Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, Edward Gibbon wrote a book back in 1776 about the fall of the Romans. In it, he harkens back to the fall of Greece and the Athenians. He said, at the end of the day, in the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all--security, comfort, and freedom--when the Athenians no longer wanted to give to society, but to receive. And he goes on with a long quote from there. He talks about the fundamental tension that exists in any developed society between freedom and security. We have moved too far in the opposite direction as it relates to email. This bill brings us back toward the center. I again applaud Mr. Yoder and Mr. Polis for what they have done. I also applaud Chairman Goodlatte for what he has done on this front.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have a small but, I think, perfecting amendment that I think, whether Republican or Democrat, we can agree on. Because I think as Republicans and Democrats, we may have different perspectives on this equation, but we would agree that money is power and that the IRS has an immense amount of power, given the amount of money that it is, in essence, steward to and controls as money is moved from individuals across this country to the Federal Government. I think that we would agree that money without a plan is chaos. That is why in the military they have a five-paragraph order. That is why if you think about the business rule, you have a business plan. If you think about sports, you have got a game plan. You need to go through a planning process to effectively use money. I think we would agree that the government's role is to serve. I think it disturbed a lot of us that the Lincoln Memorial was closed back during the government shutdown. Some people saw that as a way of maximizing inconvenience for folks, as a way of highlighting some rule we agreed or disagreed on as opposed to, again, staying focused on this larger notion of service. So I applaud the overall work of this bill and what it is about. I think that there is a problem when wait times move up threefold over the last 5 years. I think that there is a problem with dropped calls and infinity holds and all the other things that people have seen come their way as a result of dysfunction at the IRS. We might see different remedies as to how we get there, but I think we would agree on those things. And so I applaud what is being done with this notion of saying: Let's hold on bonuses. Let's actually come up with a plan as we deal with how this additional $20 million is dispensed and used within the IRS. This amendment simply says that as you go in consultation with the Treasury, as you go in consultation with the IG, let's also include the National Taxpayer Advocate there at the IRS. Because I think it is important. You may deal with technology experts, you may deal with phone call experts, you may deal with taxation specialists, but to keep the bull's-eye the ultimate customer out there--and that is the taxpayer. Too often the taxpayer is indeed the forgotten man or forgotten women in this equation. The idea of consulting with the National Taxpayers Union as you formulate those plans, again, I think make this a simply perfecting amendment, as you listen to the different constituencies that will be dealt with in coming up with this plan. I think that perspective is key in holding the taxpayers' viewpoint to be vital in the creation of this plan. That is all the amendment does. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meehan).

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

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the students from Wando High School, located in South Carolina's First Congressional District, who will be participating in the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution National Finals a few short days from now. In order to qualify for the national finals, a class must win its state championship or qualify as a ``wild card'' class, which was the case for Wando this year. These students will join with approximately 1,200 high schoolers from 56 classes across the nation, all of whom will be competing in the mock hearings held at the University of Maryland. At a variety of levels, it is encouraging to see so many students investing their time to further their education by taking an in-depth look at American history, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. And the support these students receive throughout the U.S. is remarkable-- each year, local communities raise nearly $2,000,000 to support the national finalists. During their time in DC, the high schoolers not only have the opportunity to explore our nation's capital, but they will come to demonstrate their civic knowledge by participating in a simulated congressional hearing before panels of judges made up of constitutional scholars, lawyers, journalists, and government leaders from across the nation. In closing, I would like to congratulate the students from Wando, wish them good luck at the competition, and offer a word of welcome as they make their visit to the Capitol.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for doing this. I think it is such an important issue. I think that, as has been mentioned by a couple of speakers now, what is really at play here is a constitutional issue. The Founding Fathers were so emphatically clear that there were to be three different pieces of pie. There was to be an executive branch that administered the law, a legislative branch that created it, and a judicial branch that interpreted it. There is this amazing reservoir of common sense that exists out there with the American public. So what people told me back home is this is not about being against somebody from some other place. This is not about being against Hispanics. This is, in fact, about the rule of law and a system that our Founding Fathers gave us more than 200 years ago and how we preserve it. And how we preserve it is by actually sticking to it. Ultimately, the issue has less to do with immigration than it does to do with this larger notion of common sense and rule of law. I would also stress the common sense part. I remember back in the O.J. Simpson trial, there was this whole notion of, if the glove doesn't fit, you can't acquit. In this case, the glove doesn't fit from the standpoint of common sense. I actually had my staff pull up a couple of numbers this afternoon, and I think that they are fascinating, and here is what I mean by that. The numbers don't fit with the scale of every other amnesty that has been done for more than the last 50 years. Think about this. The amnesties that this President has proposed, in total, are about 5\1/2\ million people. That is more than all of the cumulative amnesties for the last 53 years, going back all the way to the time of Eisenhower. In fact, the average amnesty was about 32,000 people in size. We have all always been a Nation that has been welcoming; we have included other people. So if you look back at the El Salvadorans that Clinton and Bush allowed in, based on civic conflict and real civil war down that way, if you look at the Persian Gulf evacuees, if you look at the--my eyesight is getting so bad, I need to get glasses. If you look at the Chinese, after Tiananmen Square, if you were to look at Soviet refugees, if you look at the Ethiopians, the Lithuanians, even going back to the war orphans at the time of Eisenhower, there has been a remarkable case when amnesties were judged okay by this Congress, okay by the American people, okay by the President because of scale, 32,000 people, on average, per amnesty, for 53 years. Again, this President's amnesty dwarfs the total amnesties of all Presidents over the last 53 years, and, for that reason, the American public has reacted as it has saying this just doesn't fit. The other thing that I think is interesting, going back to the notion of sheer scale and the ways in which this particular amnesty that the President has proposed is at odds with every other for the last 53 years, is, if you were to add up the cumulative amnesties of this President, you would be in the top 20 States in the United States of America--5.5 million people. That is well above the population of South Carolina; it is well above the population of Alabama. Or go down about another 30 States, wherein you would have a de facto new State added that would be more than midway in the graph of all States in this country. It doesn't fit. A third point that I would make, and I think this is a fascinating one that my staff pulled, is that if you look at all those amnesties I was just talking about over the last 53 years, they have really fallen into a couple of baskets, the one big amnesty being back in 1986 which, ultimately, went through this Congress. It was, in fact, as a consequence of the act of Congress and the will of the American public. That was a big one. But the other one was the Adjustment Act of 1966, which goes back to the plight of the Cuban people and trying to do something about that. The other one has been a basket of natural disaster, of political strife, of family reunification. That has been a basket. And then there has been a basket for refugees. But never before have we had a basket that was about a political objective as opposed to a reaction to an external event. We have had a long list of external events over 53 years that is at odds with what we see taking place. So not only is this important from the standpoint of the Constitution and the rule of law, as has been so eloquently stated thus far, it is something that doesn't fit common sense from the standpoint of scale. And there is one last point. There is a financial cost to this. The Cato Institute estimated that you are looking at about $14,000 per household. If you multiply that times the number of refugees that the President is talking about here, you are looking at about $19 billion in cost. That is about two-thirds of the dustup we have had over the budget. You are talking about $30 billion. Is the number 1070 or 1040? A $30 billion difference. In this case, two-thirds of that total would be taken care of just with this question of amnesty that is before us tonight which you, again, have brought, and I very, very much appreciate you doing so.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I just want to borrow maybe 5 minutes worth of your time just to talk about this issue of Puerto Rico. You have touched on it in different ways. You were talking about constitutional issues just a moment ago, and I want to follow up on that thought because I think that what is occurring here has far bigger consequences than we may realize. I would say that at a couple different levels. One is, Charles Dickens once talked about Christmas past, Christmas present, Christmas still to come. I think that this is a snapshot of Christmas to come if we don't watch out here in the United States. As my colleague from Texas well knows, we are at a financial tipping point, the likes of which our civilization has never seen before. We have never before been at this level of indebtedness in a peacetime situation. We are, again, about to find ourselves between a rock and a hard place, which is very much the story of Puerto Rico, as it relates to their financial situation. So you think about the number of 2025. In basically less than 10 years, we are only going to have enough money to pay for interest and entitlements and nothing else. You think about the way in which interest payments--by congressional budget numbers--are expected to balloon from around $200 billion a year to $800 billion a year and the fact that we are going to spend more on interest payments than we will on defense. You can walk through a lot of different numbers that say that we are about to be at a profound, bad spot, which is, again, the way in which Puerto Rico, I think, is foretelling. It really talks about the fact that they went out, spent too much, obligated themselves too much, made promises they couldn't deliver on. And so we find ourselves in this pickle. I would also say this. This is an exercise in free markets. If you think about the notion of free markets and what that means, what we would agree on as conservatives is that there are certain absolutes. On the rule of law and private property rights and market-based principles, Thomas Friedman talks about a flat world and how a kid in Texas or in South Carolina competes with kids in Shanghai or New Delhi in ways that they never did before. So if you have a corporate rate that is too high, not surprisingly, corporations aren't going to come to your island. If you have a minimum wage that doesn't fit with the prevailing wage rate of that area, corporations or businesses, local and small, may not be able to start up and compete. If you think about so many of the different building blocks that make for a vibrant economy, this is, again, a reminder of how important those things are. And so I look at this and I am perplexed. I am really struggling with this issue. I looked just a little while ago. Puerto Rican bonds are still trading between 65 and 70 cents on the dollar, even though we have a pure math trap, which is to say financial markets are still betting that, in some form or another, those bondholders are going to get bailed out. So that is on the one hand. On the other hand, you look at the plight of the people in Puerto Rico, you look at what might come next. I empathize with leadership of how do you deal with this issue. But I want to go back to one thing that I think is central to both of us, and that is the rule of law. I actually pulled up a general obligation bond. This was a 2012 issue, Public Improvement Refunding Bonds, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, $400 million in size. It says on the first page: ``The bonds are general obligations of the Commonwealth. The good faith, credit, and taxing power of the Commonwealth are irrevocably pledged for the prompt payment of the principal and interest on the bonds. The Constitution of Puerto Rico provides that public debt of the Commonwealth, which includes bonds,'' whatnot, whatnot, whatnot. This on the front page. The issue of what is occurring in Puerto Rico has everything to do with the sanctity of the rule of law in this country. It has far- reaching implications well beyond the 3\1/2\ million people that make up the Island of Puerto Rico but, really, the whole of the United States. We have a municipal market in this country of about $2.7 trillion in size. What comes next? Because, if they can change it in the front page of what was a $400 million issue for Puerto Rico, can they change it for Illinois? Can they change it for California? Obviously, territories and States are very different, but I do worry about the degree of precedent it sets, because what we are worried about is a public exodus from Puerto Rico. We are worried about a lot of different ramifications. Is that not true if Illinois was to end up in a real problem spot financially, in terms of what comes next? So I think it has real implications there. I think it is a reminder of how important it is that we look at the ingredients of growth. One of my problems with this bill is it is asymmetrical. The cram- down provision, section 3, is absolute and certain. The certainty of economic reforms on that island are not certain. It is asymmetrical in that form. So I look at the Jones Act. I was in a transportation hearing yesterday, and it was pointed out that the cost of delivering a 20-foot container from the East Coast of the United States is double the cost of what it would be to deliver that same container to the Dominican Republic or to Haiti. I look at the corporate tax there. They used to have a very competitive corporate tax rate on the island of Puerto Rico. That Federal clause lapsed, and now they are not so competitive. But why don't we have it in this bill? In other words, if we are going to have a cram-down provision, which really deals with the sanctity of law, general obligation bonds, what they do or don't mean, why wouldn't we have incorporated, as well, other provisions that could make the island more competitive, whether that deals with the Jones Act corporate tax--or, for instance, we have a bill on the minimum wage. If you look at what has happened in American Samoa, or if you look in the Northern Mariana Islands, other territories of the United States, what we did as a Congress is to say: You know what? The prevailing wage of that region of the Pacific is not the same as what you would see in the domestic United States. Therefore, let's give them discretion in how they set their minimum wage. Our bill says that same thing. The prevailing wage of the Caribbean Basin is not the same as you would see in the domestic United States. Why not give them that same option so that they can become more competitive as they compete with Haiti and the Dominican Republic and other neighboring islands down that way? So I am going to continue to study this issue, but I am genuinely concerned about what it could mean. I just want to take one second--can I take one more second?--to read the cram-down provision because, in the bill, under title III, it incorporates 1129(b) of the Federal Code. Let me just read that so it is on the record. ``Notwithstanding section 510(a) of this title, if all of the applicable requirements of subsection (a) of this section other than the paragraph (8) are met with respect to a plan, the court, on request of the proponent of the plan, shall confirm the plan notwithstanding the requirements of such paragraph if the plan does not discriminate unfairly, and is fair and equitable, with respect to each class of claims or interests that is impaired under . . . the plan.'' I could go on. It is Greek. It is written in legalese. But the point is this bill has an absolute cram-down provision, which is to open up new territory with regard to how territories handle debt, and I think we need to be very, very, very wary of that provision; and, at minimum, if we are going to include something like that, include whole-scale changes that would make the island more competitive so that they can, in fact, pay off their debts because, if you don't do anything to improve the economy, we are going to end up back in this same problem, whether it is 12 months from now or 12 years from now.

Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman would yield, and then I will leave it to you. You hit on Luis Fortuno, and I do want to shout out, I worked with him in a former role in government, and you are absolutely correct. What he tried to do, I think, was brave in political terms, courageous, and he paid a price for it in the political world; but I think that the record will show that he was trying to do the right thing on that front. I think also, what has happened here is a reminder of how, if everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge. And too much of what we see, again, I absolutely empathize with the plight that leadership finds themselves in in terms of: How do you manage these competitive interests of the need to have financial stability on an island like Puerto Rico, and how do you manage that with the precedent that it might set for other States and other territories and the overall notion of financial responsibility? I see your time is about to wind up, so I am going to stop for you since it was your time. Thank you for letting me borrow a few minutes of it.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 142, between a pair of procedural votes on the rule for H.R. 2666, I left the floor of the House to meet with a group of constituents from back home. Accordingly, after our visit I went back to the floor as quickly as I could, but when I returned time had expired. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today based on the simple notion of service to others, and accordingly I would like to say a few words regarding the Islands Society. A nonprofit headquartered on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, the Society's mission is to encourage islanders around the world to participate in the international community. For that mission, the Society has been recognized as one of the up-and- coming organizations by the United Nations Foundation. They also named its president and founder, Michael Edward ``Eddie'' Walsh, as a person to watch who wants to change the world. Our region's group--The Sea Islands Society--is the only nonprofit on Hilton Head Island to be recognized as a top-rated nonprofit by GreatNonprofits. For this, I wanted to congratulate them on the achievement. I think it is encouraging to see an organization reaching out at a local level and actively encouraging them to become leaders in the field of foreign policy.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this act. I thank the chairman for his hard work and the committee's hard work on this bill. I will be exceedingly brief because certainly, as has been outlined by any number of different speakers, this is about a failure of government at a multitude of different levels, at the State, local, and Federal levels, a real failure and real consequences to the people of Flint. It is also, I think, a reminder to all of us of the significance of bracket creep in government; wherein, if everybody is involved, nobody is involved; if everybody is accountable, nobody is accountable. That is true of a government at a government level. It is true of a regulatory body. The importance of clearly defined missions I think is part of what your strategic plan really gets at in this act, and I admire your work on that. I also want to just reference that this is also a reminder, a wake-up call, if you will, on the importance of watching out for unsustainable political promises. I say that because, if you look at the general budget and the general fund within Flint, basically one-third of their revenue goes to pay for retiree benefits. That number by the year 2020 is going to rise to essentially 40 percent, 40 percent. I bring that up because it is indeed a wake-up call to the unsustainability of our Federal promises as you look at the numbers going forward at the Federal level. So my heart goes out to the people of Flint. I think that this is an important measure going forward, but it is also an important reminder to every one of us here at the Federal level to watch out for the unsustainable promises here in Washington.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure really for three reasons. One, I come from the Lowcountry of South Carolina. The First Congressional District is called the Lowcountry. It is called so for a reason, which is our land lies low. I think of the farm I grew up on. My father got it about the time I was born. The reality of this measure, if these rules promulgated by the administration simply move forward, as has been referenced by several different speakers, that which he thought he got, he would have gotten a lot less of. I think that, fundamentally, this is about private property rights. It is about what Philip Howard talked about years ago in his book ``The Death of Common Sense.'' I don't think it makes common sense to classify as navigable waters of the U.S. so many of these dry streambeds or dry areas in any part of this country. I also think that this is fundamentally about the rule of law. We have a real tension in this country, particularly during the time of this administration, on: Do we stick with this 200-year tradition we have had in place or do we move toward rule by edict? I think it would be a huge mistake to go down the other avenue. But, fundamentally, that is what this debate is about. It is about how do we decide things? There will always be disagreement. But how do we decide things? Finally, I think this is about taking something that wasn't partisan. I go back to the Clean Water Act, in its origination, was a bipartisan bill, but making it partisan by, again, executive overreach. So my colleague from Oregon, who is a dear friend and I think a strong advocate, mentioned the fact that he has strongly advocated for craft brewers back home. It would take me many beers to buy into the notion of moving forward without change. I think this is about upholding a 200-year tradition in this country on rule of law. I think it is about protecting farmers, whether they be in Johns Island, South Carolina, or the outskirts of Texas, or, for that matter, it is about those of us who love the environment, but sticking with this tradition of deciding these things in this Chamber.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure for many different reasons, but let me just touch on three. One, Gordon Sullivan was former Chief of Staff of the United States Army, and he once observed that hope was not a method. Irregardless of the good intentions behind the Affordable Care Act, I think that, from an actuarial standpoint, if you really look at it, you would have to say that hope was, indeed, part of the method. I say that because if you look at the number of young people that were anticipated to sign up, already 7.5 million folks have said: No, I am not signing up, I would rather take the penalty than sign up. And what that creates is a big liability for the taxpayer. Two, I would make the point that there have been real implications for the small-business person. We have a company back home in Charleston by the name of East Bay Deli. The owner came to me just a number of weeks ago and said: Look, I was going to open up a couple of more shops but, given the cost that I have seen with the Affordable Care Act for my small business, I am not going to do that. Ninety employees that won't have jobs as a consequence. Finally, our healthcare system has been predicated on a doctor- patient relationship. That Hippocratic Oath, that direct tie between doctor and patient, is part and parcel to the whole system. Yet the Affordable Care Act, again, in the whole, begins to undermine that. So for many different reasons, those three among them, I rise in support of this measure.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a fiscal hawk. I rise as one who believes passionately in the issue of the debt and the deficit and government spending, but one who believes that we can't pretend our way to fixing those problems and that the first part of fixing a problem lies in actually recognizing that you have a problem. Yet the reality is that, for the last 30 years or so, we have pretended that which was permanent was impermanent, which makes, overall, this notion of tax reform incredibly difficult. Ronald Reagan once observed that the closest thing to eternal life was a government program. It is true with regard to tax policy as well. So I just applaud the committee for the way that they have moved us to a place where we can move to a fair tax, a flat tax, changing the Tax Code to make the system fairer and flatter, more equitable for all and then, frankly, get rid of some of the provisions that don't belong in this Tax Code.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I want to dovetail for one moment on the conversation that was just held by my colleagues from across the aisle. I think that they have been courageous. I think about Sam Farr and I think about Barbara Lee, and what they have pushed for, ultimately, has less to do with Cuba--though they might argue otherwise--and more to do with American rights. I would give, just as an example, that this whole notion of a travel moratorium as it now exists from the United States to Cuba is nonsensical--they have been bold enough to point that out--and many other things for quite some number of years. They have led the way on this issue. I just want to applaud them because, if you stop and think about it, as an American, you can travel to any country on the globe--except for one. You can go to North Korea. You can go to Syria. You can go to Iran, and you could go to Iraq. It may not work out well for you, but you can go to anyplace on the globe except for a place roughly 60 miles off of Key West. That is a remarkable infringement on American liberty at the end of the day. So I thank them for what they have done not only on behalf of the Cuban people, but, ultimately, to advance this larger notion of individual liberty here in this country. With that having been said, I also want to touch for one moment on the Progressive Hour that preceded my time. It was said during that hour that taxes ``are the cost of living in a civilized society.'' I think the question that all of us would have to ask is: How civilized a society do you want to live in then? I have told my boys about this magazine that they will one day read, entitled, Reader's Digest, and when they poll the different readers, they came out with the finding that Americans would be roughly happy with one-quarter of their wages garnished and sent off to the world of taxes, whether at the Federal, State, or local level. The reality, as is pointed out by a guy by the name of Laurence Kotlikoff, who studied a thing called generational accounting at Boston University, is that a child born into America today will face roughly an 82 percent tax liability, which is to say, if that is the cost of civilization, many people would say: I want a much less civilized society, because 82 percent does not allow me to be civilized in the way to offer Christmas presents to my kids at Christmastime, help out at the local church or charity, pay for my kids' education, or all the other things that go with life. So, yes, we recognize that taxes are a part of civilized society, but the degree of tax load that faces this next generation is not only astounding, but it ultimately brings with it the roots of our civilization's undoing if we don't watch out, which will bring me to what I wanted to talk about just a moment ago. In the military, they have a thing called an after-action review. An after-action review is simply saying: Let's look at what just occurred and analyze for one moment what did we get right and what did we get wrong and how might we not get it a little bit better the next time around. In that light, I want to look at the omnibus bill. Debate is done. We will vote on it tomorrow morning, and we will head for Christmas and holiday seasons across this country. In that regard, I offer empathy to Hal Rogers, the Appropriations team, and all in leadership who were involved in the negotiating process, which--I get it--was hard. I think that it is easy to Monday afternoon quarterback these kind of things, and my attempt to analyze is not an attempt to do that. There was a plus and minus, in essence, for every Member of Congress. There is something to like in a trillion-dollar bill, and there is something to dislike in a trillion-dollar bill of 2,000 pages. So when I go down the pluses and the minuses, coming from Charleston, South Carolina, you would look at something like Guantanamo Bay, and you would say: I think it is a plus that there is another prohibition on domestically relocating high-value targets from Guantanamo Bay to the United States of America. I think that makes sense. It is, in fact, the third prohibition that this Congress has put in place. The other two the President has signed, and my hope is that he will certainly adhere to that here for the last couple months of his Presidency. I think that fully funding the military, which is a core function of the Federal Government, is a plus. I could go with a number of other pluses. I will mention minuses, though. I don't think what should have been done was done with regard to Syrian refugees. I don't think what could have been done was done with regard to Planned Parenthood. I look at a program like the Maritime SEA program--$5.4 million a ship. It is corporate welfare if you want to cut to the chase. I think that is a real challenge. Programs like that shouldn't have been in this bill. I look at the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015. I think it is an infringement upon our Fourth Amendment rights as Americans. Mr. Speaker, I think that civil liberties are really the foundation to every other liberty that we enjoy as Americans, and I think that there are real challenges there. The Founding Fathers were so deliberate about putting in place civil liberties because they didn't like the idea of a British soldier coming into a house and rooting around long enough until they found something to charge you with. I think what we have in this bill is an extension of that infringement that was guarded against at the time of the founding of the Republic. I look at the crude oil export ban coming down. I know that is viewed as a positive thing within the Chamber. As a coastal resident, I view it as a negative. To me, it is a bit of an oxymoron. To say, ``I tell you what. We are going to ship oil offshore, but we are now going to begin to open up for exploration areas that had been prohibited, not been open for exploration, off the Carolinas under the guise of energy independence, but we are going to take what we might find there and ship it to France,'' to me, that just doesn't make sense. I struggle with that. I struggle with the EPA ruling. The EPA has made a giant territorial grab with regard to waters--or nonwaters, if you want to call them that--of the United States. So I think, again, more could have been done. For those different reasons, I am ultimately going to vote ``no'' on this tomorrow. I think that, in terms of my after-action review, the point is not to pick the pluses and the minuses because they are in a bill this big, but to highlight the way in which the taxpayer always loses when you end up with a giant amalgamated total at the end of the session. An omnibus bill inherently is bad for the taxpayer because it gives everybody in the world of politics a reason to vote for it or to vote against it. Whoever comes up at your townhall meeting or at the rotary club back home, you are able to say: I was for you. I was with you. Because there is unlimited disguise in one's ability to be for or against a Christmas tree sort of bill with as many ornaments as this one has on it. I just want to highlight that this bill ultimately is a plus of about $50 billion. $50 billion, if broken out across the United States, is about $400 of additional spending per family. The question I think we each have to ask, as taxpayer advocates, is: Is another $400 going to Washington in line with what my taxpayers want or would they rather have that money at home to spend, indeed, on Christmas presents under the tree or a host of other family needs? If you add to that the entitlement spending that is going to occur at the same time--that is roughly about another $194 billion--you begin to look at startling increases that continue to progress. I look at this bill and I say that the one loser in this equation is the taxpayer, regardless of what a good job Hal Rogers and others on the appropriation team attempted to do because of the nature of the bill--the fact is that we are looking at an omnibus bill. It is my Christmas tree wish, as we go into the season, that next year come this time we are not going to face an omnibus bill. Speaker Ryan has promised that that will be the case and we will go back to so- called regular order. I just want to emphasize that it is vital from a taxpayer standpoint that we do so. Because, if we don't, the undoing of our civilization is being laid at rest not with the threat of terrorism. Terrorism brings with it the capacity to hurt a nation, to kill thousands or to kill hundreds. It doesn't bring with it the ability to bring down a nation. What brings the ability to bring down a nation is rot from within. The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said it best when he was asked what is the biggest threat to America. His answer was not the Chinese, not terrorism, not a whole host of threats around the globe. His answer was the American debt. The omnibus bill that we will pass tomorrow is a threat with regard to the growth of entitlement spending, domestic discretionary spending, and overall spending. It is vital that we get this process right next year. Mr. Speaker, I do wish you a Merry Christmas. Before I call it quits, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), who I also wish a Merry Christmas to. Honoring Dr. Meg Whitley

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I thank him for the way he highlighted great action from folks there at home. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Madam Speaker, I will say to the chairman from Kentucky that I am absolutely sympathetic in the way that he and others in the leadership are really caught between a rock and a hard place. If you think about 100 members of the defense community saying, ``Wait a minute. We won't vote for it unless we get more there''; folks in the AG community saying, ``We don't like this particular provision''; advocates of Medicare saying, ``We have got to have a bit more here,'' the realities of a debt ceiling, a President who said, ``A clean ceiling or nothing at all,'' I mean, they really have been between a rock and a hard place. But that having been said, we are still left at the end of the day with a $1.5 trillion problem that has grown on top of an $18 trillion problem; and I, therefore, believe that the simple notion is the key to getting out of a hole is to quit digging. Fundamentally, I believe that this bill does more digging than not. And I say that from three different points: One, there is a process question. In fairness to the chairman and others, in some ways, this was handed to them, and I think that there are serious questions that any of us should have with regard to process. Two, it does remove the caps. As draconian as they are, they represent the only piece of financial restraint in Washington, D.C., that has encumbered this entity. That, I think, has a lot to do with the fiscal restraint that we have seen on domestic discretionary spending. And finally, as my colleague from California just pointed out, there is borrowing from Peter to pay for Paul. And if you look at where disability insurance is getting money from the standpoint of old age survivors, if you look at the bandwidth question, if you look at the strategic oil question, if you look at pension smoothing and a whole number of other areas, you are left with this larger question of this still does not solve the problem of this upward trajectory that we have with regard to spending in this place. Therefore, I would remind everyone of what Admiral Mike Mullen said, who is the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said that the greatest threat to our civilization was the national debt. At the end of the day, this bill compounds it; and for that reason, I would respectfully encourage a ``no.''

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentlewoman. Madam Speaker, my colleague from Maryland made the comment just a moment ago of the ``responsibility caucus,'' that he would like to see more of that. What I would submit to everybody in this Chamber is that, ultimately, what my colleague from California's bill is all about is, indeed, just that because, if you think about it, we really are living in an age of default. Laurence Kotlikoff, from Boston University, has said that, in a thing called generational accounting, the imputed cost of governing--the imputed cost for a child born in America today in terms of future costs all in--is about 80 percent. Eighty percent is not all that far from a thing called slavery if you have to be indentured to the Federal Government for the preponderance of your life and your life's work. What this is ultimately about is defusing that bomb. Erskine Bowles was the former Chief of Staff to President Clinton. He ran a commission that looked at the way our Federal Government spent money. He said that what we have before us is the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man and that it is but 10 years off--roughly, 10 years off. So, as we have a legitimate debate--and we will have a legitimate debate between Republicans and Democrats and Independents and all of us as Americans in where we go next--what this does is defuse that bomb of a train wreck with regard to international and national credit markets as we have that debate, and that is a very good thing. This bill is about drawing a line as we have deadlines that come and go with this debate. It is about a tug of war that is taking place, and it is about saying let's step back and not risk credit markets and what might happen next on that front. Secondly, it is about simple priorities. In a family's budget, they differentiate between the mortgage budget and the movie budget. Not all government expenditure is equal. There is a whole host of programs in the Federal Government that make a lot of sense and some, frankly, that don't, some that add a lot of value and some that add a little bit of value. For us to say, ``I will tell you what. As we go through those deliberations, let's back up and protect the financial creditworthiness of the United States Government,'' it is, ultimately, a real step of responsibility. I commend my colleague from California for offering this bill. I thank him for his work to defuse a ticking time bomb in the debate that will take place--a ticking time bomb that will go on, nonetheless, with regard to what happens next with regard to the national debt.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is one fundamental question in this debate, and that is: Should a child be trapped in a school that traps them? Should a child be trapped in a school that, for whatever reason, isn't working for them but would forever limit their capacity and their potential in life? To me, that is what H.R. 10 is all about. I think it is important to remember that 98 percent of the kids that have entered this program have come from schools that were not performing; and in that regard, this is simply a way out, it is a hand up. I think it fundamentally recognizes that dignity and worth that comes with giving somebody a choice. I think it is something that every human being wants, which is simply a choice. I think it is a recognition of the fact that one size never fits all, that God makes us all different, and therefore a plethora of different choices is vital in the marketplace. Finally, it is recognition of the fact that the marketplace has the ability to create choices that might take forever in other systems, time that these kids do not have. I would ask that we refocus on the kids.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, today, Friday, October 9, 2015, I am in Charleston, South Carolina, accompanying Secretary Jeh Johnson of the Department of Homeland Security and attending to matters related to the historic storm and flooding in my district and as a consequence, I will not be present for votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Roll Call 545--Amash Amendment to H.R. 702: YEA. Roll Call 546--Messer Amendment to H.R. 702: YEA. Roll Call 547--Messer Amendment to H.R. 702: YEA. Roll Call 548--Motion to Recommit H.R. 702: NAY. Roll Call 549--Final Passage of H.R. 702: NAY.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Willis R. Walling, who died on Wednesday, September 9, 2015, at the age of ninety-four. Affectionately known as ``Wally'' to me and many others, he will be missed. Born in Newark, NJ, he was the son of the late Willis H. and Gladys R. Walling. Those who knew Wally would say some of his fondest memories were of the time he spent serving as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War II. You might even call his adventures ``legendary,'' with sixty-six missions in Europe and becoming the tenth Allied plane to land in France after D-Day. He was one of the greatest supporters of the Allied Forces through France and beyond. After leaving the service, he and his wife, Peg, moved to New Jersey where he served as President of Swan Manufacturing in Rockaway, NJ. It was during his time in Rockaway that he and Peg became active in the New Jersey Republican Party where he served as chairman for a period of time. As many Northerners do, he and Peg moved south after retirement. Lucky for us South Carolinians, they chose Pawleys Island as their new home. They both quickly became active in local politics. I had the pleasure of meeting Wally during my first run for Congress in 1994 and have since appreciated his kindness and hospitality. Of course, you appreciate everyone who joins you in the heat of battle on the campaign trail, but it is the ones who are with you from the beginning who you hold closest to your heart. Wally was one of the loyal ones who would stick with you. Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage are the seven values of the Army, and Wally was a man who exemplified every one of them. His surviving daughters, Susan Houser, Jeanne Auermuller (Bob), and Diane Dunham (Phil), eight grandchildren, and twelve great-grandchildren can be proud of the man they called ``Dad'' or ``Grandpa,'' and I have no doubt that they would be. They will miss him dearly . . . and I will too.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in opposition to the so-called Iran nuclear accord. I do so for all the reasons that have been well- articulated over the last couple of hours. But I also do so based simply on the reason of history. And it is a history that is actually shared with the chairman, in that we were here together in the 1990s. Then-President Clinton at that time met with North Korea. They formed an accord that basically said: We will give you benefits now for the promise of becoming a responsible member of the world community going forward. The benefits went and accrued to North Korea. The responsible membership in the world community never came. In that regard, though, the President is certainly well-intended in his efforts. This promise will prove as real as this notion of, if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. His intentions were good in that regard, with regard to providing health insurance, but it just didn't pan out. I don't think it will be any different in this particular deal. In that regard, I think it is important to think about what neighbors think of neighbors. In this case, it is important to look at what the Prime Minister of Israel has said in that he believes this is a mistake of ``historic proportions.'' I think in many ways it mirrors what we saw in 1938. At that point, Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler and gave away Czechoslovakia in the process. But there in the Munich accords there was this promise of peace, lasting peace in our time. The peace lasted less than a year, and it did not materialize. I think that the saying is that those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. I think we would be very well-advised to look at the recent history of the 1990s in the North Korea deal, the history of the 1930s, and a whole lot of history across the last 1,000 years that say trading off peace for security is never something that works so well.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 2722.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I rise in utter respect for my colleague from California and his colleagues and the Interior bill that they created and all the good that it does. This is, in essence, just a very small refining amendment that, as was described in the reading, would simply prohibit the Department of the Interior from moving forward on sales within block 260. I think that this is important for a number of different reasons that I will enumerate. But I want to be clear. This is not an amendment about a belief in there being dangers with regard to technology that is used and employed offshore. I have been quite impressed in all the studies I have done in the technological advancements that have taken place. Nor is it an amendment about the belief that we shouldn't be using fossil fuels. I think that fossil fuels are very important in the mix with regard to energy independence in this country. What this amendment is simply about is the age-old notion that Washington doesn't always know best, that the Founding Fathers were really deliberate in their belief in this notion of Federalism; that they divided power not only laterally, but vertically; that there was a Federal Government, but there was also a State and a local government; and those municipalities or those States should have a voice, too. It is about recognizing that there is a difference between comment and control. And what municipalities, what people back home in South Carolina along the coast, are saying is: We want to have more than just a comment. We want to have control over our destiny in the way that the coast develops. For that reason, nine communities in my district alone as well as 65 communities up and down the eastern seaboard have added comments, saying: We want to push the pause button here. And, indeed, that is all this amendment does. It says: Let's pause so that we can do a cost-benefit analysis going forward. I think that this is important, given the large context. You know, we are talking about 4 percent of the oil reserves within the Continental U.S. We are talking about a 5-month supply. These communities are saying a 5-month supply versus a lifetime impact in a place like Saint Helena Sound. If you look at the ACE Basin, it has been nationally recognized as a treasure. It is about 250,000 acres on the coast of South Carolina. The Federal Government put a lot of money into preserving it, as did State and private interests. And what people are saying is: Given the amount of industrialization that has to take place to support the offshore rigs, do you bring those pipes and that supply in through a place like Saint Helena Sound? Again, what people have said along the coast of South Carolina is: Let's pause and reflect on that. And that is what this amendment does. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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