Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I join in support of this bill not just because it is about amendments and the importance of public input, but ultimately because it is about two central tenets that the Founding Fathers laid out that I think are important to both Republicans and Democrats alike. Quite simply, their belief was that three, four, or five perspectives were always better than one. They didn't want to see unilateral action, they didn't want to see a king, and the idea of overstepping on that front was contrary to what they set up; and secondly, that the individual was to be the sole repository of power in our political system and that any government had legitimacy only inasmuch as there was consent by the governed. And what you see with many of these monument-type activities is no consent by the locally governed. So I very much believe in land conservation and have been an advocate for a long time, but I believe in a process that prescribes to that which the Constitution laid out necessary in that process.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Monday, February 3, 2014, due to Flights #4634 and #4065 being cancelled out of Charleston International Airport, and Flight #1750 being subsequently cancelled out of Charlotte International Airport. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: H.R. 1791: Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act: Yes. H.R. 357: GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013: Yes.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and remember Jeffrey Cheatham, who died on October 3, 2013, at the age of 51. His mother and my friend, Patricia McVay, tells me that his life was full of adventure and love, and he will be missed by many. As I thought about how challenging this time is for Jeff's family and friends, a few thoughts struck me. First, I couldn't help but think of the parable of the talents, and how that story reminds us that we ought to make the most out of what we are given each and every day. The parable describes a master who traveled away and left his money with his servants. Upon his return, he discovers that two of his servants invested and doubled the value of their portions, while one servant hid the money and protected it. The master rewarded the two who made the most of their time and his wealth, and punished the one who didn't take advantage of the opportunity. The bigger picture here is simple--we all have limited time, and we have to make the most out of what we are given. I think Jeff's approach to life and those around him is a good example of that. From what I've been told, Jeff lived a life that was truly in service to others, and he made the most out of his time. His good attitude, jokes and infectious smile were known to many, and I was told several stories of how he took a friend's parents to chemo then treated them to a lunch after, or how, when he was in school, he gave lunch money to a classmate, or even just how his smile could really light up a room. The gift of life is significant, and there can be an even greater gift in truly living and making the most of your time--as Malcom Forbes' tombstone says: ``While alive, he lived.'' Second, Jeff's passing should also serve as a reminder of the many challenges and difficulties faced by those who choose to put on the military uniform. Coming from a military family and serving four years in the Air Force, Jeff was no stranger to those challenges, and as such, we should honor and remember the sacrifices he and all our service members make. I have no doubt that Jeff leaves behind many fond memories with his friends and family, especially his three children, Jenna, Kylie, and Phillip. I join his family in being saddened by this loss, but I'm comforted in knowing that there are many people out there who got to experience Jeff's kindness, and who will miss him dearly.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Timothy Michael Reese, Jr. He was a sophomore at Clemson University, I am told a great brother, an even greater son, and a best friend to our son Landon. He lived a short, but remarkable life and in attempting to portray it let me just tell you one story. I flew home Tuesday afternoon to attend his funeral and in the late afternoon after doing so, but before my flight, I joined maybe a hundred or more close friends to the family in warm remembrances of Michael's life over a meal. It was a perfect South Carolina late afternoon, the sun was light and the sky was blue. There was a light breeze in from the ocean there on Sullivan's Island, and despite the tragedy of a life cut short, there was a mood of peace and warmth and even happiness as we in our different ways reflected on Michael's impact in each of our own lives. In that setting Tim, his dad, stood up and gave a really special talk about Michael, about God, faith, friendship and love. He talked about after days of tears and grieving, he had come to the point of peace because of his faith and as the crowd in the backyard listened to each word, three thoughts hit me. One, there are few things in life more extraordinary than the love between a father or mother to a son or daughter. It's ultimately a reflection of God's model of love toward each one of us as a heavenly Father, and that's probably something I've not taken enough time to be appreciative of whether in heavenly or earthly form. Two, it hit me how significant the gift of life really is . . . and how there can be an even greater gift and inspiration that comes in truly living it. In that regard, Michael, during his nineteen years set the bar. He was infectious in his enthusiasm for life. In the wake of the funeral I had spoken with Landon about Michael and he made the point that Michael was always positive. That he always added humor or laughter. That as a friend he didn't fight or argue, but instead looked for ways to build up Landon or others around him as they were beginning this journey called life. He was not only positive, but also had this spectacular sense of adventure that I think would serve as an example for those double, three times or four times his age. Many frankly never find a sense of adventure like his regardless of their chapter in life. This manifested itself in back flips off the dock at our farm, Coosaw. It showed itself in ski jumps out West that frightened me on occasion. It even served as the origin for new words as the boys created ``terragoning'' as they pulled skateboards behind golf carts at the grandparents' home in Florida. I could give another hundred examples, but I would summarize the thoughts with what I remember reading many years ago on the front cover of Forbes magazine upon the death of Malcolm Forbes. It said simply, ``While alive--he lived.'' Indeed Michael Reese did and in so doing, I believe serves as a vital reminder to every one of us who have been blessed by our Creator with this thing called life, to make the very most of it--and each day in it. Finally, I was struck by the genuine sense of community. We all yearn for connection. I believe both to those around us and to God above. Sometimes I don't know that we would describe it in those terms, but I believe that the yearning is there in each one of us. This sense of community is as well something with spiritual overtones that I think tie back to being one's brother's keeper. I saw it there in South Carolina that night. Part of it I suspect comes from a local community that's maybe not as transient as some parts of the world, and as a result there are many multi-generational ties that have been there for all the many ups and downs that come with life. There is something special about that kind of community and I am proud to call it home. Maybe it was a reflection of the Reese family. Their roots not only run deep in the community, on a daily basis they've showered it with blessings based on their own warmth and grace. Maybe still another explanation was the spiritual component to what Tim talked about as his prayer and conversation really set the tone for the whole group assembled. So I suspect I could ascribe many different reasons for the sense of community I felt on Tuesday night, October 29th, but I just know that sense of community is vital. It is a reminder to me that if we could get it right in that backyard, we could get it right in my State and in this country and here, even in the halls of Congress. So Michael Reese has left me with many things to ponder, but more than anything a life that was well and joyously celebrated in each day over his nineteen years of life, and that gives me something to strive for over the next nineteen of mine. My prayer, Mr. Speaker, is that it will do the same for you and for those who hear my voice. Godspeed, Michael. I know Tim and Frannie, Annie, McLean and Baker will miss you. Landon and I along with the rest of the Sanford gang will too, but we will see you soon.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Tuesday, October 29, 2013, due to the death of a very close family friend. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: H.R. 2374--``To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide protections for retail customers, and for other purposes,'' Amendment No. 1. Vote: ``no'' Motion to Recommit H.R. 2374, with Instructions: Vote: ``no'' H.R. 2374--``To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide protections for retail customers, and for other purposes.'' Vote: ``yes''

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank the chairman. I thank him and the other members of the committee for their work on this important bill, because it is certainly about cost. I mean, you can't do anything efficiently if you have got a 15-year permitting process. It is certainly about competition. We are in a competition for jobs, capital, and way of life, and our ability to get product in and out depends on a vital and healthy infrastructure system. Ports like Charleston ultimately are not State ports, not regional ports, but ultimately national ports given how important, for instance, port depth will be. But I think ultimately there is a much bigger consideration, which is a constitutional question on the balance of power. To me, what this bill fundamentally is about is reclaiming some authority that has been ceded to the executive branch that is fundamental to the overall balance of power that is so important to conservatives across this Congress, or across this Nation. Ultimately, that consideration, I think, employs even far greater weight than the cost of infrastructure and components that are important as well.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Monday, October 7, 2013, due to Flight #4205 being delayed in leaving Hilton Head Island Airport and arriving late into Charlotte Douglas International Airport, such that I missed my connecting Flight #2896 to Washington, DC. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Motion to Table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair--Vote: ``yes.'' H.J. Res 77--Food and Drug Safety Act--Vote: ``yes.''

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I came down to this well yesterday to talk about how for 20 years I have run back and forth to the Lincoln Memorial and how the day before yesterday I was shocked to run down there and see the place in chains. I had planned on making a run last night, and then tragically this shooting occurred here yesterday. But it turns out there's some things that I didn't know about the Lincoln Memorial. In this shot, I had become so agitated, I had asked a tourist to take a picture. And it is an amazing picture of, again, the Lincoln Memorial without people, because what I have come to learn is that it has always been a place with people. I didn't realize that in the last government shutdown, President Clinton elected not to close down the Lincoln Memorial. I didn't realize there had been 17 shutdowns in this country since 1976, and not one President elected to close down the Lincoln Memorial. That means President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, and President Clinton each, when given the discretion in how they would handle a shutdown, chose not to hold Americans hostage in somehow gaining political favor by a shutdown that would hurt them on their tour to Washington, D.C. In fact, what I came to learn is that in the history of the American Republic, the Lincoln Memorial has never been shut down. So, my simple question would be: Why? I think it's interesting that Dr. Martin Luther King came to its steps, and he talked about how the American Dream for many pieces of America and many people in America was in chains. And yet this President, for some reason, chooses to chain the Lincoln Memorial in a way that has never been done in the history of our Republic. I don't know why he would do so, but what I can say is that it turns out he has a history of holding people hostage in a political equation that I think is very, very harmful, because in the sequester, he chose to end public tours to the White House. That means an eighth grader who may be making their one trip to Washington, D.C., over the course of their life is no longer afforded the chance to visit the White House as school groups have done, literally, since the time of Jefferson. Always that has been the people's house--not a palace, but the people's house. What I came to learn here that I didn't know over the last 24 hours is that the White House, as it turns out, spends $277,000 on a calligrapher. Now, you can either keep the White House open for tours for eighth graders across this country or you can spend $277,000 on calligraphers. Now, what's a calligrapher? A calligrapher is a person who writes in very fancy prose on a very fancy invitation to rich folk to come to the White House. That's what a calligrapher is. And he would elect to do that? Or to take an extra trip on Air Force One? Or not to raise private money to open up the White House for tours? It turns out, I've come to learn, in many cases, it's costing more to chain these public, open-air monuments, whether the World War II monument, whether the Lincoln Memorial, whether the Jefferson, in many cases costing more to rent barricade equipment than it is to take people out of furlough to have them there in ways that have never been okay. So it is okay to agree that we disagree. It's okay to say you want to spend more, the House wants to spend less. Harry Reid wants to spend more, we want to spend less. I think the Congressional Budget Office numbers are on our side. What they show is that in just 12 years, we're going to be at a point in this civilization where there will only be enough money to pay for interest and entitlements and nothing else. And in that regard, what we see is simply a prelude to much greater problems in this country if we don't get our financial house in order. So it's okay to disagree on those things, but it is not okay to try and inflict political pain to the American citizen as a way of somehow scoring a political point, particularly when this House has sent four different bites at the apple in terms of trying to keep government open, and particularly when this House has sent a bill over that would keep the national parks open, that would keep groups like NIH open, Guard and Reservists, go down the list. So, I would come back and ask of you, Mr. Speaker, that we look for some way of, again, unchaining monuments that have never been chained in the history of this Republic, because I think they represent very silly political games by this President.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I have been a runner all my life. I ran in high school and college, and it has always been my way of sort of clearing my head. Sometimes I clearly haven't run enough. Over the years, during my roughly 20 years in and out of Washington, I have made it a tradition of running down the Mall, down to the Lincoln Memorial. I have been down at the Lincoln Memorial on those runs in the dead of night when there was not a soul down there. I have been down there at sunrise when there was nobody there. I have been there on a summer afternoon when it seemed like every tourist from this country and every tourist from around this world was gathered there. But yesterday I went for an evening run after votes, and I saw something I have never seen before, because as I ran down the Mall, I got to the World War II Memorial and it was chained up. Mind you, this is an open-air rock memorial dedicated to the sacrifice of so many soldiers there in World War II, an open-air rock memorial. But I continued only with my run, and I got down to the Lincoln Memorial, and to my amazement that thing was chained up too. I was so agitated in seeing this that I turned to a tourist and I said, You got to be kidding me. Would you take a picture of that? And it was actually a family from Shanghai, China, here halfway around the world. They took the picture, and they emailed it to me last night and it is an amazing shot. As you can see there, the Lincoln Memorial, two guards. Now, mind you, I have been there many times when nobody was there, no security guard, nobody. And yet in this instance you have chains around it, two police cars, simply to keep people out of one of the great memorials to freedom in our country. It just strikes me that that is a picture of political gamesmanship and hostage taking, and I would say respectfully, Mr. President, you have gone too far on this one. At the time of the sequester, you ended school tours to the White House. Now, mind you, not since Jefferson's time and war has the people's House, the White House, been shut down for public tours. But you used that as a political tool to somehow gain advantage in the sequester that still exists so kids from 8th grade may take their one trip to Washington, D.C., and can't go to the White House because you think it will gain political favor. And I see the same thing going on with this. So let's agree that we disagree. We agree that we as Republicans think we ought to be spending less. You and Harry Reid think we ought to be spending more. I think the Congressional Budget numbers are on our side. They say that in just 12 years we are only going to have enough money to pay for interest and entitlements and nothing else, and in that regard this is just a sneak preview of much more damaging things to come if we don't get our financial house in order. But I would say it is okay to have disagreements, but it is not okay to hold, I guess, citizens hostage and try to maximize and inflict pain in their ability to do normal things, particularly when the House has offered four different bites at the apple in keeping the government open and particularly when just last night bills were sent to Harry Reid that would have kept government open, would have kept the Park Service open, would have kept groups like NIH open. I think this is really important. Reagan once said there at the Brandenburg Gate to Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall; and I would say to you Mr. President, take down the chains. Take down the walls to these open-air memorials to freedom. This is not the National Archives where things could be taken or stolen. These are open-air memorials. This is ridiculous political gamesmanship. I was Governor for eight years. I have been an executive. I know that you can do this, and I would ask that you do so. I am going to go for my evening run, 5:30, 6 o'clock. I would invite every one of you all up there in the gallery to come join me at the Lincoln Memorial. I would ask listeners out there to join me at the Lincoln Memorial. I will talk to Representative Palazzo from Mississippi and Michele Bachmann and others who gathered there at the World War II Memorial. This has gotten out of control with regard to this degree of political gamesmanship by Harry Reid and by the President. So I would just ask that you take another look at that picture, think about what it means, think about the sacrifice that has been made that is ultimately about what these memorials are founded on, and why can't we do something about it, Mr. President. I would ask you to do so. I would invite folks for a 5:30 or 6 o'clock run down at the Lincoln Memorial.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, we are at a shutdown, which is to say that we are in a challenging time. My prayer, I think, is joined by so many other Republican colleagues for families that have been affected. It is something that we very much wanted to avoid in any way possible. That's why the multitude of different options were offered here by this House to the Senate, but they were ultimately rejected. I think that the bigger question, though, in any challenging time is: What does it mean, and where do we go from here? In that light, I'd just like to offer a little bit of context as to what all of this means and what's going on. Quite simply, I'd say that there is real value--real wisdom--in different perspectives. I don't think it's lost on any of us as Republicans in the House that two beats one in the world of politics. You have here a President who has said, I'll negotiate with Syrians, and I'll negotiate with Putin. You have Harry Reid, who has been anything but wanting to work with the Republicans in the House--he has been awfully dismissive--when what Republicans have been trying to say is, Wait a minute. Let's pause for just a second. There is a different perspective that we are hearing from folks back home on the implications in the implementation of so-called ``ObamaCare'' in going forward. The first is an issue that, frankly, has been lost in this whole debate, which is the constitutional issue on, ultimately, the balance of power and the separation of power. Our Founding Fathers were very deliberate in setting up a system wherein the Congress was to create laws; the judiciary was to interpret them with a thumbs up or thumbs down on constitutionality; and the executive branch was to administer. But what you have in this particular instance is a breach of that separation of power, because you have a President that is sort of unilaterally picking and choosing that which is to be implemented. Can you imagine if Bill Clinton or George Bush were to selectively decide the way in which the Tax Code might be implemented? We're just going to enforce it on poor folks but not on rich folks. To a great degree, that's what is happening here, and it is a constitutional issue that sets precedent in going forward, in essence, on the very separation of powers as deliberated and laid out in the Constitution; Secondly, I think it is a big issue and worthy of debate because, in this instance, you have 1,200 bigger businesses that were granted waivers before, ultimately, it was absolved for all large corporations while individuals were still stuck dealing with the law. You had an exemption for Members of Congress but no exemption for individuals across this country. That idea of selectively implementing, I think, is very, very dangerous ground because, ultimately, I would say a good part of the glue that has held our Republic together for over 200 years has been this notion of fairness, or equity. People believe that you may not like some of the laws, but, ultimately, they were administered fairly, evenly. That is not what is taking place at the onset of the Affordable Care Act, and I think you are playing with real dynamite when you begin to selectively implement a law. Thirdly, as has been noted by a number of speakers earlier, I would say there are real cost considerations. We are at something of a tipping point as a civilization as to what our Nation can afford, and we are looking at an awfully big, new bill that will come with this particular bill. Fourthly, I would say we are looking at some real unintended consequences that, I think, are worthy of the pause, simply the delay, that if you're going to have the selective implementation of a bill, it warrants the delay of that bill because, in this case, you have entities as disparate as the University of Virginia, where I went to graduate school, or UPS, saying, We are no longer going to offer health care to spouses and dependents. You have unintended consequences in terms of businesses cutting employment at 50, or you look at the number of hours that one works, saying, Okay, we're going to tap you below 30 hours. There are very serious, unintended consequences that, again, I think, warrant the House's position of simply saying, Should we pause for a year since the President, himself, has decided to give pause to any number of parts to this bill? One last thought on context, and that is that the media would have you believe that this is a fight of epic proportions, of epic consequences, of epic nature. In fact, if you look at what has happened with shutdowns in the past--and this is in no way to minimize their effect or the significance of where we are--there have actually been 17 shutdowns here over, basically, the last 35 years. I was here for the last one back in the mid-1990s. If you look at those 17, 12 occurred while Tip O'Neill was sitting in your Speaker's chair, Mr. Speaker. In many cases, it was a Democratic President with a Democratic Senate, with a Democratic House, wherein they disagreed on whether or not we should produce a nuclear carrier or how we were going to fund abortion or how we were going to fund some other portion of government. So I think that what we have here is a simple disagreement that has ground to a halt right now, but there is a larger context that, I think, is very, very important that the Republicans are trying to advance, which is: how we move forward in a way that doesn't hurt the American public.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I thank both of you for what you're doing tonight. Mr. Speaker, as we well know, there are many heroes from across this country. Most recently we've seen them here in the Capitol with the tragedy of the Naval Yard. But I think that you all are doing something very special by recognizing military heroes in their different acts of heroism and courage over the years. I'd like to single out a resident from my home State of South Carolina, Major General James Everett Livingston. And his story's an interesting one, as are so many of the stories that you've read. But back on May 2 of 1968, he found himself as a young captain in the most unenviable of positions, in that a Marine company had been, basically, partitioned and was separated, and he and other men courageously went in to basically extract that Marine company. In the process, he was hit twice by grenade shrapnel, but he, himself, declined medical help until they were able to go in, extract those Marines, and get them out. I think it's in keeping with the military tradition of never leaving a man or a woman behind, and it says a lot about his personal courage, that he would, again, keep in the fight, even after withstanding personal injury, until those Marines were, again, up, out and extracted. And so with that, I would simply like to single out his 33 years in the Marines, single out his wife, Sara, and his daughters, Melissa and Kimberly, for what they know, which is they have a hero for a dad and, indeed, a recipient of the Medal of Honor. Thank you again for what you all are doing. Honoring Lieutenant Joseph R. Kerrey

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment to eliminate five regional commissions that waste taxpayer dollars. These programs were initially formed with the mandate to improve the lives of those who live in impoverished areas. However, they have instead veered from this mandate by routinely allocating funds to projects that not only fall under state and local responsibilities, but also projects that benefit only those who live in more economically developed areas. For example, the Northern Border Regional Commission has granted: $250,000 to construct a tower to improve cell phone coverage in New Hampshire, $250,000 to construct a 93-mile, four-season, multi-use trail across northern Vermont and $160,000 to promote and raise awareness of the maple syrup industry in New York. These examples of government waste are not just confined to the Northern Border Regional Commission. A similar organization called the Delta Regional Commission, which spans from Mississippi to Southern Illinois, granted: $150,000 to build a tornado safe room in a Missouri hospital and $47,000 for updating a sprinkler system at a business incubator in Illinois. While there may be a need for these projects, they do not fall under the original mandate of these commissions. I believe that for government programs to be effective, they must be focused. The problem is that these projects do not help those that the regional commissions were originally created for--Americans living below the poverty line. The Obama administration, along with the Government Accountability Office, has identified these programs as wasteful and duplicative while possessing no track record of success. Madam Chair, eliminating these programs will save American taxpayers $90 million and work towards reducing the national debt by targeting wasteful spending.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for votes on Tuesday, June 25, 2013, due to Flight #4042 being delayed by approximately four hours before departing Charleston International Airport. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: H.R. 2383--To designate the new Interstate Route 70 Bridge over the Mississippi River connecting St. Louis, Missouri, and southwestern Illinois as the ``Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge.'' Vote: ``yes.'' H.R. 1092--To designate the air route traffic control center located in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the Patricia Clark Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center.'' Vote: ``yes.''

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I rise in support of the rule because I think that this illusion of energy independence has, in any case, been postponed by the very actions that work against this rule would represent because we're talking here about 5 years of postponement. And I think to have real energy solutions here in the United States means, first off, using the energy solutions that are represented in this continent. I think it is by no means a fix, it's by no means a cure--in deference to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--but it is an important step in the right direction. I think as well it represents a step toward energy independence, which is also about national security. I think it's a step toward jobs, which are vital in this country and needed at this time--more than 20,000. And I think ultimately it's a pocketbook issue. Where, as you think about driving time coming this summer and the number of people who will be filling up their tanks, this is a step in the right direction toward energy independence, energy security, and ultimately jobs. For that reason, I rise in support of the rule.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of rising today to congratulate Lowcountry native and St. Helena Island's own Candice Glover on winning the title of ``American Idol.'' She is the daughter of John and Carole Glover. Candice is a graduate of Beaufort High School. I think that her story ultimately is inspirational, because what she does is she teaches and reminds every one of us on the importance of this simple notion of trying, trying, and trying yet again. Because it was, in fact, on her third attempt that she actually made it, and it made all the difference. I was there for ``hero's welcome'' just a couple of weeks ago in Beaufort, South Carolina, and I can only imagine the welcome that she will now receive. She was then one of three. She won it this week. Her career is one that started at Oaks True Holiness Church back home at the age of 4 when she was singing literally to the Lord. It was only the beginning. And as South Carolina's new congressman from the First Congressional District, I speak for many who could not be more proud of Candice for, indeed, the way that she reminds every one of us of the importance of trying, trying, and trying yet again. Congratulations, Candice.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. I rise with a chorus of others in this whole notion of repealing ObamaCare primarily because of its financial impact. At the end of the day, if you look at the Government Accountability Office numbers, what they show is that there's $6.2 trillion of cumulative impact here over the next 10 years. If you look at the Congressional Budget Office numbers, what they show is increasing numbers in $800 billion increments. And, in fact, if you look at American tax reform studies, what they show are 20 new or raised levels of tax that go with this bill. I think, more importantly, it turns on its head this whole notion of the Hippocratic Oath, which has been a 200-year tradition in this country of doctors working directly for a patient. And finally, and I'd say most importantly, it turns upside down this American tradition of not having the government force on the consumers the notion of the purchase of a product. It's for that and many other reasons that I join again with a chorus of others in urging repeal of this bill.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, I look forward to working with each one of you. Republican and Democrat, different perspectives we may hold, but at the end of the day we are here to represent the people of South Carolina, and I look forward to going about that business with you. I see friends, like Eliot Engel, who were so kind to call me in the wake of the events of 2009, Democrat that he may be. I see a whole host of Republicans, long friends; and it is, indeed, an honor to be back with each one of you. I look forward to working with you on a whole host of issues. Obviously, the greatest among them for me will be efforts to get our financial house back in order here in Washington, D.C. But above all else, here on this day, I am simply humbled to be here. Each one of our lives involves different journeys, but on that journey I think that we can, in essence, be taken to places wherein we develop levels of appreciation perhaps that we never had before. And so I stand here before each one of you more appreciative than I ever could have been for the honor of working with each one of you here in the United States Congress, the Congress of the Nation most blessed of all nations here on this Earth. I stand before you most appreciative of the people of the First Congressional District of South Carolina that Joe just alluded to, a people who have taught me a whole lot about love and humility, about wisdom, and about grace. I stand before you, I guess, with a whole new appreciation, indeed, for a God of second chances, and how in the events of our lives, up or down they may be, how every one of us can be refined as human beings in that process. I stand before you as a human being most appreciative in whole new ways for the significance of family and friends. In that regard, I see Belen up there; I see my sons Marshall and Landon; I see my sister Sarah and her husband, Bill; I see my mom, Peg; I see a long list of different friends. I would thank them for their presence here to share this day. I would thank a long list of friends, whether that's Buff Chace, whom I've known for the whole of my life, or somebody like Joe Taylor, who was my Secretary of Commerce while I was Governor. In essence, each one of them is an emissary, a representative, to thousands who were so kind to hold me up through the last couple of years and to be instrumental in this election that brought me to this very place. Above all else, though, I am simply humbled to be here, and I look forward to working with each one of you.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to leave in the record a few thoughts about where we are, and where we are going, with regard to government spending. Milton Friedman once said that the only real measure of government's size is what it spends. I had a hunch that he was right when I came to Washington, having been here for six years I am now certain he is correct. It's not collusion, or a conspiracy, but unfortunately political forces regularly come together to mask the real size of government. Taxes may sit below the real cost of sustaining a program. That's happening now with Social Security where the $9 trillion liability, if annualized, would mean payroll taxes closer to 17% than 12%. Money can also be borrowed--we have $5 trillion in government debt, a great part of this went to consumption rather than investment--and as such basically means that the current generation handed the bill to the next for government services they enjoyed. Friedman's historical argument is reinforced by the federal government's growth over the last 5 years. When I arrived in Washington in 1995 the federal government spent abut $1.5 trillion per year. It now spends almost $1.9 trillion per year. Washington looks, feels, and acts like a great spending machine, and I have seen first hand the tremendous bias toward spending inherent in our system of government. Few people take a trip to Washington because they want nothing from it, and you see this in several ways. First, regular folks from back home come up--they admire what I have done and said on government spending and even say keep it up--but there is always this ``one'' program they want to tell you about. If you add up all the ``one'' programs--railroad retirement funding, money to fix the Pinckney historic site in Mount Pleasant, a new line item for firefighters, the local disabilities or humanities board's push for un- offset additional funding, etc, you get to a lot of money. These are your friends, the last thing in the world you want to do is say no. Second, formal lobbies say basically the same things, but you didn't grow up across the street from the man or woman making their case. They sweeten their argument with a big PAC check or 1,000 letters of support from everyone on their mailing list. They are extremely effective. An example of this would be the sugar lobby. With the exception of maybe ten Congressional districts where sugar is the dominant crop, no one in the Congress could make the case for our sugar price support system without being laughed or booed out of the room. This system costs American consumers $1 billion a year in the form of higher sugar prices, and all this benefit gets handed down to truly a few--roughly 60 domestic sugar producers. The largest of these is the Fanjul family, who get $60 million a year of personal benefit as a result of the program. They are not Finally, government watches out for its own. The military very effectively uses government dollars to turn around and lobby Congress for more. I don't mind because I see the military as a core function of the federal government, but when our office went after the East West Center, I was disturbed to see public monies used to craft responses used in defeating our efforts. Similarly, when I went after OPIC with Tom Campbell the organization's intelligence was so good that I was getting calls from Mark Irwin and Dennis Baake. Mark I have only met a time or two at Renaissance Weekend. Dennis I have known for years; he uses OPIC funding with his company AES, but we have never before talked about OPIC. I still don't know how OPIC figured out I knew both these guys. The bottom line is that we have a problem with spending in Washington and what this spending points to is even worse. In the early 1800's a little known Scottish historian after studying World History for the whole of his life said this: ``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. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from Bondage to Spiritual Faith; from Spiritual Faith to Great Courage; from Great Courage to Abundance; from Abundance to Selfishness; from Selfishness to Complacency; from Complacency to Apathy; from Apathy to Dependency; from Dependency back again into Bondage.'' Tragically Alex Tyler's words have been born out by the history of the world. Egyptians, advanced as they were, came and went--the Greeks laid the intellectual foundation for many of our government's practices but did the same. Rome, after controlling the entire known world, came to an end in 476 AD. The Byzantine Empire was around for another thousand years but ultimately crumbled as well in 1453. Italy, which dominated as the cultural center of the western world during the Renaissance, fell to Charles V in 1550 and Spain controlled one-fourth of the known world and one-half of There are other examples, but a good part of each of these countries' or civilizations' end was tied to government overspending. Spain at the time of collapse spent forty cents of every dollar of government expenditure on interest payments which is unsustainable for a person or a country. Can you imagine spending forty cents of every dollar you earned to cover the tab on your credit card? The bottom line is that I believe the biggest threat we have to National Security is our government's excessive spending. I have cast more than my share of votes against even suspensions and anything else that had much in the way of spending, but I have seen nothing structural to suggest people are willing to put the brakes on spending. This troubles me for our country's future. Oddly, the next economic slow-down may be our nation's best hope in efforts to attempt to put a bridle on the federal government's spending, but currently it doesn't look good. For the sake of our Republic, I hope the elected leadership of this country wakes up to the need to do something sooner rather than later because time is beginning to run short in solving what could shortly prove to be a math trap against each of us as taxpaying Americans.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the thoughts of a man whom I respected deeply, John Monroe J. Holliday. John did many things in South Carolina, one of which was host the Gallivants Ferry Stump. The Stump is a 180-year-old tradition built on kicking around political ideas face-to-face. It has been a spot where people in that part of rural South Carolina gathered and I've always enjoyed the chance to attend and compare notes and ideas with farmers and city folks alike. I have always considered myself a token Republican at this Democratic event, but it did me well as my elections have been won with the help of Democrats in western Horry County. John passed away last month and he will be missed by many South Carolinians. One of the issues that John was very passionate about was the estate tax. Many times he wrote to me urging a change to the law. Two days before he died, he drafted a letter to me on the current estate tax policy in our country. I will let his final words on the subject speak for him. I submit the following letter for the Record: Holliday Associates, LLC, Galivants Ferry, SC, October 19, 2000. Congressman Mark Sanford, Longworth Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mark: The Holliday family has faced increased estate taxes on an annual basis for such a long time, and this increase is a result of Congress's failure to adjust the gift and estate tax exclusion by inflation. In 1987 the amount each individual could shelter from estate taxes was $600,000--in addition to the annual gift tax exclusion for each individual which I believe was $10,000. Margy and I have constantly taken advantage of the estate gift tax exclusion-- in fact each year we were able to give to our daughters a total of $40,000. From December 1986 to December 1987, the consumer price inflation rose from 109.6 to 113.3 or a little more than 3.6%. If both the gift and estate exclusions had been adjusted for this 3.6% inflation increase, we could have transferred an additional $50,840 to our children tax free. This is only a part of the additional benefits our family could have been entitled to. Any of the earnings on the $50,840 would have been excluded from our estate. If we assume a 10% annual growth rate from 1988 to the present, over $159,000 would have been excluded. If we use these same assumptions and recalculate each year the impact that these hidden estate tax increases have on our estate, my family should have been entitled to a total exclusion of more than $8.8 million. The end result is that the estate will pay over $4,840,000 more in estate taxes! The reality is that Congress has intentionally allowed the annual increases to take place under their current theory of ``the rich are too rich''. To avoid the wrath that they would have faced if the tax increases had been legislated, they have avoided accountability by allowing inflation to do their dirty work. The failure to adjust exemptions like the estate and gift tax exclusions is nothing but a hidden tax increase! I believe as a result of these increases that it is more than appropriate for Congress to redress this injustice by making significant changes in the estate and gift tax exclusions. I apologize for this long letter but some adjustments must be made to help this horrible situation. With warm regards, I am Yours very truly, John Monroe J. Holliday.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, in the closing few days of the 106th Congress I rise today to say thank you to family and a few friends. I am now in what I presume will be my last week in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has been a learning-filled experience, a time of growth, but most of all--an honor. It is at this threshold of upcoming change in my life that I think it important to pause for a moment, look back, and thank a few people for their work in getting me here. When there was no reason to have faith, a long list of friends still believed I was supposed to end up here in Washington for this chapter of my life. I thank them for believing and for a whole lot of hard work. Walter and Deena McRackan, Jim Kuyk, Allen and Wendy Gibson, Charlie Duell, Tony Page, Gordon Bynum, John and Chris Molnar, Hoyt Long, Marilee Kinney, Paige Herrin, Tom Davis, Ron Norton and Lynn McBride are just a few of the many names that deserve credit on this front. Family, immediate and extended fit the same bill on work and faith in this endeavor. Billy and Christie gave many weeks of their lives. Sarah moved to town and was instrumental in motivating volunteers. Mom was there for constant moral support. Jenny was campaign manager extrordinare. From our life together over the last ten years and from the campaign experience together, she is the first person I would trust with any task my life depended on completing. She not only has an extraordinary capacity to get things done, but is as well my favorite person with whom to kick around ideas. Jenny, thank you for all the hours, days and weeks you have given to being the world's greatest helpmate. The person who I'd most like to pay tribute to is someone not here-- my dad. He died November eighteen years ago, but to this day I can remember the sound of his voice and the look in his eyes. Dad, you taught me many things. A few of them, never giving up, confidence and faith to follow dreams, and the need to try to make the world a better place--had a whole lot to do with my coming to Congress and my six years here. never give up Dad you lived this by example. Your fight to the death with Lou Gerig's disease was all about never giving up. With Billy and John, I remember watching you fall to your face on new-ground at Coosaw while you tried to walk toward a bulldozer you desperately wanted to try and operate. You would let us lift you up, only to then allow us to watch you fall again as you took choppy little steps forward. You fell many times, but wouldn't give up as you battled your way across the field. These were inspirational moments in seeing the human will, but not happy times. In a much happier season of life years earlier, I remember being in the lead in a high school cross-country race and having you and Coach Key pull up alongside me in a car. You were all keyed up and after the race we rode home together and you gave me ``the talk'' about determination and never giving up. Overwhelmingly you gave me praise on these visits. Throughout my running years in school you always stressed the theme of determination. Your words I appreciated your actions I will always try to emulate. confidence and faith to follow dreams You were instrumental in instilling a sense of confidence with each of your children. I remember you always used to say to us that we were the best in the class. We would protest, ``No, we're not'', and we were right, but you were continuous in repeating this mantra. Thank you for doing so because over time you brainwashed us into believing in ourselves. You did it with the things you said, and the things you expected of each of us. As a little guy I remember driving tractors doing all kinds of things--cutting fire-lanes, bailing hay, cutting grass. We were not ready for all that you expected of us, I remember running a 4010 John Deere into a tree because I was focused on the roots jamming the disk the tractor was pulling rather than what was in- front of me, but you kept believing in each of us. You made us believe that we were ready for any and all challenges before us, and from the vantage-point I now hold I am thankful that you were so benevolent in your trust in each of us. Sometimes consciously, more often unconsciously, each of us had tried to live up to your expectations. This sense of self-confidence was your greatest gift and set in motion a virtuous cycle that to this day does me good. In this chapter of life it is what caused me to still believe things would work out after a hundred people told me there was no chance of winning the race for Congress. make the world a better place In our family, all of us as children would complain about some new task you would dream up for us at Coosaw. Part of your response was a description of how we are here on earth to leave it a little bit better than we found it. You even went a step further and said that to whom much is given much is expected--so we were expected to make it a much better place. I don't believe I have yet made it a better place, but thanks to you each of your children is trying. The bottom line is thank you to mom and dad, Jenny and the boys, family and friends for all your work leading up to and in the last six years. It's been something that would have made, among other folks, my dad proud. That makes me proud and thanks for that.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that no bill is all good or all bad, and we have certainly heard about the attributes of this bill. But I come down on the side of this being a bad bill, for the simple reason that if you care about Corps reform, or if you care about reform to the agencies basically underlying this bill, this bill is a very bad bill. I say that, first of all, if you look at the bill itself, we have in place a somewhat bizarre process, and that is for weeks now we have been sort of in the military mode of ``hurry up and wait'' and ``hurry up and wait'' as we have been waiting for conference reports. Yet, when this bill comes along, it basically speeds through the process with a closed rule, despite the fact it has not been marked up in committee, and the question is why? Why does this speed through this way? Why do we not deal with reform right now? I think the answer, very clearly, is in the way that this bill has spiralled out of control. It spiralled from basically being a $2 billion bill to a $6 billion bill. To me, this bill is similarly nothing more than a feeding frenzy. Sharks are supposedly the ones that feed; but this is a piggy feeding frenzy, when I think about this bill. I will give an example of that. There is a long list of projects that I have here on several sheets. But an example of one would be a $15 million navigation project in False Pass Harbor, Alaska, that would serve a grand total of 86 boats; $15 million for 86 boats. The other thing that I think is wrong with this bill from the standpoint of reform is that it is dessert before dinner. Consistently in the legislative process what we try and do is couple good with bad; and if we can get enough of that together, we send the bill forward, because reform is hard. Passing appropriations, passing $6 billion worth of spending in terms of authorization, is very easy; but we need to couple that with reform. That is not done in this bill. There have been a number of very interesting articles within the Washington Post talking about how the Corps of Engineers desperately needs to be reformed, and we basically skip that, talking about how there is, for lack of a better term, waste, fraud and abuse in the Corps, and how the Corps has become something akin to or nothing more than a ``water boy'' for the U.S. Congress. This bill had in it the chance to deal with the Corps, and, unfortunately, it does not. I would give an example of this. Right now if you look at the benefit-to-cost ratio with Corps projects, it is simply one-to-one. If you pass that threshold, it is something that can be authorized. To me, that does not make sense, because what that means fundamentally is if you put $10 into a project, you will get $10 back out. You may get more. That is the minimum threshold. That is the minimum threshold, one-to-one. What that means to the United States taxpayer is he gets no return on his investment on a one-to-one ratio. It may be good, if it is in South Carolina, if it is in Alaska, if it is in California, for the Congressman or the Senator in that local district or in that local State; but it is not at all good for the United States taxpayer as a whole. If you look on the back of any penny, what you see are the words ``E Pluribus Unum,'' from the many, one. This bill, unfortunately, does not incorporate that.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4205, the Floyd Spence National Defense Authorization Act. It might strike some as odd that I support the Authorization conference report after I opposed the Appropriations bill, and I wanted to spell out why. Admittedly, I have some disappointment with parts of H.R. 4205: Base Realignment and Closure Commission--H.R. 4205 does not include funding for two new BRAC rounds, despite the fact that the pentagon has estimated it has an excess base capacity of 23 percent. CBO estimates that two new BRAC rounds would save the Defense Department $4.7 billion by 2010, and that after completion in 2012, DOD could realize recurring savings of about $4 billion per year which could then be re-channeled toward better training, readiness and quality of life initiatives. It is my hope that Congress sees fit to include a Base Closure round in next year's bill Choice of Aircraft--H.R. 4205 includes funding for research, development and procurement of three different fighter planes (the Navy's F-18 E/F, The Air Force F-22, and the Navy & Air Force Joint Strike Fighter) when there is not a strong consensus that all three fighters are necessary. Some defense experts say the military needs the F-18 and F-22. Some say it needs the JSF instead. Congress' answer is simply to fund all of the fighter planes in question, at the expense of other aircraft (specifically bombers and unmanned aerial aircraft [UAVs]) that, while less glamorous, could prove more useful, while costing much less money and American lives. Colombia--I have deep reservations about the decision to drop a provision in the House-passed bill that would establish a limit of 500 on the number of U.S. military personnel authorized to be on duty in the Republic of Colombia at any one time. I think that it would be a serious mistake for the U.S. to allow itself to get involved in a civil war in Colombia. But the conference report does include some very important items: Health Care Improvement--There are thousands of military retirees in the First District of South Carolina. Each of these retirees was once either a draftee or a recruit. They did their duty with the understanding that after 20 years of service, they were to have access to quality health care when they retired, and that that access would continue for the rest of their lives. That has not been the case. The Defense conference report extends Tricare to military retirees beyond age 65 as a supplement to Medicare. It is my hope that eventually Congress may move to a voucher system, in which the government ensures that vets get the care they deserve, without the accompanying bureaucracy and waiting periods. Any military retiree could simply get health care at the facility of their choice, and then be reimbursed. Readiness Funding--I'm concerned about the Administration's lack of a coherent national defense strategy. Our men and women in uniform have been dispatched across the globe in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations that are not in the national interest. This is wearing out our soldiers and equipment. Aircraft mission capability rates have declined, spare parts shortages continue, and recruiting and retention of quality personnel has become a major challenge. These problems have left the military less prepared to defend real national interests. The conference report to H.R. 4205 provides an additional $1.2 billion for critical readiness funding. I would prefer that Congress and the President turn away from trying to be the world's policeman. But if the Administration insists on dispatching troops across the globe, then Congress must ensure that these troops are at least prepared to carry out the mission. I might have done things a little differently, but I think that the country's soldiers and military retirees have some serious problems, and the gentleman from South Carolina and his committee have made an honest effort to address those problems. On balance, H.R. 4205 is a fair attempt at assessing and meeting the country's defense needs. I find it disturbing that the Defense Appropriations Act looks so different. There are many unauthorized items in the Appropriations bill, that at least appear more directed toward ensuring victory at the ballot box, rather than on the battlefield. I choose to base my national security votes on national priorities. Therefore, I support the Defense Authorization Conference Report, but oppose the Defense Appropriations bill.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, the debate on the rule has become a debate on reimportation. Therefore, I will be supporting the rule. But the underlying bill I do have objection with both because of the level of cost but predominantly because of the Cuba deal. I think that this Cuba deal is fatally flawed in that it perpetuates basically the dark ages when it comes to Cuba. I know of no business after 40 years of failed policy that would say, ``Let's keep doing the same''; but that is fundamentally what this bill does, and in fact it does more than that. It threatens democratic rule. I came to the House believing in one man, one vote. If you won it fair and square on the floor, that is the way it stood. We had a vote that would allow Americans to travel to Cuba that is reversed in this Cuba deal. It threatens the idea of engagement. The Republican Party has consistently stood for the idea of engaging with other people. This deal reverses that. It threatens the power of ideas. I believe if my ideas beat your ideas, I should be able to stand there and debate that. This deal threatens that. Finally, it makes a mockery of the Constitution, which guarantees that all Americans should be allowed the right to travel. For this reason, I have very strong objections to the Cuba deal that was worked out as a part of the ag bill.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4461, to FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. I oppose this bill for a few different reasons, but right now I would like to talk about just one. Interestingly, this reason has nothing to do with farming, but rather the issue of an American citizens ability to travel to Cuba. Mr. Speaker, I opposed today's bill because of the agreement regarding the sales of food and medicine to Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iran, and Sudan. The agreement permits the sale of food and medicine, but also codifies the current restrictions regarding the American citizens ability to travel to Cuba. I oppose this agreement for three reasons. Number one is procedure. On July 20th of this year, I offered an amendment that would have prohibited funding for the enforcement of travel restrictions. Essentially, lifting the travel restrictions. The amendment passed the House by a vote of 232 to 186, but unfortunately the amendment was stripped out of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. This agreement would do just the opposite of what the majority of the House supported. By codifying the present travel restrictions, it prohibits this President or any future President from making changes to the current travel regulations. Therefore making it more difficult for Americans to travel to Cuba in the future. This point is significant, Mr. Speaker, because it has not historically been our nations policy to restrict travel. Actually, our policy has been just the opposite. Whether it was South Africa during apartheid, the Soviet Union under Communism or the People's Republic of China today, our nation has consistently encouraged the notion that person to person diplomacy was in our national interest. Number two, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution protects an American citizen's right to travel. In 1956, the Supreme Court first affirmed this right in Kent v. Dulles. The court stated, ``An American who has crossed the ocean is not obliged to form his opinion about our foreign policy merely from what he is told by officials of our government or by a few correspondents of American newspapers. Moreover, his views domestic questions are enriched by seeing how foreigners are trying to solve similar problems. In many different ways direct contract with other countries contributes to sounder decisions at home.'' In 1965, the Supreme Court heard the case of Zemel v. Rusk. The case specifically addressed the question of travel to Cuba. In Zemel v. Rusk, the Court again ruled that the right to travel is guaranteed in the fifth amendment. But the Court went on to find that the restriction on travel to Cuba was constitutional because it was supported by the ``weightiest consideration of national security.'' However, according to a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report issued on May 5, 1998, Cuba is no longer a military threat to the United States.'' Number three, I believe we should look the issues of fairness and severity. Let me say that I do support the idea of permitting sales of U.S. foods and medicines to these nations. But, if you weight the pros and cons of the sales versus travel, I don't think this agreement passes the common sense test. Let's look at the four other nations this agreement permits sales to, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, and Libya. American citizens are permitted to travel to North Korea and Sudan. North Korea is developing missiles believed to be capable of delivering nuclear warheads. After North Korea test fired a three stage rocket in 1998, U.S. intelligence estimates reported that such a missile would have the range to reach Alaska and Guam. The State Department has reported that Sudan ``continued to serve as a refuge, nexus, and training hub for a number of international terrorist organizations.'' Additionally, the Sudanese government continues to force its own citizens into slavery for opposing the government's ``holy war.'' Presently, State Department regulations prohibit U.S. citizens from traveling to Iran and Libya, but these two countries were still given perferentional treatment compared to Cuba. Iran and Libya will be given access to U.S. credit programs, whereas Cuba will not. Even though the Administration proliferation reports released this August assert that Iran is ``one of the most active countries seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction and advanced conventional weapons,'' assisted primarily by Russia, China, and North Korea. And Libya was early this year accused by the United Kingdom of smuggling Chinese Scud missile parts through Gatwick airport, and who the U.S. Department of Defense accused of receiving missile technology training from China. After reviewing these facts, I have to ask does it make sense for this Congress to support doing business with these nations at the cost of infringing on the rights of American citizens to travel? I don't think it does. Therefore, Mr. Speaker I will be voting against today's bill.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, in the final days of the 106th Congress and my time here in the House, I rise today to pass these words on to my sons. October 5, 2000. Dear Marshall, Landon, Bolton and Blake: I wanted to write this letter so that maybe in twenty years or maybe after I have died you could look it up and think about how much your Dad loves you. I write this letter as much as anything because I feel the need to pause and praise each of you and to say how proud I am of you and how much, again, I love you. That's needed because over the last seven years all you have known is a world tied to politics. For each of the words I spoke into the record on the House floor, or in Committee, I couldn't expand time and also fill those minutes and hours with words to each of you. Each of the days I spent in Washington were days I couldn't spend with you. Each of the evenings I spent at political events were evenings I couldn't spend with you. I apologize for our time apart. Each of you as young men will one day discover your calling--why God put you here--and in turn have to struggle in balancing the different responsibilities each of you will embrace. I have felt that my job over these last seven years was getting to--and being in--Congress. Since I came here I have tried as best I could do what I thought was right, but in all that doing I always thought of each one of you. Here in Washington I never went to bed once without saying prayers with each of you in them. In the early years it was just Marshall and Landon, and you guys, as little guys, put in far more than your share of parades and political events. As if yesterday I remember the Hell hole swamp parade and pulling the wagon with Marshall and Landon. In the Summerville parade in the first campaign, to this day I remember Marshall's wild white curls and his little light blue V-neck sweater. I am amazed to look at pictures and see how small Landon was at the start of this process. I think the last parade with just Marshall and Landon was at the Loris Bog-off. It was cool and I remember your mom and I buying you both swords at a booth alongside the railroad track afterward. I doubt I was that big on the swords, but I am sure your mom well made the point that you earned them, and in case you don't remember the spot--there were men and women in bright blue clothes dancing to country music on a flat-bed trailer just to the left. Marshall, you have always been great help with your younger brothers, thank you. The way you have carried yourself also makes me proud. Do you remember going with then Governor Beasley and several security men in a Department of Natural Resources speed-boat out to a Navy destroyer in Charleston Harbor? During the commissioning ceremony it was hot and you were not wild about being there, but you put up with it and behaved well. In the same vein do you remember sitting under my chair at the Hwy 61 connector opening. It was hardly a grand event, but you found shade and stayed still and quiet which was no small feat given your age. In these and many other events like them, you showed a maturity well beyond your years. It will carry you far in life. In the political context of my note, Landon made me proud most recently at the St. Patricks day parade in North Myrtle Beach. I was pulling a wagon along side you while you walked straight up the yellow line in the middle of the street. In your young man's march you were waving at the several thousand people who lined both sides of the road. In most waves your arm was held at a forty-five degree angle and your palm and hand were straight up as if the tip of a small spear. The whole thing was not easy for you. In fact it was incredibly brave. Blake was in my arms and your two brothers were riding in the wagon and there you were, a reserved boy by nature walking up a street surrounded by strangers--waving to both sides. On the long drive home you started singing some silly song and next thing you know three boys are laughing hysterically in the back of the Suburban. You have the ability to defuse things with laughter. Bolton--you are a natural born performer. Of all the family members you are the most gifted in surprising people, and not infrequently, making them laugh. You were doing just that winter before last at the Conway parade when you rode in the wagon and chose to throw bags of candy--not the candies! In the same light I remember the words Mary Crixmas, Mary Crixmas, Happy Santa Claus. Last winter I was the Grand Marshall of the Mount Pleasant Christmas parade. Marshall sat to my left, Landon on my right, you were on my lap and with outstretched arms you yelled these words with such enthusiasm that half-way through the parade you couldn't say another word. John McCain asks regularly about you and still talks about your enthusiasm for fishing. I think you are the only four year old to have given the President of the United States a froggy kiss. These days you are into catching butterflies with your hands, but thank you for wearing politics as well as you have. Blake--you haven't said a whole lot in parades yet, but you haven't had to because with your blonde curls and cute smiles everyone adores you! You are specific in what you want thought, you like to be carried--not to ride on my shoulders like some of your brothers. The point in these memories, and a thousand others like them, is that we have been through some interesting times together. Your peers have not had to go through what you have. At your young ages you have been exposed to a wide range of people and settings--medicade nursing home visits, trips to the White House, the House that Congress built with Habitat for Humanity, watching the sun rise from a boat moored feet from where the Hunley would rise hours later, feeding special Olympic kids at the Citadel, getting up hours earlier than you would have to go to an event in Myrtle Beach, beach sweeps, and more. In the end I think you will be better for having seen a wide swath of life, but since it involved wear and tear on your bodies this note is here simply to say thank you. Thank you for behaving well, and thank you for putting with it. I am proud of you. You are each unique young men. I love you and look forward to spending more time with each of you over the years ahead. Love, Dad. P.S. After reading this, one day do an extra something special for your mom. In my absence over the last six years she has changed a lot of diapers and fixed more than her share of dinners for you.