Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, again, I respect the Solomon's wisdom that would be required by the chairman and others on the committee in dividing the different interests, and that is why I think the Founding Fathers had it right. They said that, ultimately, nobody in Washington can have Solomon's wisdom when you talk about local perspective and local interests, that there was a real value to local voice, those nine communities. If you think about Saint Helena Sound as the example that I just cited, the little town south of there, Beaufort, drew up a resolution, and the county and the city council moved forward, saying: We don't want to move forward with this. The little town to the east, Edisto Beach, moved forward with the resolution citing the same. The larger town to the north, Charleston, did the same. Those local inputs, those local people, have said: We have seen what might or might not come here. We think it is worthy of a pause. Again, that is all this amendment does. It doesn't say: We will forever not have offshore drilling in sale 260. What it says is: For the next 5 years, why don't we allow for more public input and more voice, given the fact that there are lifetime impacts and really long-lasting impacts in certain pristine and/or developed areas along the coast of South Carolina or other coastal areas along the block of 260. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine.

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

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

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, in just a moment, I will request a moment of silence, but before I do, I stand here with other Members of the South Carolina delegation to say our colleague Jim Clyburn, who right now is back home visiting with aggrieved families on the coast of South Carolina, and many of us, like Senator Scott and others, will be going back during this week to visit with those same families. I am joined as well by members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Members of this body who have been deeply shaken by the events of this last week in Charleston, South Carolina. I rise with this group on behalf of the nine families who have been impacted back home, on behalf of the people of the First District of South Carolina, and on behalf of the people of South Carolina who have shown a whole lot of heart and a whole lot of love here over the last week. I say this because, less than a week ago, as we all know, a young man with incomprehensible malice came into the Mother Emanuel AME Church on Calhoun Street in Charleston, South Carolina, and did the unthinkable as he joined a Bible study and he gunned down nine of the members, the parishioners, there in the church. Fortunately, our story doesn't end there because the family members of the victims also did the unthinkable. I say that because there, at the bond hearing, they did the unimaginable, the incomprehensible in, I guess, showing human grace is a reflection of God's grace and what is talked about in Romans in not repaying evil with evil, but repaying evil with good because, at the bond hearing, the first family comes up, and they say: ``I am in incomprehensible pain, but I forgive you.'' The next family comes up: ``I am in incredible pain, but I forgive you.'' Those were the words that were repeated by each of the nine families: ``I forgive you, I forgive you, and I forgive you.'' That set in motion and, if you will, set the stage this last week in Charleston for a level of community that I have never before seen in my life and amazing things done at the church and in the community at large. It is for that reason that we all stand here to remember the names of the nine victims and to pause for a moment of silence here in just a moment. If I might, let me read the names of the victims: Reverend Clementa Pinckney; Tywanza Sanders; Cynthia Hurd; Reverend Sharonda Coleman-Singleton; Myra Thompson; Ethel Lance; Reverend Daniel Simmons, Sr.; Reverend Depayne Middleton-Doctor; and Susie Jackson. Would you all join me and join us in a moment of silence.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for offering this important proposal that he is joined with by colleagues from California, New York, North Carolina, and other places. I am a Republican who stands proudly with this Democrat because I think he is hitting the nail on the head. I do so because, in this instance, it has been argued against as a blunt instrument. But what the Founding Fathers were incredibly deliberate about--very blunt about, if you will--was that only Congress had the ability to declare war. And so this one blunt instrument is ultimately about backing up the bluntness of the Constitution in absolutely being declarative in suggesting that only Congress has the power to authorize war. What the Founding Fathers knew was that, at the end of the day, body bags don't come back to Washington, D.C., when something goes wrong in some far-off battlefield; they come back to congressional districts across this country. So they wanted a check and a balance wherein people from those local districts could report into Congress and say that this is or this isn't working for folks back home. Again, the Founding Fathers were so blunt. I look here at a document that is 250 days beyond the authorization of war that is even granted in the War Powers Act. I look at an administration and the Congress that is hinging, it is building and sustaining of war in the Middle East based on a 14-year-old document, in essence, a blank check, and there are no blank checks in this process. I look at what James Madison said years ago. He said: ``The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war to the legislature.'' This proposal is about cost. It is about saying we have spent $2.5 trillion in the Middle East. The Harvard study says 6 trillion.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, for all these different reasons, we need to stop and pause, not necessarily to bring troops home, but, as has been suggested by others, to force a debate on Congress' role. This is something Republicans and Democrats ought to equally care about: Do we or don't we have proper lanes in the channel? Is the executive exceeding its authority or not? This is something Republicans absolutely ought to care about. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, again, I commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his work on this and ask for this bill which is so important for, simply, Congress' authorization of war effort.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2131, a bill to designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ``J. Waties Waring Judicial Center'' and urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank Representative Jim Clyburn for introducing the bill, which has the full support of our state's congressional delegation. This bill is a reflection of two things: human kindness and bold leadership. There is a saying that, ``One of the most difficult things to give away is kindness; it usually comes back to you.'' This bill is, in some ways, a reflection of that notion. Under the category of human kindness, this bill came as a result of a phone call from Senator Fritz Hollings asking that the name on the courthouse in Charleston named after him be changed to honor the memory of the late Judge Julius Waties Waring. Although Judge Waring has a remarkable legal legacy, in the case of Senator Hollings, it all began with human kindness. In the 1940's, Fritz Hollings was a young attorney in Charleston and practiced in front of Judge Waring. What impressed him was that Judge Waring was, ``damned nice to me. He made sure young lawyers weren't bumfuzzled or run over by senior lawyers.'' If the story stopped there, we probably would not be discussing this bill today. Instead, it is Judge Waring's bold leadership that makes this commemoration particularly fitting. As a federal district court judge, J. Waties Waring ruled on several key cases that set the stage for one of the most significant court cases in our nation's history. In the 1940's, Judge Waring heard and ruled on cases that opened South Carolina's ``white only'' Democratic primary and forcing equal pay for black and white school teachers. By 1948, TIME Magazine declared him as ``The Man They Love to Hate'' in South Carolina. In fact, in 1950, the South Carolina House of Representatives debated a resolution asking Judge Waring and his wife to leave the state and even offered to pay for the one-way tickets. This all came before his dissenting vote in the 1951 Briggs v. Elliott case involving segregated busing in Clarendon County in South Carolina. In that case, Thurgood Marshall argued that black students were being treated unfairly because although there were three times as many black students, funding for transportation was only half. As a result, black students were walking up to nine miles to school. The case was decided against the plaintiff by a 2-1 vote, with Judge Waring voting in dissent. In his opinion, Waring argued that segregation was ``an evil that must be eradicated'' and a result of ``unreasonable, unscientific and . . . unadulterated prejudice.'' His dissent would travel with the case all the way to the Supreme Court, where the Briggs case became one of five cases decided with Brown v. Board of Education, which recognized segregation as a violation of the 14th Amendment. Although Judge Waring left the bench not long after the Briggs case, the impact of his leadership still resides today. I think naming this building after Judge Waring is a particularly fitting commemoration of his bold leadership, his willingness to take a stand, and the human kindness that's being extended by Senator Hollings back to Judge Waring.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Three quick points. If you follow this logic, then no American plane should fly into Saigon, no American plane should fly into China, no American plane should fly into Russia, because indeed property was confiscated at the time of the Russian revolution, the Chinese taking, or, for that matter, what happened in Vietnam. There are American properties there. This is not about American property rights. This is about legalistically trying to undo that which has been changed. The other thing it is about is, again, legalism. What the bill actually says is if a boat docks in the previous 180 days within 7 miles of a port or property where there may be land somewhere connected. This is a legalistic attempt to undo what the President has proposed.

Mr. SANFORD. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, my comments will be brief. It is quite simple. The concept is this: if I travel on Delta Airlines to Moscow, it does not mean that I support Putin; if I travel on Royal Caribbean to Shanghai, it does not mean I support the Chinese regime. This bill is fundamentally, as my colleague from California has pointed out, about Americans' right to travel. It is, secondarily, about something we talk about as Republicans, which is balance of power. If we don't want the President overstepping his bounds, we shouldn't overstep our bounds as Members of Congress. That is precisely what this bill does in trying to proscribe the President, though he has full authority within the licensing, within the Department of Commerce, to do as he has done. Finally, I think it is about American opportunity. Why should we have Canadian or Mexican jets traveling to a country that we are allowed to travel to rather than American jets?

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just make three last points. As was correctly pointed out by my colleague from California, indeed this is about American jobs. It indeed is about, again, this larger notion of private property rights. I would stand my private property rights record up to anybody. I believe strongly in private property rights and legal code, which is why Ms. Lee is correct: should there be bilateral relations between Cuba and the United States, this would be part of that discussion. But the idea of creating a legal hurdle for an airline not to be able to fly from Miami or Tampa to Havana--and instead, those jobs go to other places around the globe--makes no sense to me. Finally, I would simply say this. We have tried 50 years of one policy, and it hasn't worked. It was Ronald Reagan who encouraged travel to the Eastern Bloc countries. I think it would make sense in this instance.

Mr. SANFORD

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

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment, as has been laid out, which is to, in essence, make an across-the-board cut of this particular appropriation by 2.48 percent. I think it is important to do so simply for this reason. I was in a Budget hearing this morning, and the new Director of the Congressional Budget Office came by. In his testimony, what he talked about was the way in which the American civilization and the Federal budget was nearing a tipping point beyond which there would be substantial consequence to that which we can budget here at the Federal level; to the value of the dollar; to future interest rates; and, ultimately, to the American way of life. I think what is interesting is that, indeed, Admiral Mike Mullen, a military man, observed the same, because when he was asked what is the biggest threat to the American way of life and to American security, his answer was the American debt. You can look at a long list of different authors who have talked about this theme in different ways. You know, Reinhart and Rogoff talked about it in their book entitled, ``This Time is Different,'' wherein, again, you look at economies that get to around 90 percent debt to GDP and, frankly, the wheels start to come off. Bad things begin to happen both to the economy and to the government's ability to perpetuate funding for programs that are important. We have gone through a long list of well-discussed programs within this particular appropriation bill that are important, but for our government's ability to sustain those programs, we need to look beyond 10 or 15 years out. We need to look at the long run, and ultimately that is what this bill is about. I think it is interesting from a nonpartisan standpoint that Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson said, if you look at our financial picture, it is the most predictable financial collapse or calamity in the history of man. I could go through a lot of other reasons numerically as to why I think it is important, but the short answer is we are nearing that tipping point that was talked about in the Budget hearing this morning. I see my colleague standing, so I will reserve the balance of my time and come back to a few other points in a moment.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I admire the earnestness of my colleagues who, in good faith, are pressing forward in terms of trying to protect a whole host of programs that I think we all recognize are of great importance to the American people. Churchill once observed that the beauty of the American political system was that it always did the right thing--after it had exhausted every other possible remedy. My fear in this is, if we wait late in the game, and this is exactly what the Budget Director was talking about this morning, if we wait, the consequences to waiting, in numerical terms, become horrific. We are dealing with a math trap that compounds with time. Einstein, in fact, was once asked what is the most powerful force in the universe, and his reply was compound interest. The numbers become, I think, absolutely compelling. So I would agree with my colleagues that across-the-board cuts are absolutely not the best way to go. When I was involved in State politics, I worked earnestly against across-the-board cuts. It is only out of desperation that I offer a proposal that entails across-the- board cuts because, again, if we wait, what the Budget Director this morning says was that there will be real consequences. I would make four additional points: One, if we are serious about addressing the entitlement problem, then we shouldn't be borrowing from entitlement spending to fund mandatory spending, and that is exactly what this particular appropriation bill does to the tune of about $10 billion. So I think that if we are really going to get earnest about entitlement spending, this would be a place to start, which is part of the reason as to why we focused on this particular appropriation bill. Two, my colleague from California mentioned national debt is at an all-time low. That is incorrect. In fact, we are at an all-time high if you look at the numbers. Roughly, it took us 200 years to get to $5 trillion in debt. Over the Bush administration, we went from 5 to 10. It doubled. And now, during the Obama administration, it is going to double again from roughly 10 to 20. It is at an all-time high. I think the key to a mortgage is your ability to pay it off. It is not, again, is there a mortgage or isn't there. It is can you pay it off. If you look at the numbers--and increasingly rating agencies around the world have suggested that when you get up around that 90 percent number, there is less and less probability that you will be able to perpetuate that spending, which goes to the heart of can we perpetuate our ability to fund these worthwhile programs, which is what this amendment is about. Lastly, I would say Admiral Mullen, when he spoke against the sequester, he did so, in large measure, because what he recognized was the way in which sequester disproportionately impacted the military. For a host of reasons, again, I would ask support for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, last week a federal appeals court declared that the NSA's bulk data collection on American citizens over the past 14 years was illegal. So why is Congress considering a bill that would legalize a program already deemed illegal? Unfortunately, that is what the USA FREEDOM Act does, and I believe codifies a program that violates the Constitution. When the Fourth Amendment says that the American people have the right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures of themselves and their property, I think it's a pretty clear statement on the limits of governmental action. Unfortunately, the bill today does not fully protect that right and accordingly I don't support it. The bill's purpose was to rein in the NSA's bulk data collection program but failed on that front, and I wanted to offer a few thoughts as to why. First, the bill uses broad language to define who and what the government can search, which means that it still could technically collect Americans' information in bulk--just not as much as before. The bill does this by leaving the door open for the government to search geographic regions instead of the entire country as it does now. For example, the government could require phone companies to turn over all the records of their customers in South Carolina or even in a town like Mt. Pleasant in my district. I don't think the Founding Fathers' intent of the Fourth Amendment was to have it apply only in cases of nation- wide warrantless searches; rather it should apply to any search anywhere. Second, the bill doesn't even address a part of the PATRIOT Act called Section 702 that covers data that crosses our borders. This section allows the government to sweep up the content of an American citizen's emails, instant messages and web browsing history just because they happen to be communicating with someone outside the U.S. In fact, the former NSA director General Keith Alexander admitted that the NSA specifically searches Section 702 data using ``U.S. person identifiers.'' This so-called ``back door search loophole'' should have been closed in this bill because it violates the Fourth Amendment by getting around the warrant requirement. The notion that Americans' rights are contingent on the geography of where a call is directed is not consistent with the Constitution and highlights why this particular section needs to be changed. Third, this bill does not require the government to destroy information obtained on Americans who are not connected to an investigation. The way this happens is the government stores the information it collected on a particular phone call, even if one of those individuals on the call is suspected of no wrongdoing. The Constitution I believe is rather clear in the principle that organizations like the NSA and the FBI should not be able to store information that is inadvertently collected on people who are not suspected of committing a crime, and at a very minimum the FREEDOM Act does not use this opportunity to shine a light on the problem. Pericles, the Greek general of Athens, once said that ``Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.'' Ultimately, I believe this bill is another missed opportunity for Congress to address what the judiciary has now ruled to be the unconstitutional and unlawful actions of the Executive branch. It really matters the Second Circuit federal court in New York issued an opinion last week stating that the NSA has stretched the meaning of the text of the PATRIOT Act so that it no longer represents congressional intent and called the NSA's bulk data collection illegal. It really matters that this bill would codify actions of the NSA that were ruled to be outside the bounds of law. I think it also matters that the debate that is taking place is as old as civilization as there has always been a tension between security and freedom. And it really matters that historically those civilizations that have given up freedom in the interest of security have historically lost both. For all these reasons each one of us should care deeply about what happens next on bulk collections at the NSA--and the way this bill comes up short in protecting liberty's foundation, civil liberty.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise because too often here at the Federal level we find ourselves rewarding or occasionally funding corporations that would do what they do irregardless of what we did at the Federal level. It has been a point of contention with Democratic colleagues. Too often we continue to pay for programs that have outlived their original purpose. I think that too often we find ourselves looking the other way at programs that don't work and/or have wasted tens upon tens of millions of dollars. It is for those different reasons that I rise to offer this amendment, which would indeed defund the Department of Energy's failed Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. Quite simply, it would just do two things: one, it would eliminate the $6 million in funding that would go to this program, and, two, it would prevent any further lending from this program's unused lending capacity. The reason I think doing those two things are awfully important is, one, this is, indeed, a case of paying corporations to do what they would already do. Again, this has been a point in the budget debate that we had earlier today from both Republican and Democratic colleagues alike, saying we shouldn't be paying corporations to do things they would already do. Two, this is, indeed, a stimulus era program. However well intended in 2009, it has outlived its purpose, and we are not in the economic situation that we found ourselves in 2009. In fact, this program's authority expired back in 2012, and I think it is a recognition by this Congress of the fact that maybe some of the program hasn't been working so well as to why that has indeed occurred. Finally, this program has seen real losses; 40 percent of its loans have gone bad. According to a GAO report, they actually wrote up some of those losses. What I might do is just share for one moment with my colleagues, as part of a government reform look at this program, there was a letter to then Secretary Chu February 28, 2012, from one of the applicants. In it he quotes the chairman of a Fortune 10 company--not 100, but Fortune 10 company, and this is in the reference to the letter--told your former deputy, Jonathan Silver, that this program lacked integrity. That is, it did not have a consistent process and rules against which private enterprises could rationally evaluate their chances and intelligently allocate time and resources against that process. There can be no greater failing of government than to not have integrity when dealing with its taxpaying citizens. For a variety of reasons, I offer this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SANFORD. I thank both of my colleagues for their counterpoints, and I understand absolutely this notion of competitiveness. I agree with Thomas Friedman, the world is flat; and we are in a global competition for jobs, capital, and way of life. Look at, again, the fundamentals of this program. I have here a GAO-- Government Accountability Office--report that says the cost of participating in this program outweighs the benefits to companies. That is a GAO report, not a private sector report, not a rightwing report. I think it is also interesting, in pulling this letter that was, again, written by a supplicant to the agency itself, said that the due diligence process in their attempt--and they ultimately quit--but their attempt to get a loan was more than 1,175 days. His point in this letter was that that was more than tenuous and, frankly, had much to do with their ultimately ceasing and desisting. I would also make this point: they have only made five loans. If we were depending on these five loans for innovation in new technology in the way that internal combustion engines work or the way that we burn fossil fuel, we are in real trouble, but five loans is what we are talking about. I would also make this point: I think, at some point, given the scarcity of resources that we do deal with in Washington, D.C., we have to at some level make a divide between big companies. Ford's market cap is $63 billion. Alcoa's is $16 billion. Would not these funds be better used going to small innovators, as opposed to these large, multinational corporations that I think, in many cases, are the beneficiary of corporate largesse, but corporate largesse that I don't think serves the taxpayer well or, according to these industry analysts, the industry as well? I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, in watching this debate back and forth, I am reminded of the saying: ``If you like sausage, don't watch it being made.'' The same is true, certainly, with the budget process, in fairness to my colleague from Maryland, and the same is true for the overall legislative process. It is a decidedly human and imperfect process. What we have here is a result of the House and Senate coming together on a budget, and it is something that we haven't seen for a long, long while. We certainly didn't see it while Harry Reid was running the Senate. As a consequence of the House and Senate coming together on a budget, we will see debate go to 11:30 or midnight tonight on appropriations bills, and they will do that week, after week, after week going forward. I, myself, will come down with an amendment on Energy and Water. I suspect other Members in this very Chamber will come down with similar amendments, saying, ``I think we need to add something here,'' or ``we need to subtract something here.'' That process of scrubbing the budget is something that has been absent for years. That process is called regular order, but regular folks back home would call it, simply, common sense because it is what they do every day. Vital to any well-run organization is that ability to go in and say, ``This isn't working so well over here. I think we need to take from here this low performer and add to this high performer.'' It is done in churches; it is done in families; it is done in businesses; and it needs to be done in the Federal Government. I think, as a matter of process, what we have is awfully, awfully important. For too long, our Federal Government has been running on automatic pilot. Entitlements run on automatic pilot, but, in essence, domestic discretionary has been running on automatic pilot as we run on CRs and omnibus bills. I mean, you would go bankrupt in no time if your mode of operation were to simply say, ``I will take what I spent last year, and I am going to spend it again this year.'' Yet that is the way the Federal Government has been running, and it is this budget that actually moves us away from that process. In fairness to my Democratic colleagues, this is important from the standpoint of democracy. When you have an omnibus bill or a CR, somebody is still deciding what goes into that stuff. It is oftentimes leadership and staff as opposed to rank and file Members going down to the floor and saying, ``I think we need to subtract here or to add here.'' So there are two different levels that, I think, are awfully important. Are there still deficiencies? Obviously so. I mean, I think that when you look at the budget cap issue and when you look at the issue of off budget those are both pathways to financial oblivion, and they have got to be addressed. The bigger framework that has been set in place is by moving to regular order and by the House and Senate coming together on a budget--thanks to your leadership, Mr. Chairman--which, I think, is vital. As a consequence, I will be supporting this measure.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I would join in urging my colleagues to defeat this Democratic motion to instruct the conferees, and I do so very much tied to the working families that I talked to back home because working families back home believe in balancing the checkbook. They have to do it every day in their lives. What they say to me is, Why in the world can't you guys do the same up in Washington, D.C.? In that regard, if we were to go the other route--I mean, keep in mind, the President's budget proposed going from running structural $500 billion a year deficits to $1.1 trillion a year deficits. This is moving in the wrong direction if we go with the instructions. I think that when I talk to working families back home, what they tell me is we have got to deal with problems as they come along. Doing nothing is not an option. So when there is a hole in the roof, they are out there with tin or they are out there with shingles and they are, in fact, repairing the roof. When there is a problem with the septic tank, they are out there with a shovel, digging and trying to fix it. In the same regard, I think what the committee and what the conference have come up with with regard to looking at a way of saving Medicare could be very, very instructive. As has already been noted, within 15 years, the actuaries say that the Medicare fund will be out of money. Doing nothing is, indeed, not an option. I think philosophically you have got to look at this and say, Did Medicare D work? It has worked. This is giving choice. So, in essence, 50 million seniors get to decide the future of Medicare versus 15 unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Finally, I would say, what is important about this, I think, from the standpoint of working families, what they tell me is that borrowing from Peter to pay for Paul never works. It doesn't work in their budgets at home; it shouldn't work in Washington, D.C. Yet, with this proposal to come up with paid sick leave, a lot of people would love that, but it ought to be addressed at the State level. States run on balanced budget requirements. A number of States could come in with proposals to that effect, but if we do it here in Washington, D.C., at the very time when we are running structural $500 billion deficits, it means that we are handing the bill off to the kids to pay for this. We are, indeed, borrowing from Peter to pay for Paul. It is for those very reasons that I urge defeat of the Democratic motion to instruct.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman. Madam Chairman, I would just make the point that as we have this debate on the so-called Progressive budget versus the House budget, that in fact it is Chairman Price's committee budget that is indeed the progressive budget. And I say that for this reason. If you stop and think about this notion of being progressive, it is to yield to innovation, to change to flexibility in one's own choice in the way that one does something. And I don't think that there is anything more sacred in that regard than the way that one spends one's own money. If we were to go with this alternative, what we would see on the tax and spending side is going from 18 percent of GDP up to around 22 percent of GDP. Those are sort of amorphous numbers, but what does that equate to in 2025? It equates to about $800 billion. $800 billion means that you could go and fund the State of South Carolina government 115 times. In other words, you could take that product, multiply it times 115. Think about what we spend on, for instance, transportation here at the Federal level. You could fund it 60 times. It is a big number by any account. And fundamentally, it is a question of equity. Should 435 folks here in this Chamber decide how folks' money is spent, or should they decide how their money is spent? I think it is also important because when you think about debt and deficit and interest payments, if we were to go with this alternative, what we are looking at is substantial increases on that front, so much so that I think that you are looking at the next generation that, to a degree, becomes an indentured servant to the Federal Government. This isn't my thinking. If you go to the University of Boston, Laurence Kotlikoff has done a study on a thing called generational accounting. It says, What is the imputed cost for a child born in America in terms of tax and spending load? It is about 82 percent. That is 82 percent. In fairness to Chairman Price, what he has done is try to stem that tide and moves us back in the direction so that people have more discretion on how they spend their money. And that is ultimately what is at play. I would also say that it is progressive from the standpoint in the way that the House budget attempts to deal with entitlements. Take, for instance, just the healthcare side. On Medicare, there is nothing crazier than trying to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result because what all the actuaries have said is, if we continue on that road, we are going to see real shortfalls with regard to the Federal Government's ability to handle entitlements. On ObamaCare, there is nothing progressive about forcing somebody to pay into a system that may or may not fit their needs. On the Medicaid level, there is nothing less progressive than not offering choices. Think about the diversity of the different States we have out there and how different the health care needs may be in South Carolina than the inner city of Los Angeles. What Chairman Price's proposal does, is say: Let's give flexibility to different States so the Governors in those different States can look at what works best for them and their citizens.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I just heard the budget described as draconian. I would say that doing nothing, ultimately, is draconian because what the numbers show is that if we do nothing, roughly in 10 years we will be spending about $800 billion a year in interest alone--more than we spend on all of our Nation's defense. I could give any number of different indicators that say if we do nothing, we are headed for a train wreck that will have real impact on the very constituencies that my Democratic colleagues were just alluding to. It is not a perfect budget. We are having an intense debate, whether it is on the Democratic side or, frankly, even within the Republican family. I just had a conversation with my colleague, Mike Turner from Ohio, who is really passionate about the need to spend more on defense. We are still working out those wrinkles. But what I do know, in fairness to the chairman and what he has tried to do in managing the different folks that are affected by this budget, is to say: If you are in a hole, you quit digging. And fundamentally, if you look at our Nation's budget trajectory, we are in a hole that is going to get far worse if we don't do what the chairman and the committee have suggested. I would say, one, we are spending too much. And yet the President's proposal is to go from spending roughly around 20 percent of GDP up to 22 percent of GDP, from a historic average of, frankly, around 18 percent. We are taxing too much. We are going to go in the President's proposal from spending of around 18 percent to around 20 percent--a little bit over that. That doesn't sound like much, but you take two points of a GDP in 2025, and you are looking at more than $500 billion--more than, again, roughly what we spend in defense for our entire Nation on a yearly basis. We have a budget trajectory where we are handing too much debt to the next generation. And we are headed, again, for this unsustainable train wreck. Think about it this way. It took our country 200 years to accumulate $5 trillion in debt. Under the Bush administration, in fairness to my Democratic colleagues, it went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the course of about 8 years. And then, under the Obama administration, it has gone from $10 trillion to roughly $20 trillion. The growth is becoming geometric. And the question is: What are we going to do about it? What we can do is what the President has proposed, which is nothing--adding $2 trillion in new taxes, adding $8 trillion in new debt, and going from structural $500 billion deficits to $1.1 trillion deficits. I think that what we are talking about here is ultimately made important by what Admiral Mike Mullen had to say on the subject. When asked what the biggest threat is to the American civilization, his response was the American debt and deficit. We are reaching this tipping point. If you look at the numbers, by 2025 we will only have enough money for interest and entitlements, and nothing else, without raising taxes substantially or cutting those benefits that my colleagues have just been talking about. I will leave you with one point, and I think it is this. Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler studied history for the whole of his life.

Mr. SANFORD. He got to the end of his life and the quote that was attributed to him at life's end was: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always fails under a loose fiscal policy, and it is generally followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed to this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; great courage to liberty; liberty to abundance; abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency; complacency to apathy; apathy to dependency; and from dependency back again into bondage. Ultimately, what I think that this budget is about is avoiding that very bondage that that historian and many others have talked about over the years.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Tuesday, March 17, 2015, due to my attendance at the funeral of my close friend, John Rainey. By any account he lived an extraordinary life based on the lives he touched, the difference he made and the degree to which he was a great friend to all those blessed to call him just that. I was one of those so fortunate, and accordingly I will miss him dearly. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Roll call no. 116: Previous Question on H. Res. 138--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1029--EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 and consideration of H.R. 1030--Secret Science Reform Act of 2015: Yea Roll call no. 117: Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 1029-- EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 and consideration of H.R. 1030--Secret Science Reform Act of 2015: Yea Roll call no. 118: H.R. 1191--Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act: Yea Roll call no. 119: McKinley Amendment: Yea Roll call no. 120: Motion to recommit H.R. 1029 with instructions: Nay Roll call no. 121: H.R. 1029--EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015: Yea