Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Tuesday, March 17, 2015, due to the attendance of a funeral for a close friend. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall 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;'' rollcall 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;'' rollcall No. 118: H.R. 1191--Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act: ``yea;'' rollcall No. 119: McKinley Amendment: ``yea;'' rollcall No. 120: Motion to recommit H.R. 1029 with instructions: ``nay;'' rollcall No. 121: H.R. 1029--EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015: ``yea.''

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for raising what I think is such a fundamental point with regard to government spending. It really raises the crossroads I think that we are at as a society. Because in my mind, I keep going out to about 2025, which you well illustrate on that chart. And at that point, we are only going to have enough money for interest and entitlements and nothing else, without either raising taxes substantially, cutting benefits substantially, or running very large deficits going forward. And ultimately, there comes a point of no return, as you correctly point out with your charts, wherein the world financial markets won't lend you anymore. So I think you are on to a remarkably important theme, and I think it underscores the degree to which we are going to have an important debate in this Chamber in really the next month because what the President has essentially said is that I am not going to deal with this. If you look fundamentally at the White House budget, at the core, it abandons this notion of financial discipline. I mean, it adds $2.2 trillion of new taxes. It adds $8.5 trillion of new debt. It goes from running structural $500 billion deficits to $1.1 trillion deficits, with no end in sight to the deficits that continue to grow. So this theme that you are getting on with regard to the mandatory component and the interest component of government spending I don't think can be underscored enough. And I don't want to interrupt you, but it just hit me as you were talking.

Mr. SANFORD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANFORD. Just on that point, though, it is so interesting that ultimately it is not just about balancing budgets, because I think that a lot of people from across this country look at the carrying on and the going on of Congress, and they say, You know, it is about green eye shades, and it is about trying to balance some numbers. No. It is about sustaining this Republic. Admiral Mike Mullen, when asked, What is the biggest threat to the American society? he didn't answer ``China,'' he didn't answer ``Russia.'' His answer was: The biggest threat to the American way of life is the national debt. If you were to look at a whole host of different folks across recent history--I mean, Paul Kennedy wrote I think an excellent book entitled ``The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,'' and its premise was that economic supremacy was the precursor to military supremacy, for a civilization to be able to continue to project force. I think it is so interesting that the Prime Minister of Israel was here earlier today. We heard Prime Minister Netanyahu lay out his concerns with regards to some things happening in the Middle East. But America's variability, whether it is in engaging with an ally like Israel or whether it is engaging in a whole host of other conflicts that are innumerable and guaranteed across the next 25 years or so, our ability to impact those things will be driven, frankly, by these economic numbers. I think it has been maligned, but Reinhart and Rogoff, a professor from the University of Maryland and a professor from Harvard, wrote a book entitled, ``This Time Is Different.'' They chronicled 800 years of financial history, and there have been some questions about how they got to some of their numbers. But the larger premise was in that title, ``This Time is Different.'' What you are pointing out is that, no, it is never different; math always works. And there is something fundamental about our civilization's need for not just a balanced budget for balanced budget's sake but to be able to sustain our ability to project power and maintain a way of life that we love, I think, that is underlined in these very charts that you are showing.

Mr. SANFORD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANFORD. On that point, I love keeping strange jotted notes in my office. Again, the number that you are getting at--because you are now touching on national defense--you know, Habsburg defaulted on all or part of its debt 14 times between 1557 and 1696. Pre-revolutionary France saw 62 percent of its royal revenue going to interest payments alone. Britain, between World War I and World War II, saw interest payments climb to 44 percent of the British budget. In the Ottoman Empire, interest payments and amortization rose from 15 percent of its budget in 1860 to 50 percent in 1875. In other words, this music has been played before with disastrous consequences, and that is why I think it is relevant. Keynes actually quoted Lenin, of all folks, and Lenin's quote was this: ``There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.'' What you are laying out with the chart which you so appropriately lay before the Congress is the very formula that Lenin, himself, was talking about in things that will challenge not only defense but the way in which a government sustains itself.

Mr. SANFORD. Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. SANFORD. Again, I think you are capturing, in essence, the totality of this debate because there is a guy up at the University of Boston called Laurence Kotlikoff, and he wrote a book called ``The Coming Generational Storm.'' Its premise is really built around your two grandkids because he says that the imputed tax for a child born into America today is about 84 percent, 84 percent. I mean, our civilization won't work. A market-based economy doesn't work with an 84 percent tax rate. Yet that is what he said is coming those two young children's way in the event that nothing is done to change the course and the trajectory of the way that Washington is spending money. He says that the total debt really amounts to around $200 trillion. So it hit me, as I was looking into your two grandchildren's eyes there in the photograph.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was delayed for votes on Tuesday, February 10, 2015, as the train I was on ended up being delayed by two and a half hours, and as a consequence, I arrived half an hour late and missed votes. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: H.R. 719--TSA Office of Inspection Accountability Act--vote: ``yes,'' H.R. 720--Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act--vote: ``yes.''

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this bill based on my admiration for you as a chair and for your work--the committee's work, frankly--in, I think, instituting a great bill that has important forms in projecting force around the world, in sustaining troop levels, and in ultimately defending our country. But I do believe, as was just mentioned by the last speaker, that there is still a glaring problem in that it continues this process of ceding power and authority from the legislative branch over the executive branch, which means, for me, as good as this bill is--and I think it is a great bill--there is still this larger constitutional question about the balance of power in our system of government at the Federal level. For me, what I would say is, I don't know how we condemn the President for taking unilateral action with regard to immigration and yet endorse a bill that authorizes and offers funds for his ability to take unilateral actions with regard to war in the Middle East. As has already been noted, he has burned through his 60 days in the War Powers Act. There is no declaration of war, and, in this case, there is no current authorization for these two wars.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. I thank not only the chairman but I thank the gentleman from Florida for his hard work on this important measure because my dad used to say that at times in life it is important to call an ace an ace. And I think fundamentally what this bill does is call an ace an ace with regard to cutting off and ending unilateral actions by Presidents, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. This is fundamentally about the balance of power in our Federal system. It is also important because it fits with what I am hearing from a lot of folks back home when they say, well, this issue of immigration reform has less to do with immigration than it has to do with the rule of law in this country and the way in which it should be applied to all folks equally. They say that it is fundamentally unfair for States to be burdened with new costs based on the unilateral action by a President. They say it is fundamentally unfair for our Federal entitlement system to be that much more wobbly based on a unilateral action by a President. And they say it is fundamentally unconstitutional for the President to take action in the pattern that he has, whether it is with the Affordable Care Act, whether it is with the Federal contracts, whether it is with war in the Middle East, or now immigration. So is this enough ultimately? No. I think we ultimately need to defund the President's ability to move forward. But it is an important first step in that basic notion that my dad prescribed of calling an ace an ace.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this bill. I believe in energy independence, as do the people I represent at home, and accordingly am supportive of opening up these offshore areas--but I do not think this should occur without the concurrence and input of coastal states that might be affected were something to go wrong. This fits with what I have consistently heard from people up and down the coast. Not all decisions must be made in Washington, and the idea of a drilling rig going up just a few miles from our coast without having to acknowledge any degree of state input to me is the codification of Washington control. Some may be for a drilling rig these few thousands of feet from their local beach, others may be against it . . . but in keeping with the principal of federalism, that decision needs to be made by those affected--not an unelected government worker in DC. Toward that end, I introduced a bill, H.R. 3051, the Coastal States Extension Act of 2013, which would give states the final say on oil and natural gas leases out to twelve nautical miles from the current three nautical mile limit. States no longer have a direct economic tie as you move beyond the line of sight and in this regard, I thought my bill a reasonable compromise between drill and no drill interests. This would give states the flexibility to consider what is best for their economies in terms of the balance between tourism, drilling, fisheries and other considerations. Texas, for instance, already has control of oil and natural gas leases out to nine nautical miles and the model there has worked well. It has not hampered drilling. I testified before the Rules committee the last time this bill came up, but unfortunately, this idea was not attached as an amendment to the bill we had before us and the current bill before us tonight is unamendable. I would have supported the bill if my proposal had been included and I hope we can include it in the future. Toward that end, I look forward to working with the Committee on Natural Resources to find a way forward on striking a more favorable balance between states' rights and energy independence.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the plan that has been put forward by the President. As you, Mr. Speaker, just noted a few moments ago, it is a small portion of a larger and, what I believe to be, fundamentally flawed plan. I say that for many different reasons, one of which is the simple reality that body bags from a far off battle or from a far off war don't return to Washington, D.C. They return to congressional districts and States across this country. It is for that very reason that the Founding Fathers believed so strongly in Congress having the authority, and the sole authority, for the declaration of war. I mean, I think it is important to look to what James Wilson, who happened to be one of the biggest advocates for a strong Presidency, said to his own State delegation back in 1787. He said on the importance of congressional authority with regard to war: This system will not hurry us into war. It is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man or a single body of men to involve us in such distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested at the legislative level at large. George Washington said this: The Constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress. Therefore, no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure. James Madison said this: The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature. The Executive has no right in any case to decide the question whether there is or is not cause for declaring war. I think our Founding Fathers had it right, and if we move forward today without stopping and waiting and insisting upon the President's constitutional duty to come before this body and ask for a declaration of war, I think we are making a mistake. I would say, secondly, that I think we are making a mistake because the news of today is that General Dempsey now says if the plan doesn't work out, he would in fact recommend American ground troops there in this crisis in the Middle East. I think that that is telling. Because if you stop and think about it, is America the only group that is expected to suffer through the ravages of war with regard to boots on the ground in this instant if General Dempsey's call is right? Think about this. There have been 6,600 American deaths there in that part of the world in recent history. There have been more than 50,000 soldiers that have returned with life-altering wounds. I mean, their lives are changed forever, and yet we can't get a real firm commitment out of allies there in the Middle East as to what they will or won't do with regard to ground troops. So if it is that big a threat, why is it that allies in that part of the world are not making real and substantial commitments with regard to what they will or won't do with regard to ground troops? Thirdly, I would say what we are doing is we are signing up for an open-ended commitment, maybe a 5- or a 10- or a 15- or a 20-year commitment, without legal authority to do so. The administration is resting solely on the 2001 authorizing language, which was to President Bush, in the wake of 9/11, for pursuing perpetrators of 9/11. And yet in this instance what they are saying is, well, no, no, that gives us authority for the next 10, 15, 20 years. That is not the case. Congress authorized for that action. I think it is a misreading of the law to move forward as they have. Finally, I would make this point. The Bible says, ``Be hot, be cold, but don't be lukewarm.'' And I think this plan is predicated on lukewarm. I have some colleagues who say we need to commit ground troops; we need firmer involvement. I have others who say we don't need to do anything at all. And we are splitting it right down the middle. Let's bomb a bit and let's arm ``moderate rebels'' and we see how that works. We have a snapshot of how that works because just this spring 1,000 ISIS soldiers routed two divisions of Iraqis, about 30,000 folks, in no time. Mind you, these are the same folks that American taxpayers spent $25 billion training and equipping. We equipped about 200,000 of them. It has not worked well. I think we need to pause, first, for constitutional reasons; second, for legal authority reasons; and third, for a flawed strategy that is based on lukewarm. We have that chance today, and I would beg of my colleagues to do so.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, first off, I would just say thank you to Chairman McKeon for his work and for the leadership's work and, indeed, for providing this time for debate. As was just stated by my colleague from Texas, I don't think that there is a more sacred vote out there for Members of Congress than on issues of war. I mean, in its balance hangs life and death. In its balance hangs all kinds of financial and life considerations. In its balance hangs how allies are going to view our actions going forward. This is an incredibly important subject, and, indeed, I thank Chairman McKeon for his work and the committee's work on this matter. That having been said, I rise, though, in respectful opposition not to the committee's work but to the actions of the President because I think his approach has been fundamentally flawed. I say that, first off, because I think that step one of an issue of war has to be congressional approval, and I think it is so important based on what the Constitution said for the President, indeed, to come to the Congress to ask for a declaration of war, and he has, quite simply, not done so. I would then say, ``Okay. On what basis does he move forward?'' If you look at what he and others have said, they hang a large part of their hat on the authorization of 2001, and I think what is interesting here is what the President, himself, said just 2 years ago. He said, ``The AUMF is now nearly 12 years old. Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflict between nation states.'' I think that the President was right. I agree with the President; yet members of the administration have been coming to Capitol Hill. They have been, basically, making the case that with that AUMF they have the authorization to go, in essence, another 25 years. I think that that, again, is mistaken. These are not blank checks. Each war and each war effort needs to be debated in isolated form based on that effort. I would thirdly say that I think that this effort is fundamentally flawed because what von Clausewitz talked about with regard to war. I don't think, at the end of the day, we are going to affect the military center of gravity of our opponent because, if you look at the center of gravity, I would argue it is their faith, it is their willpower, and it is their motivation. As we saw with the Nazis and the bombings on London, bombing alone will not change will, and, in some cases, it strengthens resolve. What you are left with is, in the void that is created with bombings, boots on the ground, but, in this case, we are leaving that precious job of boots on the ground to what are described as ``moderate rebels,'' whatever that is, and an example, that we have to look back in what just happened. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the activities of this spring, 1,000 ISIS soldiers routed 30,000 trained soldiers after we spent $25 billion in that process. I think there are a whole host of mistakes and errors in this plan and would respectfully rise in opposition to it.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4803) to require the Transportation Security Administration to conform to existing Federal law and regulations regarding criminal investigator positions, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on the subcommittee. I would say the same to my colleague from Louisiana, for their respective pieces of work on this important bill. As has already been noted by both of my colleagues, H.R. 4803 calls for, I guess, the institution of a fairly simple premise, and that is, we pay for what we get in government. That is what they do in the private sector. That is what individuals do in the household. And if you stop and think about it, you wouldn't pay somebody who could run a backhoe or a bulldozer--heavy equipment, if you will--if all you needed was somebody who could run a shovel. You wouldn't pay a chemical engineer to come and clean your pool or mix the chemicals in the pool. You wouldn't hire Wolfgang Puck to come over and fix you a piece of grilled cheese. It may be the greatest piece of grilled cheese you could find, but it isn't what you would be paying for. So this bill incorporates that commonsense notion of, in government, we ought to get what we pay for. And as has already been noted, criminal investigators in this case do not meet Federal standards with regard to the 50 percent threshold. This bill does a couple of very, very simple things. It sets in place a standard by which to track whether or not they are doing so. And for the work that isn't to that standard, it eliminates this additional pay, the so-called LEAP pay. LEAP pay is law enforcement availability pay. As has already been noted, again, there is a 25 percent premium, but in many cases, this is the tip of the iceberg, because if you look at additional benefits in terms of early retirement or enhanced training, there is a real cost to the taxpayer that goes with continuing the road that we have been on. This bill attempts to change that. It has teeth, and it freezes any hiring in the Office of Inspection going forward if these changes aren't made. As my colleague from North Carolina just noted, there are real savings: $17 million. It is small by Federal standards, but think about how many neighborhoods it takes to accumulate $17 million in taxes. It is a step in the right direction in saving taxpayer money. Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, I urge additional support of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), my chairman.

Mr. SANFORD. All that could be said has been said, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Monday, July 14, 2014, due to Flight No. 844 being diverted to Richmond International Airport before landing into Reagan National Airport due to inclement weather. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: H.R. 4195--The Federal Register Modernization Act--Vote: ``yes.'' H.R. 5029--The International Science and Technology Cooperation Act of 2014--Vote: ``yes.''

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I would just like to thank, indeed, the chairman and the members of the committee for their great work on it. At the end of the day, it represents expanded choice in education, and that whole notion of increasing and expanding the marketplace in education, I think, is vital for a couple of different reasons. I think it is vital, one, because it is better for students. I think it is vital because the local control of education matters. Ultimately, I think it is vital from the standpoint of improving and increasing the level of innovation that we see in the educational marketplace. Let me expand on those thoughts just over a couple of minutes. One is that it is vital for students because God makes every child different. When I was working in politics in South Carolina, we passed a rather major charter school bill. We now have over 60 charter schools in South Carolina--right at 60 charter schools in South Carolina. What it did was it tailor-made for students applications that fit who they were. So, in some cases, if they wanted to work on leadership, they could do so. In some cases, if they wanted to work on mathematics or English or technology or the arts, they had venues by which to specialize in that which God wired them to do. So, one, this idea of increased choices for the students that are out there, I think it is vital. Two, I think it is absolutely vital to the larger notion of local control. People invest in things that they have a say in, that they have a voice in. What we saw in choice in South Carolina and expanded choices on the charter school front was that parents indeed got more deeply involved. I have not just seen that in South Carolina. I have seen it in different spots across the country, whether that is KIPP Academy or whether that is the old Marva Collins School up toward Milwaukee. It is interesting to see the way in which parents would invest in their child's education when they had a little bit more control and a little bit more voice. That is true, again, at Bridges Academy in Beaufort, South Carolina, or KIPP Academy out toward Houston. Finally, I would make this point. It is absolutely vital to innovation in education, because the old saying is, the definition of insanity is keep on doing the same thing and expect a different result. This idea of changing the educational paradigm so that there are more choices for kids and parents out there is absolutely critical to competitiveness in this country. Look at the numbers. I pulled some of them. We are behind Liechtenstein, Vietnam, and Iceland with regard to mathematics in global scores. We are behind Poland, Luxembourg, and Estonia with regard to reading scores in global scores. We are behind Canada, we are behind the United Kingdom, we are behind Slovenia, we are behind France. We are behind a whole host of different places in scores on the science front. And so if we are going to change that, if we are going to be competitive in this global competition for jobs, capital, and the way of life, it is vital that we have bills like this. For that reason, I applaud the work of the committee.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the outstanding career and accomplishments of Coach Ed Steers. At the conclusion of this school year, Coach Steers will be retiring as Athletics Director of Porter-Gaud School after nine great years. Under his leadership, Porter-Gaud has consistently had one of the most successful and well- rounded athletics programs in the South Carolina Independent School Association (SCISA), winning twenty-six state titles, as well as the SCISA President's Cup for three of the past four years. As much as Coach Steers has done for the Cyclones, many do not know the details about Ed's career prior to his arrival at Porter-Gaud. As a student-athlete at the Citadel (Class of 1968), Coach Steers was a three-time Southern Conference champion in wrestling, never losing in a dual meet. He entered the coaching profession following a brief stint as a tank officer in the Vietnam era, coaching for the Army, then as head coach at William and Mary and later at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He is still the winningest wrestling coach in the history of both programs, and has been named to the Citadel's Athletics Hall of Fame, the National Wrestling Hall of Fame, and the New York Collegiate Wrestling Hall of Fame. He also was named the Citadel's Alumnus of the Year in 2002. More important than all of these accolades has been Coach Steers' influence on the coaches, athletes, and the entire Porter-Gaud community. Ed models a lifestyle of personal fitness and discipline by squeezing in a run every day. He knows the name and the story of every single athlete and coach--and chokes up in telling the best ones every season at the athletics assemblies. He is present when buses pull out at 5:00 a.m., and he is present on the sidelines of almost every athletics event, whether bantam, junior varsity, or varsity. My boys Marshall, Landon, Bolton, and Blake join me, the Porter-Gaud Athletics Department, and the entire school in thanking Ed for his service and wishing him all the best in his well-deserved retirement. While his leadership and guidance will be sorely missed at Porter-Gaud, his legacy at the school will remain long after he departs and we wish him and his wife Sally all the best as their next journey begins.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank my colleague. I rise in respectful opposition to the CBC budget for the reasons that my colleague from California just enumerated. I have listened to this debate over the last few minutes, and the Ryan budget has been called a draconian budget, a phony budget, an extreme budget, a reckless budget, a heat-seeking missile aimed at the American public budget, but what it has not been recognized as is a brave budget. And I say that because it gets at what no other budget in this process gets at, which is entitlement spending. The President's budget doesn't. The CBC budget doesn't. The Democratic alternative doesn't. The Progressive budget doesn't. It's only this budget that really begins to address the elephant in the room. Is it perfect? No. Will I vote against some of the appropriations bills that come along in its wake? I suspect, yes. But it has been said that a journey of a thousand miles begins with that first step. And to the credit of the Ryan--the Republican budget, it begins that first step at addressing entitlement reform in a way that has not been the case because, to do nothing would, indeed, be to launch a heat-seeking missile into the pocketbook, the wallet, the purse of every American as we wait for the day of reckoning to occur, which is 2025. In 2025, there will only be enough money for interest and entitlements and nothing else. So we can talk about all these other worthy programs, but without addressing that terminal date of 2025, we are in real trouble. I think that there are particular problems with this amendment. As you look at taxes going up by $2.3 trillion, you look at spending going up by $6.7 trillion, and you look at an additional $4.3 trillion of debt, it says we have real problems. But, again, the operative number is what happens to the value of our currency, to future inflation, and to the value of our savings if we do nothing, which is, again, addressed in this Ryan budget with its address of entitlement spending. To do nothing is indeed extreme, and it is reckless.