Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the thoughts of Mr. Roy Parker of Goose Creek, South Carolina. He sent me a letter to the editor he wrote for The Post & Courier in my hometown in Charleston. Mr. Parker raises a good point that we should think about as we consider the appropriations bills in this election year. I submit the following article for the Record: Hogs and Rooters ``Root hog or die'' was a frequently used expression during the Great Depression. These words had a very literal meaning, which was that you had to do more than be present to survive. Now, when you think of hogs and rooters you instinctively think of members of Congress. They pride themselves on rooting out pork and giving it where they think it will do the most good. This practice has become so commonplace that even some of our respected politicians still defend this practice. In fact, some are so addicted to pork that they are willing to cross party lines to satisfy their addiction. Beware of politicians bearing gifts--our hard-earned tax money. Beware of politicians who become super conservative prior to election and, if elected, will go to Congress and raise your taxes and vote with the liberals.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Madam Speaker, Eisenhower apparently once said that he believed that there could be no surplus as long as our Nation was in debt. I come from that school of thought, and yet that is not exactly where we are right now in Washington. Where we are right now is debating whether or not 90 percent or 50 percent, or some number in between, of these projected future surpluses should be allocated to the debt. What struck our office is the fact that really more than just the Congress should be involved in that debate. It is for that reason that I introduce today the Taxpayers' Choice Debt Reduction Act. Madam Speaker, what it would do would be to simply take the 1040, the tax return as we now know it. And right now, we can send $3 to the presidential campaign. This would create another box wherein we could send 3 bucks to debt reduction. That is not enough money to change our national debt, but it is enough money to make a small step in an important debate that we all ought to be a part of.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to make the point that the issue of Cuba travel has ended up in a sort of political no-man's land. We were told in the Treasury-Postal bill it would be handled in the Agricultural bill. I would urge the chairman and those who are going to be in this conference to actually take up that issue, because, if not, it is going to find itself off in the dust bins or at least the far corners of this political debate. I think it is an important political debate, having a lot to do with the constitutional rights that all Americans should enjoy.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support of H.R. 1064, The Serbia Montenegro Democracy Act of 1999. In April of last year, I offered a bill containing many of the same provisions of Mr. Smith's bill with the belief that we needed to come up with some alternative strategy, in dealing with Milosevic and the situation in the Balkans. In wake of the alleged fraud during yesterday's election, I believe it is as important now as it was last April that we begin focusing on what we are doing in the former Yugoslavia. What this bill attempts to do is look towards the future of the region, and I believe begs a larger point of what are we doing in that part of the world. For starters, look at the cost of our military operations in Kosovo, such as Noble Anvil, Joint Guardian, Balkan Call, Eagle Eye, Sustained Hope, Task Force Hawk thus far these programs have totaled over $5 billion. Then add in the cost in Bosnia, roughly $8.95 billion. Lastly, add in other missions in the Balkans and the total amount of United States taxpayers money spent in the region since 1991 comes to $15.7 billion. I have to ask the question, where does it end? We still have troops in Bosnia and Kosovo, despite promises to bring them home. If we have not begun to find some kind of alternative to our current strategy in Montenegro, history will repeat itself. The U.S. has already made commitment after commitment in the Balkans and a break away Montenegro would probably be no different. So I would applaud Mr. Smith's leadership for incorporating my bill into today's legislation. I would hope that this and future administrations come up with some kind of strategy other than sending troops and bombs through the sky with the Balkans, because that seems to be our current strategy. I think that this bill is a more effective and efficient alternative.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, I voted against H.R. 4892, the bill to repeal the Boy Scouts of America Charter. I have a personal stake in this debate. As a boy, I benefited from everything the Scouts had to offer. While I worked my way towards earning the rank of Eagle, I learned the lessons of leadership, trustworthiness, loyalty, and more. Additionally, the memories I have, of sharing my interest in the outdoors with other boys my age will be with me for the rest of my life. I opposed this bill for two reasons. Number one, I do not believe it is right to single out an individual group in legislative remedies. If change in any area of law occurs it should apply to all affected, not as, in this case, with only the Boy Scouts. It does not make sense to repeal the Scouts' charter and leave in place charters for groups such as the Society of American Florists and Ornamental Horticulturists, National Ski Patrol System, Aviation Hall of Fame, or any of the roughly 90 other groups who hold charters. If Ms. Woolsey's bill repealed all federal charters, it might represent a legitimate debate, unfortunately, this bill has a more narrow scope. According to a report published by the Library of Congress, the chartering by Congress, of organizations is essentially a 20th century practice and does not assign the group any governmental attributes. The report continues by stating, that the attraction of charter status for national organizations is that it tends to provide an ``official'' imprimatur to their activities. With these facts in mind, in 1989, the House Judiciary Committee decided to impose a moratorium on granting new charters. However, the bill does not address this point, instead it focuses solely on the Boy Scouts. The intend of the bill is to pressure the Boy Scouts to change their practices, which brings me to my second point. The First Amendment provides all American's the right of association. Whether a group preaches race-based hatred or the teachings of Christianity, their right to gather together has continually been protected by our nation's courts. In fact the courts have already ruled on the practices of the Boy Scouts. State courts in California, Connecticut, Oregon, Kansas, and the U.5. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit have ruled in the Boy Scouts favor. On June 28, 2000, the Supreme Court affirmed the Constitutionally protected right of the Boy Scouts to set its own standards for membership and leadership. In his ruling Chief Justice Rehnquist stated, though alternative lifestyles are becoming more socially acceptable, ``this is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment protection to those who refuse to accept these views,'' he continued. ``The First Amendment protects expression, be it of the popular variety or not.'' This decision, once again, reaffirms the Boy Scout's First Amendment rights. This bill attempts to circumvent the courts ruling by forcing the Boy Scouts to change their practices or else lose their charter. Upon reflection, I have come to agree with Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Supreme Court's, ruling, it should not be the federal government's role to alter the Boy Scout's values. More significantly, the, Boy Scout case is ultimately about something much bigger than scouting, it was a decision of whether or not our Constitutional right of association should remain intact. Passing this bill would have had just the opposite effect and for this reason, I voted against the bill.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. Mr. Speaker, I hate following him. I just came to chime in for just a few moments because the gentleman asked me to and because I think this makes common sense. I think that the problem with the debate on the other side, and I would say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who I have the utmost respect for his intellect, the utmost respect for the way he has been a consistent advocate for things that he believes in, and the only reason I find myself in this case differing with him is based on, for instance, the statistics I have here. For instance, last year, 23 children were murdered in America by their baby-sitters; 23 children were murdered in America by their baby- sitters. And the question I think goes back to the heart of what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) was getting at. I am not a lawyer, I do not have a legal background, but just from the standpoint of common sense, let us say it was the most loving of baby-sitters, they took care of the child for years, but in the end they ended up murdering them, do we want to treat that person differently than somebody else simply because one hates the child more than the other? But the bottom line is still the same, and that is those 23 children last year in America are just as dead. Whether they were loved prior to being killed or whether they were hated prior to being killed, they are both dead. The theme that I think the gentleman from South Carolina is getting at is the theme that has been the basis of our judicial system, which is equality under the law. The other issue that I think he is getting at, and I think there is validity in this, and that is the idea of federalizing crime. There is disagreement within our conference on whether we should or should not do that. I found myself voting against the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) on any number of different things who takes a very different position on federalizing some of these crimes versus not. Lastly, I would go to the point which the gentleman from South Carolina has raised a couple of times, and that is, this death penalty issue, which is a legitimate debate; but I do not know that we want to preemptively strike out death penalty with this kind of legislation.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me this bipartisan time. I rise very reluctantly to oppose this rule. And the reason I do so, and my comments would be aimed at conservatives and Republicans, the reason I do so is because I think this is a gut-check vote. Because one of the things I ran on back in the beginning of the 104th Congress, before I ever got here, was the idea of working against midnight deals. One of the things we talked about, the young Members of the 104th Congress, before we ever got here, is that we have to stop this. The Democrats did it for too long. And yet here we find ourselves basically getting a $30 billion bill at 11 a.m. and we have 2 hours to look at a $30 billion bill. That is the antithesis of what we are to be about in process. Secondly, my daddy always used to say, ``Don't bid against yourself.'' This is a classic case of bidding against ourselves. Because normally we say, well, we are here, the Senate is over here in terms of spending, so therefore we are going to have to appease the Senate and we will come up with some number halfway in between. But here, without the Senate ever meeting, we have gone and increased legislative branch by $51 million; we have increased Treasury, Postal by $1.27 billion, and we really are bidding against ourselves. So I think this is one of those cases where, and I respectfully mean this, as my dad used to say, ``If you don't get something right, then try, try, and try again.'' We need to defeat this rule, send it back, and ask them simply to try again. I would mention a couple of things that did come out in the few moments I had to look at this bill. For those against gun control, why are we increasing ATF by 29.4 percent; for those that that is an issue of importance? For those conservatives against the congressional pay raise, why are we including it here? Again, if Members want a fig leaf cover in voting against the pay raise, then wait and vote against the bill itself. But this is a chance to truly defeat it. And for those against an increase in Members' pension, here is a chance to get at it. The fact of the matter is I have talked to our colleagues on the Senate side, and they are never going to agree to this nonconference conference. This has a lot to do ultimately with Cuba, and the question is what are we willing to trade off in terms of ideals that we believe in and money toward that end? I think this is a price too high.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply make it possible for an American to enjoy his constitutional right to travel; specifically, to travel to Cuba. I think that this is important, first of all, because if one wants to change the policy in Cuba, if we want to end Castro, I think that travel is inevitably a good part of that success. We have tried 40 years of one program, and it has not worked. So I think by sending Americans as diplomats, in essence, for our American way of life and for the need to change, we could change the Castro regime. Mr. Chairman, I say this as a conservative. It was, in fact, Ronald Reagan that used this exact strategy in Eastern Europe in working to bring down the Berlin wall. He allowed Americans to travel with backpacks throughout Eastern Europe and it was part of what brought down the Berlin wall. In fact, this is what the U.S. Information Agency paid for in apartheid South Africa. When the entire world had an embargo on South Africa, the U.S. Information Agency paid for exchanges for American students to go to South Africa and for South African students to come to America because we thought that that personal diplomacy was very important in changing things in apartheid South Africa. Finally, I would say this is simply important because this is what I heard when I went to Cuba myself and talked to political dissidents. What they said is that if you want to send the Castro regime, if you want to send him packing, the key to that is these personal diplomats coming down and flooding Cuba with American ideas. I say this in particular as one who voted for Helms-Burton. Helms-Burton has not worked, the strategy has not worked. I thought it might at the time; it did not work, and I think we need to move on. Mr. Chairman, I would say that this is a constitutional right that can be abridged I think only under the weightiest of national security reasons. In fact, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency came out with a report in 1998 that said Cuba is no longer a military threat to the United States. So right now, in place, there are only three places in the world one cannot travel to: Libya, Iraq, and Cuba. The State Department can legitimately make the claim that it is dangerous to travel to Libya or Iraq, and therefore, we cannot travel there, but they cannot make the claim with Cuba. That is why Treasury handles it, and that is why this amendment specifically goes after the funding with Treasury. So we have a very odd policy right now. One can travel to Vietnam or Pakistan or Serbia or Afghanistan, North Korea, China, to Sierra Leone, and a host of other places, many of which have repressive regimes, but we cannot travel to Cuba, and I think that travel would be important in changing things down there. Finally, I would just make the point that this is a gut-check vote on how consistent we are, particularly as Republicans, because many of us believed in the idea of PNTR, the idea of being engaged with China to bring about change in China. If we think it will work in China, I do not know how it does not work in a country but 60 miles off our coast. I would say up front that I admire the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for the way that they are advocates for their congressional districts. But what we need to get away from in our current national policy is having three congressional districts drive our policy toward Cuba. I think that this proposal, this is not lifting the embargo, but specifically goes after just travel, is a modest amendment, and it is bipartisan, it is the Sanford- Rangel-Campbell-Serrano amendment. I would urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). (Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would just make the point that while Ronald Reagan did indeed call Communist countries the evil empire, he nonetheless allowed Americans to travel to Eastern Europe, and it was part of bringing down the Berlin wall. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say that we come at this with the same goal: ending Castro's regime in Cuba. I think we need to be careful about maligning the intentions of others. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) may see a different way than the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), but the end goal is the same, which is, how do we change things in Cuba? The evidence, based on 40 years of our policy not working, comes out decidedly on the side of engagement. I say that from the standpoint of history. If we look at history, Members will recall, sanctions have never worked in the history of mankind. I do not know why there would be an exception with Cuba. Two, I would say, based on personal experience, 50,000 people a year travel to Cuba basically illegally. I tried that myself. I went down on my own, under the radar screen, and stayed in a person's home. This is not about getting money to Castro. I paid $35 a night to stay in a person's home. We ate at their cousin's house. I paid money to eat at their house. This is about getting money in to the regular Cuban citizenry, which can then combat the Castro regime that I think we are all against.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would make the point that I plan to withdraw this amendment, but prior to doing so would simply mention to the chairman of the subcommittee that what this amendment would have gotten at is an issue of imperial travel. I think that within the executive branch, we have moved to a whole different stage on travel. I think it needs to be addressed and much more closely looked at than is now the case. I say that because Nixon's official trip to China consisted of 34 Members from the executive branch to China. If you look at Reagan's trip to Iceland with Gorbachev, it was 40 members of the executive branch. Forty-seven members on the G-7 summit in Italy. In contrast, I see here these recent trips are just plain bizarre. There were 1,300 folks that went with the current President to Africa. There were 592 people to Chile. There were 510 people to China. I think that we really have moved on to a stage of imperial travel, and I would just ask the chairman of the subcommittee to closely look and monitor, whether it is George Bush or whether it is Al Gore that is President, that we begin to look and try to do something about the size and scale of executive branch travel. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring to everybody's attention the fact that today I am introducing a bill called the personal lockbox bill. I think it is built on common sense, because one of the things I have consistently heard from folks back home is the very simple idea that the first part of saving Social Security is making sure that Social Security taxes stay with Social Security. That is what this bill does because it takes the Social Security surplus, whatever that happens to be, and simply rebates it back to the people paying Social Security taxes, not to go out and fix up the car or buy a refrigerator with it but instead to go into their own personal Social Security savings account that would be held by a fiduciary like the local bank. Mr. Speaker, the individual could not get their hands on the money until they turn 65, but they would get a monthly statement and for the first time, because of the private property rights that come with an account like that, for the first time have a firewall created between political forces in D.C. and their Social Security surplus.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say just prefacing my remarks that I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the way he has consistently watched out for the interest of farmers and ranchers across the West. For that matter, I would say that I have got the utmost respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and how he watches out for the ranchers in his district, and the same of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), who is not here right now but I suspect who will be walking down toward the floor. That having been said, I think what needs to be remembered is, in as good of a job as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) will do in watching out for ranchers in his district, the larger question always needs to be is, that may be good and he is doing the right job of a Congressman in protecting folk in his district, but is it the best in terms of national policy? When I look at wool and mohair subsidies over a long and fairly tortured past, I think the answer has to be no. In fact, if anything, I see this as more of a horror show, those horror shows where Freddie hops up out of the coffin with the chainsaw running; one thought he was dead, one thought he was in the coffin to stay, but he is back up and at it. That is how these wool and mohair subsidies have gone basically over 50 years. Because what is interesting is to look back, it was in World War II that the United States military recognized that they needed wool and mohair as basically a strategic material in the building of uniforms to keep troops warm and dry. So in 1954 Congress responded to that, and they passed the National Wool Act. Yet by the 1960s, the Pentagon had moved on to synthetic fibers. So here we are 46 years after the passage of the act, basically 50 years after the time that Congress moved, the Pentagon moved on to something else, still helping to subsidize an industry that was no longer strategic in nature. In fact, some of the years, as one goes forward in time, wool and mohair would get as much as $200 million indirect subsidy. Now, in 1993, that all came to an end. It was interesting, Al Gore's report, this is Vice President Gore's National Performance Review, 1993, said that the top 1 percent of sheep raisers capture a core of the money, nearly $100,000 each. The national interest does not require this program. It provides an unnecessary subsidy for the wealthy. It was stopped in 1993 to be phased out in 1995, and yet it is back. Freddie has climbed outside of that coffin, he has got the chainsaw running, and we are looking at basically $10 million or $11 million in subsidy back to wool and mohair. The question that I think that needs to be asked is, is this in the best interest of the overall taxpayer? I think no, one, because of what was pointed out in Gore's review; two, what would be pointed out in programs like the fact that Sam Donaldson, not exactly a New Mexico sheep farmer, had gotten $97,000 in direct wool payments a couple years back, in fact back just prior to 1995 in the phase-out of law. The more than important question, though, because that part has ended, is what we are talking about here are the acts of the market versus the acts of God. If the local pizzeria goes out of business or the local hardware store goes out of business or the local video store goes out of business as a result of acts of the market, we do not subsidize that pizzeria. Should we do any differently with this wool and mohair? The third point that I would make would be we are talking about a program. If we do not keep this out, it will become more permanent in nature. It is interesting to me, this is in the June 24, 2000, issue of National Journal, Jewel Richardson, the first vice president of the Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association, hopes to put in a permanent program, their own words according to National Journal. So I think we have got something that, a, could become a permanent program and is not a temporary help in time of need; and, b, is something that costs the taxpayers a whole lot of money to the benefit of a very few congressional districts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply gets at funding for the school breakfast pilot program. Mr. Chairman, this program was a 3- year authorization which basically chose six school districts from around the country to begin a pilot program looking at the link between eating breakfast and performance in school. Last year, $7 million went toward that cause, another $6 million is in this bill. This amendment goes after $6 million that is currently in the bill. I would simply say that common sense would dictate, not another $6 million, that there is directly a link between having breakfast and performance for a young person at school. It does not take $13 million to tell us that young folks will do better in school after breakfast than without breakfast. So I do not think this amendment is at all about the merits of the pilot program itself. Rather, I think that what this is about is do we want this pilot program to, since we know that is directly a link between one's performance and having breakfast, do we want to grow this into school breakfast for everybody around the country? For me, the answer would be no. Because if one actually looks at the numbers, it would cost a full $750 million a year to provide free breakfast for every school and every child in school districts across the country. To me, that says there is no free breakfast, there is no free lunch. $750 million is a lot of money. Now, the reason I think it is worth looking at is that, if one is poor, one is going to get a free breakfast at school. Since 1975, the result of basically action taken here in this Congress, poor folks have been able to get a free breakfast. In fact, I have a chart here that shows participation rates around the country. In South Carolina, 98.9 percent of school districts offer breakfast. In West Virginia, it is 98.7. In Idaho, it is 97.8. In Texas, it is 96.8. In Delaware, it is 96.6. I could read the other numbers for each of the other States in the Union; but the point is that, in the whole, we are looking at very high participation rates for breakfast. The point is do we want to have another Federal mandate that says one is going to have school breakfast, and again I would say no. The reason I say no is that I think we have to take aim at helping folks. I think that those in need absolutely should be given a free breakfast. But if one is a lawyer, does one need to have a free breakfast for one's children? If one is a doctor, does one's children need to get a free breakfast? If one is a high-tech zillionaire from Silicon Valley, does one's children need to get a free breakfast? In fact, if I look at the number of school districts across this country, 20 percent of the families who send their kids to public schools make in excess of $75,000. Five percent make over $132,000. Do we want people from Georgetown County, where per capita income is basically a little less than $20,000 a year in South Carolina, subsidizing people who make over $132,000 in the purchase of their child's breakfast? I would have to say no. I as well would just make a point that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, in the debate that occurred at the committee level on this came out on the side of we do not need a universal free breakfast program. Finally, I want to say that I think that this is the most basic of all parental responsibilities. The idea that before one sends one's kid off to school that one help them with breakfast, especially if one is financially able to do so. This is a place wherein family traditions can be passed along, family history can be passed along, have you done your homework can be passed along. A lot of other normal family questions can occur at the breakfast table. So handing this off to school districts to me would be a mistake on that basis as well.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.