpayer was to be king. Two, they were to spend government dollars as if they were their own. Madam Speaker, if Philadelphia can do that, I think America and the Federal Government can do that.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Madam Speaker, late last night we had the debate on an amendment that I proposed to prevent the construction of yet another Washington office building, this one being $40 million and in size 350,000 square feet. For those of my colleagues who were wisely asleep at the hour, I would say it still makes a lot of sense for a couple reasons. First, GSA already controls 644 million square feet of office space in the United States. That is the equivalent of all the office space in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Houston combined. Do we need another office building? Second, even if it is the right thing to do, now is not the right time to do it. That is why the National Capital Planning Commission said ``No, don't do it, wait until after the farm bill.'' Third, it is what the budget asks for. Fourth, it is what National Taxpayers Union and Citizens for a Sound Economy think to be a good idea.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman will yield, I have run by it practically every morning.

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

Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman will yield again, I want to reemphasize my amendment in no way precludes renovation to the south building. The whole idea is putting the cart before the horse. All I am suggesting by this amendment is, given all that may be happening in terms of downsizing the Federal Government, maybe, just maybe since it is federally owned land, this building would be going on out in Maryland since that space is not going anywhere.

Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman will yield, I would agree absolutely in a static environment, but the problem is we know right now we are not working in a static environment. I think that actually has a lot to do with why the National Capital Planning Commission, in fact, disapproved the plan and, in fact, said because things like the Department of Commerce may one day be an empty building and because a host of other agencies are looking at dropping numbers rather than increasing numbers, there may be more than enough space in Washington, DC.

Mr. SANFORD. On those two points, if the gentleman would yield, on the south building, as you might notice, my amendment does nothing to preclude reconstruction to the south building.

Mr. SANFORD. I have heard upwards, close to $1 billion.

Mr. SANFORD. No.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents the construction of a new 350,000-square-foot office building in Maryland. With so many pressing demands on our Nation's budget and so many different ways to cut this budget, the logical budget is: Why here? Why now? I think there are 4 good reasons that make a lot of sense as to why we ought to look at this. The first, GSA, Government Services Administration, controls 644 million square feet, let me say that again, 644 million square feet of office space. That is enough office space to fill the commercial cores in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Houston combined. That says to me, with that kind of office space intact and this revolution that is supposedly taking place here in Washington, do not we have enough? Do we really need to go out and add another 350,000 square feet of space. Second, even if we do, I think we would be putting the cart before the horse if we built this building now. The reason being, this fall the farm bill comes out, and that is going to have a lot to do with whether the Ag Department is growing, staying the same or shrinking. If it happens to be shrinking, which could well be the case given the fact we have got 114,000 folks on staff which roughly works out to about one for every six working farmers, if it were to actually be cut, we may not need this building, or if it were not to be cut, look at the number of different agencies ceilings and different departments that are talking about being closed here in Washington. Again, I think that has done to do with why the National Capital Planning Commission, which is the Federal agency in charge of watching out how different agencies control space, has disapproved this plan and disapproved this building. They, in fact, say the following: ``It appears that the opportunities may exist for meeting virtually all of USDA's fiscal year 2000 administrative space requirements within its existing inventory, without construction of the Beltsville office complex.'' I think they know more about this than most of us. I ask we heed their advice. Third, the budget. Kasich and his budget crew came up with a plan that gets us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. This building was not included as part of that budget. Finally, National Taxpayers Union and Citizens for a Sound Economy think this amendment would make a lot of sense. I hope my colleagues will join. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.