Mark Sanford

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention to do a farewell address on the House floor on Thursday. In fact, I had reserved half an hour of floor time and had intended to not only offer a farewell but to talk one last time about the dangers headed to our economy and country, based on the build-up of our national debt and the economic bubble this has brought about. As it turned out, the day got turned upside down, and so as a consequence, I include in the Record the following. I would have simply risen to say thank you; as it stands, I write to say thank you. As a boy, our family would watch the movie ``It's a Wonderful Life'' each Christmas. It was one of our traditions, and it's a telling tale of life's real blessings and the importance of remembering them. It's in that spirit that I recognize how blessed I have been to have been an active participant in federal and state political debates over the last quarter of a century. It was Teddy Roosevelt who spoke much of the man in the arena, but what's often times forgotten about those who apply his speech to politics is the people who put folks in the arena. And that's where my thanks begin. I ran for Congress for the first time back in 1994 not really having much of a clue on the political process but certainly being concerned, revolted by, and impassioned on the dangers of our federal debt--and what it could do to our economy and our republic. I held flip charts in front of Rotary Club gatherings and walked through rather mind-numbing sets of numbers in explaining the dangers of our debt. I talked about the fall of the Byzantine Empire. I talked about the debt-load in Spain in the sixteen hundreds. I talked about a lot of rather narrow details, and I look back now at those talks and cringe. Those who sat in the back row must have thought to themselves, ``I have no idea what he is talking about, but he sure is passionate about it--and based on that I'll give him the benefit of my vote.'' This was the beginning of 25 years of kindness, generosity, understanding, and more that me, Jenny, and the boys were the recipients of over the years. I don't know how to best express my deep appreciation to the people of the 1st District, and to the people of the State of South Carolina, for the trust they placed in me and the grace they offered me and the family. It's well-known that on same days I exceeded their expectations on duties performed. It is equally well- known that on other days I fell short. But having seen both the highs and the lows of politics, and in falling at both ends of the ``expectation-fulfillment-spectrum,'' I can say with certainty that I have been blessed to serve a most grace-filled lot. For that, I am indeed Jimmy Stewart's character in ``It's a Wonderful Life''--a person only now beginning to recognize the ways in which I have been blessed over the years, and for this, I am most thankful. In short, public trust represents an awesome and sacred responsibility. It's one that I took most seriously, and regardless of the days when I got it right or wrong, I have earnestly tried to do my best. That meant representing the views, hopes, and dreams of folks at home as I carried their views to both Columbia and Washington. It also meant keeping my word on the things I promised in running, and it is for this reason I think my voting record stands out as it does. On both counts, I will remain forever grateful for the honor of the chance to be in the arena. Politics is made special not only by the ideas that mark its debates but by the people who give their different vantage points on those ideas and debates. Over these years, I have learned a lot from the many that I talked to . . . whether across the state or on the coast of South Carolina. I don't even know where to begin in thanking people along the journey. Linda Riney over in Berkeley County has always made me laugh with her dry humor. People like Bill and Barbara Bates, Ray Nash, Joan Peters, or Peggy Bangle have been remarkable for the ways in which they have helped me remember that iron sharpens iron. There were another thousand like them who would gently but clearly express their conviction. Their voices helped me to better understand my own thinking on a subject, and I will miss their wisdom. Other friends like Jerry Scheer, Mark Cumins, or Chad Walldorf were never particularly loud about their political views, but they were unbelievably consistent in their friendship. There were also another thousand just like them, and they were vital to my surviving the scrapes and bruises that go with political life. They are friends for life and I look forward to seeing more of them now that I will be able to spend more time at home. Sustaining this thought of the ways in which no one does anything of significance alone, I also want to single out my family. Political life was never a spectator sport for any of them. I begin first with my former wife, Jenny. The wear and tear of political life certainly took its toll on our marriage, but in fairness, I never could have begun my time in politics without her. Along with being a spectacular mom to our boys and juggling a whole host of other balls that we kept up in the air given our busy life together, she was a great campaign manager. When I first ran for Congress, we ran a phone line into the kitchen to begin the campaign because she was trapped there most of the time with two babies. She put in long hours and made a vital difference in my ability to pursue political life. And what worked in one campaign applied to the next campaign. And the next one after that. And three more after that. And three more after that. When we moved from congressional campaigns to state-wide gubernatorial campaigns, all the experts said that there was no way you can have your wife managing campaigns of that scale. But we figured ``if it's not broke, don't fix it'' and moved ahead with our most unconventional campaign format. Again, there was wear and tear on the personal front with those many campaign battles, but she did her part and did it ably and I want to circle back to publicly thank her again for all of her time and energy devoted to my time in politics. The same applies to our sons. They grew up in a very strange way. When I was first elected governor, I remember Jenny and I telling the boys of the details of dad's new work requirements and the move to Columbia. Marshall, our oldest, was curious and couldn't figure out how early he and his brothers would have to get up every morning to be able to make it to school on time in Columbia from Charleston. They grew up so rooted in the Lowcountry that they couldn't imagine moving away. Yet they did that and a whole lot more at a very pivotal point in their lives. They grew up thinking it was normal to get in the back of a Suburban every weekend and to go off to a different parade, festival, or social event across the state. They would come back each week to live in what Jenny light-heartedly called ``a gated community of one.'' There were certainly privileges that came with living in the governor's mansion, but there was also isolation, given you didn't have neighbourhood kids down the street just dropping by. There were armed guards out front at the end of the driveway. They had to deal with being viewed as the ``governor's sons'' as opposed to simply the great young men that they were as Marshall, Landon, Bolton, and Blake. They grew up standing in receiving lines with mom and dad before thousands; they grew up greeting each new crop of guests to the governor's mansion before they could go up and do their homework. The list is endless, but the point here is simple. No one gets anywhere alone in their lives. It takes collective effort, and it was as a consequence of not only friends and political allies that got me to where I am in life--but the work of my former wife and my sons on the journey. Let me quickly mention three last thank you's that are important to me as I close this chapter of life. One, over the years I have been blessed with an incredible array of talent that came through staff and team positions in the governorship. Let me begin with Marie Dupree. We have worked together for about 30 years. She has been a remarkable help and steady hand over my different offices and professional pursuits. It is funny how time flies by with some people, as over the years, I've watched her and Scott raise children and now come to be called grandparents. But as she did all that goes with life, she also was an incredibly steady hand in helping me organize my life, and for that, I am most grateful. The same would apply to people like April Derr who has worked with me for about 25 years. She, like Marie, was never political in focus but just cared about politics as a means toward helping other people. They have both done it very well and need to be singled out in this regard. There is an equally long list of folks who have been with me for chapters of my life in politics, but people with whom I could not have done what I did without their help, care, and focus. Scott English and I argued over policy and ideas for about 20 years. That's a frightening prospect, but we both love policy and would delve into the details of all sorts of ideas. Tom Davis is now a state senator, but we went to college together and he really got his start in politics in a place called Jurassic Park. In my first run for governor, we had a slew of people staying at the house. There was a fraternity-like element to the strangeness of random people coming up into the kitchen in the morning who may have arrived the day before or a month before as they took up residence to help with the campaign. The anchor of that effort was Tom Davis, who slept downstairs in the boys' bedroom that had been converted to a dormitory of sorts. It was filled with bunk beds ladened with the boys' old dinosaur-covered sheets, pillowcases, and comforters . . . and accordingly named ``Jurassic Park.'' Martha Morris was another one of those early volunteers that you never forget. When I began my improbable race to return to the House in 2013, it began with me, Martha, and Jon Kohan. It certainly grew from there, but you never forget the people who were there with you when you are down and who are there to enthusiastically kick off a new enterprise in life, however improbable its outcome. Jon certainly fits this bill as well, and I miss longtime friends like Martha and Jon today. I better stop with the naming of names because it is a list of hundreds over the years, and my mind is right now jumping back to the great work of people like Catherine Kellahan and Mary Neil Stroud or Jessica Gonzales and Brent Gibadlo. It is crazy how many competent professionals I was blessed to work with over my years in politics. Speaking of which, I have to mention just two more: Bob Faith and Joe Taylor. The people of South Carolina are the beneficiaries of their remarkable work as successive Secretaries of Commerce. I would argue that they were the two best Secretaries of Commerce in South Carolina history, given the businesses that they helped grow and the others that they brought to our state. This was in the headwind of the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and when you look at the numbers behind their efforts, they really do stand out as extraordinary. I know for instance that Boeing, and the thousands of jobs that have come with it, would not be in South Carolina were it not for their collective efforts. It's also a reminder of how from tiny acorns, mighty oaks grow. It feels like yesterday that Bob walked in to my office with an article he had found in Fortune magazine about the new use of composites in commercial aircraft. It was hardly yesterday and there is much water under the bridge over the years that have followed, but I am most appreciative of all their work. This is dangerous because each new idea that jumps into my head connects to yet another one. On this subject of cabinet members, I had a great conversation just a few weeks ago with Jim Schweitzer. He had been my Director of Public Safety when I was governor until I had to fire him as a consequence of bad actions by a highway patrol officer. It had been most unpleasant, as there is no way to put a red ribbon on these kinds of actions--but I had felt I really didn't have a choice, given my belief in the military model of holding people at the top of the conmmand structure responsible for actions taken within the unit. The long story short here is that I am thankful to people like Jim as well. He, and others like him, served ably for their chapter of service--and it was so nice to catch up and talk about the days gone by--and even tough moments in them. The point in all of this is that time is a great healer and brings with it a level of humility in one's actions and attempts at service. We all do as best we can. Some days are glorious, others not . . . but it is the melding of all of them that temper us and give us wisdom as the years roll by. I am most thankful for the different people that God has placed in my life and for the wisdom and perspective that I have gained in our interactions. Two, I am thankful to my God above. Over the years, I have grown to hold tightly to what's talked about in Romans 8:28. It says that God works not some, but all things, toward a bigger plan. That's a notion that we will all question at different points in our lives, but I am thankful for a God that knows how many hairs there are on my head and whether or not a sparrow falls to the ground. I respect friends who are reticent about the notion of God and faith but couldn't live my life without that belief that things are moving toward a divine end regardless of the daily ups and downs. Accordingly, I should thank not only the people who have been brought in to my life over politics but as well the people who helped raise and define me as a boy. Mom was ever-giving, creative, loved people, and always there; Dad never gave up. His big life lesson was on pushing through the inevitable obstacles that would come in life, and I am most thankful for all they did that helped wire me for the politics I have seen over the last 25 years. Three, and finally, I ask you to remember the power of ideas--and how they can change the world. We are living in a weird time on this front right now. It's important that we go back to our roots as a reason-based republic. We seem to flirt with populism about every hundred years in this country, and it seems we are in our latest courtship given the era of Trump. But a cult of personality is never what our Founding Fathers intended. We in fact were to be a nation of laws and not men. Over my 25 years, I have come to revere what the Founding Fathers created here--along with the traditions and institutions that they established in support of this simple but sacred idea of being about laws and ideas rather than a nation subject to the whims of men. It's part of the reason I have come to believe so passionately in limited government. I have seen first hand government's many inefficiencies, and any look at history screams the dangers of walking away from the Founding Fathers' inherent distrust in systems built on men rather than ideas and the institutions built to protect those ideas. So, along with the many things that I have enumerated above, my simple parting wisdom is that we remember what Benjamin Franklin said as he left the Constitutional Convention--that we had been given a republic, if we could keep it. This will require vigilance on all of our parts. It will mean not spending what we don't have. Math always works. Professors Reinhart and Rogoff spoke eloquently to this theme in their book ``This Time Is Different.'' Over the 800 years of financial history that they studied, it never was different. In every instance, the civilization in question found itself confronting the same math that our country now faces, and the politicians inevitably answered ``this time is different'' when talking about the math behind their debt burden. The political answer brought with it the seeds of destruction, and if we simply accept the political answer of more spending--that this administration and past administrations have proffered, we will face the same fate of those now extinct civilizations. I believe that we are marching our way toward the most predictable financial and economic crisis in the history of our republic. If we don't change course soon, markets will do it for us, and the consequences will be damning with regard to future inflation, the value of the dollar, the worth of our savings, and ultimately our way of life. More than anything, these last 25 years have been about trying in some small way to affect the trajectory of government spending. It has at times been a most lonely battle, but I am thankful that people like Justin Amash will still be here in Congress to carry the flag forward in this eternal battle between government's growth and liberty, between freedom and security, and between the soothing promises of populism and real math. Hayek warned us of the moment we are now living in America. In his book ``The Road to Serfdom,'' he talks about how open political systems become more and more difficult and cumbersome with the passage of time. This we all know. It's again part of what makes me believe so strongly in conservative philosophy and the importance of limiting government. Part of making government more efficient simply means reducing its size. Open political systems are never designed for efficiency, they are designed to give each one of us a voice--and that process of democracy is hard. It means we all have to roll up our sleeves and give just a little to find the compromises necessary to move things forward. What's valuable about Hayek's writing is the other half of the story. Because as open political systems become cumbersome and inefficient, inevitably a strong man comes along and offers easy promises. He says that he can take care of it for us. People desperate for a change accept his offer. They have to give up a few freedoms in the equation to get more security. It doesn't work out so well, as Hayek's book in this instance is about the rise of Hitler in post-WWI German history. I want to be clear and explicit that I am not likening Trump to Hitler, but the forces at play could lead to a future Hitler-like character if we don't watch out. It must be remembered that another thing that Benjamin Franklin said was that he who trades his freedom for security, deserves neither. Indeed, how true. So my parting wisdom again is this: As a country, we have to get back to math that works. We are riding on the Titanic as it now stands. This will end tragically for all of us, if we don't turn our spending habits around. Paul Kennedy wrote an interesting book a few years ago titled ``The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,'' and again the dynamics that he talked about were once again simply tied to math. We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater with regard to institutions and traditions that have served our country well for more than 200 years. If we have no faith in our institutions and the people that populate them, our system breaks down. We must embrace the truth, and it will set us free. Open political systems cannot survive in a post-truth world. While none of us are perfect, and there will always be grey around some areas of truth, we cannot accept chronic streams of distruth. If everything is subjective, there is nothing to debate. If, on the other hand, there is objective truth, and I can approach it from the right while you approach it from a perspective more to the left, then we can join in debate. Without truth out in the middle, there is no starting point and the reasoned debate that an open political system relies on for its survival is strangled and dissipates. A corollary to this is that we can't accept the idea of ``fake news.'' I have certainly had more than my share of bad stories of my time in politics. Some of them were indeed not designed to bring forward the truth but were rather attempts discovering the most sensational nugget or line regardless of its context. And context is key to understanding any new bit of information before us. But this does not make all news fake. In the former Soviet Union, they have truly fake news, and attempts to equate what's happening here with what happened there is most dangerous. There is a reason that the Founding Fathers enshrined the idea of a free and open press in the First Amendment. We should watch this carefully as the populist waves of today now come ashore. Lest I turn what would have been my talk here into a book, I will mercifully call it quits to my thoughts for the day. In doing so, I want to again express my thanks to all who have helped me on this journey and to once again encourage your embrace of free markets, limited government, and the institutional forces so vital to perpetuating this remarkably fragile gift of individual liberty. As you consider my charge, I would ask that you have the courage to walk humbly in advancing the ideas that we might share. Indeed, Micah 6:8 said it best in suggesting that we are to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly. Godspeed in the journey.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, with due respect to my colleague from Oklahoma who has been kind enough to yield me a bit of time, what I am going to do is yield to him, ultimately, and he will take the bulk of this time. I just was thinking the other night about the larger issue of government spending, and I would just like to walk through a couple of numbers here in a few minutes on its importance, because we have a big tax vote tomorrow. We had one today, and we had a vote before that, I guess the day before that, tied to spending and what the trajectory looks like on that front here at the Federal level. But I want us to step back for one second and look at the bigger picture on why containing spending is so important and why it is not so important in our kids' or grandkids' time, but why it is so important right now. I think it is interesting, if you were to look at the words of Erskine Bowles, the words of Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, the words of Paul Kennedy, and the words of your local fifth grade elementary school teacher, what you would find is an amazing correlation between all four of them. It was Erskine Bowles, who was, I guess, former President Clinton's former Chief of Staff who said that we are walking toward the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man. As we remember, they put together the Bowles-Simpson Commission of 2010. That ultimately led to the sequestration that we are in the process of getting rid of, but it was a ``nuclear weapon'' that said we have got to do something, yet we haven't. If you look at the words of Sir Alex Fraser Tytler, he was a Scottish historian who lived in the 1800s, and his words, after looking at world history over the whole of his life, were that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote for themselves largesse from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always fails under loose fiscal policy and is generally followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, spiritual faith to great courage, great courage to liberty, liberty to abundance, abundance to selfishness, selfishness to complacency, complacency to apathy, apathy to dependency, and dependency back again into bondage. And indeed, if you look at the timeline of civilizations across the annals of history, what you see is that up and down of the way that civilizations have come and gone. And it was Paul Kennedy, in his book ``The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,'' who talked about how, traditionally, open political systems have basically spent their way into oblivion and that the largest thing that you used to be able to buy was a standing army--nowadays, the largest thing that you can buy is entitlement spending--but that in every instance, a civilization came to a tipping point wherein they had to decide: Do we go back to what made us competitive and, perhaps, a world power in the first place or not? And that dovetails, actually, with another book that was written, entitled, ``This Time It's Different,'' by professors from Harvard and University of Maryland. They looked at the last 800 years of financial history and they found, in every instance, civilizations got to this same point, which brings me back to the local fifth grade math teacher. One plus one equals two, period. Numbers always work. Can they be manipulated? Yes. But at the end of the day, in the same way that gravity works, numbers work. So I think that we just need to acknowledge that we are living in a weird time. Debt, deficit, and government spending are not things that are talked about in Washington, D.C., as they should be, and what we are doing is we are hoping that things will get better. We are hoping that economic growth will take care of the problem. Well, it might, but it was Gordon Sullivan, former Chief of Staff of the United States Army, who wrote a book entitled, ``Hope Is Not a Method.'' Hope, indeed, is not a method. It may work out that way, but it may not, and, therefore, we have got to be really prudent with the way that we budget and spend going forward, given the implications of what history has said will come our way if we don't get the numbers right. So that leads me to a few numbers I would just like to share with you, and these numbers are interesting in what they point to. They point to the fact that this is not a problem for our grandchildren or for our children. This is a problem that is coming down the pike really fast. If you look at the Congressional Budget Office numbers over the next 10 years, what they show is that we are running trillion-plus deficits on a yearly basis and that there is going to be a snowballing effect with regard to debt to GDP, that we are going to get to spaces that we have never been to before in peaceful times. That is what this chart refers to right here. A lot of people say we don't really need to do something that much because we got into a real problem--if I pull that chart over this way--back at the time of World War II. We were over 100 percent debt to GDP, and we are just not that far right now, 79 percent. But that doesn't include the social safety net promises that are built into the budget. If you include those off-balance sheet promises that are real-world promises and that do have to be paid, we are actually up around 107 percent, which is not that far from the 106 percent or 119 percent that we saw in the wake of exhausting ourselves after World War II as we fought against the Japanese and Nazi Germany for our very survival. If you do an apples-to-apples comparison and include, again, the social safety net payments that weren't in place at the time of World War II, we are eerily close to that all-time high that we saw in the wake of World War II. That is just sort of a little bit longer perspective. Going back to the CBO numbers that I was just referring to, again, we are going to be hitting the trillion-dollar mark year in and year out, year in and year out, and that is without a recession, which is really the point of what I wanted to get to. Well, before I get to it, actually, let me take one last snapshot. If you look at sort of blood and turnips, you can only squeeze so much blood out of a turnip is the saying. If you look at the long run, we have taken about 17\1/2\, a little shy of 20 percent of the gross product of everything that we do in this country has gone off to the Federal Government, and we have been consistently spending a little bit more than that 20 percent here over the last 50 years. Those numbers really begin to grow as we have the baby boomers retiring. So what we have is a math and demographic trap that, unless we get ahead of it, is going to, again, have profound problems and implications in terms of the value of the currency, in terms of, ultimately, the future inflation, in terms of the value of everything that you or I may have saved to date. We have been on a spending binge and a debt binge not just as a country, but around the world. So if you look at the numbers that we were all troubled by back in 2007, the spike that we saw in 2008, 2009 with the financial crisis, which was the worst crisis that we have seen since the Great Depression, we thought that there would be a deleveraging after that, but, in fact, the reverse has occurred. There is $68 trillion worth of new debt around the globe, and so we have seen roughly 300 percent increases in China. We have seen that, more than that in the United States. We have seen that in Spain. We have seen well more than that in Japan. Debt has gone up, not down. In other words, we are more susceptible to a financial storm than we were at the time of the financial crisis back in the mid-2000s. Add to that, if you look at what is happening in most of the developed world, they are actually doing a bit of deleveraging. America is outside of that norm on that front. But here is the part that I want to get to, and there are a lot of other charts on a different night that I would like to walk through. But if you look at, again, the numbers, those CBO numbers basically anticipate that we are not in for a recession right now. If the recession comes soon, our numbers balloon in terms of debt and deficits going forward, so that makes it that much more relevant if you look at the history of recessions. The average recession, basically over the last 50 years--excuse me-- the average economic expansion has been about 58 months before a recession came along. We are now in the second longest economic recovery in American history. Now, when it ends, I don't know. But what I do know is that trees don't grow to the sky, and when you begin to go to the point where you are, in essence, double the average that we have seen since World War II, you know that we have to be not too far from the next recession, which, again, will have incredible implications in terms of debt and deficit going forward. Let me give you a few other indicators that say that that recession and, again, the spiking of deficits and the spiking of debt that will come with it is not too far. We are now in the longest bull market in American history. Again, think about that. Think about the wealth effect that comes with that and, again, the multiplier effect that that has in a consumer-driven economy, which is what we have in this country. We have had quite the run on that front. And not only has there been duration, there has been levity, if you want to call it that, not in terms of humor, but we have seen the numbers really rise. We are now, in terms of PE, our price-to-earnings multiples, up around where we were at the time in 1928 of Black Tuesday, at about 32 times in terms of the average market pricing. This chart, I think, is really interesting. What it shows is that there have only been two other occasions in the history of our Republic over the last 70 years when we have had the kind of wealth effect that we have right now. One occurred--and this is, again, household net worth as a percentage of disposable income in our country. Once it occurred just prior to the tech bubble bursting. The other time it occurred was just prior to the real estate boom bursting in 2008. Now we are at a level that is, again, more than 600 percent of household net worth as a percentage of disposable income, again, the highest level that we have ever seen over the last 70 years and a number that has only been prefaced twice: once, just prior to the tech bubble bursting, and the other time, just prior to the real estate bubble of 2008 bursting. Now, what does that mean? I don't know exactly what it means, but if I am looking at any kind of trend line, you would say: I don't know that it is good. It says the obvious. When I drive to Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, and I go into Sea Pines, the mansions of the 1970s are being torn down to make way for big houses now. The mansion of the 1970s is no longer a mansion; it is a little house that is a tear-down. People are wealthier than they have ever been. But what comes up oftentimes goes down, and I want to go into some of the wealth effect that has taken place here, which is what you have seen with this number right here. The Fed balance sheet has exploded, from about $800 billion in size to over $4 trillion in size. As we go on the opposite side of the curve, deleveraging, it is going to have an impact on interest rates, which, again, is going to impact this debt and deficit number. This is yield curve flattening. In every instance over the last 70 years, within 10 months of the yield curve flattening, there has been a recession. Ours happens to be flattening right now. Finally, I would make this point in these couple of slides that I wanted to show, which is that the unemployment rates are bottoming out right now. In every instance over the last, again, 70 years, when that has occurred, there has been a recession within 9 months. There are a lot of other indicators for a different night that I would like to walk through in terms of walking through why, again, the economic challenges that are before us are, again, not in our grandkids' time, not in our kids' time, but in our time, which makes spending restraint that much more important. I have taken up more than my share of time for my dear colleague from Oklahoma, and I don't want to burn through the entirety of his time, so I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma profusely for allowing me to walk through a couple of slides this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on this bill. I thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for her work on this bill. It is a bipartisan bill because it makes commonsense. So whether it is DeFazio or Blumenauer or Duffy--go down the list of different people who have worked on it--they have worked on something that makes eminent commonsense, and I want to thank them for their efforts. The saying is: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But the corollary to that is: If it is broken, fix it. What we have just heard are any number of different conversations about the degree to which the buyout program is not just a little bit broken but a whole lot broken. First off, just at an individual level, it captures people in a hamster wheel that they can never get out of. If you look at the average buyout time, it is about 5 years. In that 5-year time period, people are stuck there waiting and waiting and waiting as their house, in many cases, refloods. I have been to Shadowmoss in the West Ashley section of Charleston. I remember going in there after a flood. Those people who had a second story had carried stuff up to the second story. Those who didn't were just dealing with the flooding as it occurred on the first floor. But they had been repeatedly flooded. So at an individual level, this makes sense for the remedy that it offers an individual, so they are not stuck in a house that is repeatedly flooding, as they are trapped in dealing with that. It makes sense based on what Mother Nature is telling us. My colleague from Nevada mentioned this notion of climate change. I don't know exactly what is going on, but I know that in Charleston, South Carolina, if you compare the 1950s with the present day, there is 10 times more flooding in what they call king tides, and it has become regular. Something is going on out there that says this buyout program needs to be adjusted, and it needs to be adjusted now. The final point I would make is that this makes, as has been registered thus far, a whole lot of sense for the taxpayer, because if you look at the numbers, again, 30,000 homes in America have been flooded five or more times with substantial consequence to the taxpayer. We are talking about $5.5 billion being spent by the taxpayer in rebuilding and repairing. Destroy and repair is the term my colleague from Nevada used. The destroy-and-repair, destroy-and-repair cycle is destructive for the taxpayer. It is for that reason that everybody from the State floodplain managers to the National Association of Realtors to the Nature Conservancy has supported this measure. I cannot endorse it enough, and I thank the gentleman for his work on it.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes, as my flight back to Washington was delayed by five hours due to weather. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 269; YEA on Roll Call No. 270; and YEA on Roll Call No. 271.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes, as I was in Charleston, South Carolina for the primary election. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 258; YEA on Roll Call No. 259; and YEA on Roll Call No. 260.

Mr. SANFORD

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

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, this is a bipartisan amendment that I wrote with Members Delaney, Duncan, and others, and I think it simply makes common sense. What it does is that it ensures the timely payback of advanced funds to a non-Federal sponsor. What does that mean in English? What that means is that we have a program called the advanced project agreements wherein you have a Federal actor and a local actor, and it can be that the local actor advances funds to speed the project's completion. What this amendment says is, if you have advanced beyond more than your share, then you, on a timely basis, would be paid back for more than your share. Now, why is that important? If we are going to be competitive as a country, what we need to recognize is that, indeed, time is money. One of the things most critical to improving our water resources is timely completion of these projects. So this is ultimately about recognizing that time is money; recognizing that, to be competitive, we have got to speed the progress that we see on these kinds of projects; and, in fact, it ties to what we all know about competitiveness. I mean, getting things done means a bias for action; it means not waiting on others; it means showing initiative; it means, if you go the extra mile, you get rewarded for it. Let me give one quick example. In the port in Charleston, it is a $558 million project. The Federal share is $287 million; the non-Federal share is $271 million. In the case of South Carolina, they have gone ahead and saved, if you will, in their piggy bank $300 million. If they advance the entire $300 million, are they just out of luck or are they held to the original agreement of this is the Federal share and this is the State share, and therefore, even if you advance that money, you are going to get that additional $29 million back? That, to me, makes imminent common sense, because most of all what it does is it recognizes that time is money, and allowing local actors to move more quickly and not wait on Federal activity is something in all of our respective best interests. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Shuster for agreeing to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a conservative in support of this measure. As conservatives, we want less government; but the government that we have, we want to work better. I think that WRDA does that. I think one of the things we look at is how do we become more competitive as a society relative to all the other places around the globe in the way that we deliver goods, whether by land, by air, or by sea. Again, this bill does that. I stand in support of this measure and thank the chairman for his work on it. I want to particularly single him out for what he has done with the WRDA process. As has already been mentioned, there was a 7-year skip between WRDA bills. But there was a bill in 2014; there was a bill in 2016; there was a bill in 2018. That kind of predictability is absolutely necessary if you are going to see marine and other investments as we have seen, for instance, in a place like Charleston. Two, I want to thank him for what he is doing with regard to non- Federal sponsors. This idea of adding new flexibility in the way that we originate programs, I think, makes a lot of sense. One authorization means a bottleneck. What this bill does is frees up bottlenecks in the way that things get funded. Third, I want to single out Garret Graves and, again, the chairman, for this study on whether or not civil works can be done by nonmilitary actors. I think that this is vital in moving the backlog through that now exists on the WRDA front. Finally, I want to say thanks for what he is doing on cost-benefit analysis. A place like Charleston has been heavily hampered as a consequence of their throwing in local money. What we want to reward at the Federal level is more in the way of State and local money as we leverage Federal investment. Again, I thank the chairman for what he has done on this measure, and I rise in support of H.R. 8.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not only about being against a Soviet-style regime and the quotas and a variety of other things that come with it, but this amendment is, hopefully, about common sense. The one thing we don't want to subsidize are the things that cause us problems. We are now spending more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in healthcare costs as type 2 diabetes has ballooned. To give you the exact number, $327 billion a year is spent on type 2 diabetes. So the idea of saying let's subsidize our sugar so that we can then spend more on healthcare is something that needs to be looked at.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise too, in support of this bill, and I want to single out Chairman Shimkus for his tireless work. He stood up in conference after conference after conference, insisting that we move forward. This bill has been, indeed, a long time coming. This is about a national solution to a national problem. Each of the States could come up with their own navies, their own armies. We tried that once in South Carolina. It didn't work out so well. But it is important that we, again, have a national solution to a national issue; that is certainly the case with nuclear waste. This is about moving past politics to policy. This thing has been held up for years based on politics. I don't begrudge anybody in Nevada for pushing and using every tool in the toolkit in holding it off, but this is ultimately moving to policy. This is about not building a mountain of waste in South Carolina and a whole lot of other interim sites across this country. We have a fault line at the Savannah River Site, and there are similar security concerns with the plethora of different sites that we have across this country. Consolidating makes sense from a security standpoint. Finally, this is about giving people what they paid for, $40 billion nationally, over $1 billion in South Carolina paid by ratepayers. I thank the chairman for acting on this bill.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member for taking our amendment and including it in the en bloc amendment. It is a GAO study of revenue diversion by airports. I think it is important for three different reasons: One, it ties to the very heart of equity or fairness, the idea of all entities under law being treated equally. What we have now is a 35-year tradition wherein 20 airports have been exempted in a way that the other 380 primary airports in this country are not. Two, this is about recognizing that you can't use that which you divert. In 2015 alone, more than $1 billion was diverted from airport operations to other, and if we are going to say we need more money, let's use first some money we have, which would bring me to my final point: You should always spend what you have before you go asking for more. I think this is particularly important when you talk about $130 billion of need within the airport system; that you simply spend within the system first before you go to the taxpayer asking for yet more.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to encourage folks at home, folks in this body, folks wherever they may be scattered across this country to speak out against what the administration has proposed with regard to raising tariffs on steel and aluminum. At the end of the day, I believe it would be disastrous not just for the economy at large, but, frankly, for every one of us in the way that it would impact our pocketbook or our wallet. In short, what I guess I am saying is that you don't have to do stupid to find that stupid is indeed stupid. What I am getting at here is that we have had real-world experiments about once every 100 years in this country on these kinds of policies. It was in 1828 that you had the so-called tariffs of abomination, and it was designed to supposedly protect jobs and protect industry. It proved to do neither. It actually proved to be disastrous for the South and, in particular, South Carolina, where I am from. About 100 years later, you had the Smoot-Hawley tariffs that were equally disastrous in not producing what they were supposedly designed to do. They didn't protect jobs, didn't protect industry, and, in fact, world trade declined by about two-thirds during that time period. So as a country, what I am suggesting is that we need to take a breath, we need to look before we leap. In life, I would say there is a value to listening to the advice and counsel of others. In this case, Gary Cohn, the President's chief economic person, who is actually leaving based on this dispute, has said this is not a good idea. Steelworkers unions have said this is not a good idea for the way it will impact Canadian steel and, by virtue, American steel. The markets, which are sort of the collective opinion of what we all think is going to come next economically, dropped 600 points on Thursday and Friday, saying this is not a good idea. In fact, the Prime Minister of Sweden was here yesterday, and he was saying it was not a good idea. A lot of folks have spoken out and said: This is a genuinely bad idea. Let's not move forward. I would say further that, in negotiations, rescue teams shouldn't be the ones shooting the hostage. In this case, we have our Cs mixed up. The administration talks about doing something about China, but, in fact, the group--the country--most impacted would be the Canadians. The Canadians have to be some of our staunchest allies over a long period of time, with us in war, with us in trade, with us culturally; yet the bulk of all steel that is imported to the United States comes from Canada and 50 percent of what we export in steel goes to Canada. Let me put it this way: what I am saying is that what we need to do here is to trust our allies. If you walk into a bar and somebody says, ``If you take one step closer, I am going to hit you in the face,'' we need to trust them that they are telling the truth. And what they said is: If you do this to us, we are going to do it to you. In short, a trade war will ensue. I remember watching a movie back when I was in high school or college, somewhere along there, called ``War Games,'' and basically what it said was: the only way to win was not to play. If we move forward, we are going to get hurt. Nobody wins in a trade war. Finally, I would say this: in life, it is easier to burn down than to build up. You can take years constructing something and have it gone as a consequence of a match in a matter of moments or hours. As we look at this, this administration, in conjunction with the Congress, has worked hard to construct a better environment for jobs, capital, and way of life with the tax cuts, with regulatory reform; but all that could be erased if we move forward with these tariffs. More telling is the 70-year apparatus that has been created--over 70 years, since the time of World War II--that had us engage with the rest of the world, and we see movement in the wrong direction. Do we want better trade? Yes. Can there be changes that are made? Yes. But this is not the answer. A tariff, at the end of the day, is a tax. My simple presumption and my simple ask of this administration, the ask of everybody in talking about what is occurring here, is to say: Let's not increase taxes as a way of ``protecting jobs and capital in this country.''

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, it's been said that while every man must die, not every man gets to live. That choice that we all have in running to embrace life and all of its possibilities is tragically a choice that many people don't make. This was never the case for John G. His life was marked by the way that he fully lived it. He didn't just sip life, or feel it at its edges, he drank it with gusto. It's for that infectious smile of his that he'll be missed. It's for his enthusiasm of people, places, and circumstance that he'll be missed. It's for the high notes his voice would hit as he became more and more enthused in conversation, teasing, and even an occasional heckling that was well deserved. His love of the community showed in many ways. In a traditional sense, it was seen in his membership of things like the Mt. Pleasant Rotary Club where he won the Service Above Self Award in 1982-1983. His love of what makes our community special was marked by his membership in things like the South Carolina Waterfowl Association. His love of the hunt was evidenced by awards like the Award of Honor from Ducks Unlimited in 1979. The bottom line of both the traditional, and the anything-but- traditional, that marked John G was that he loved Charleston, the Lowcountry, and the people that make it special. At times that would mean him regaling us with side-splitting stories out at Halidon Hill, other times it meant he'd be charging through the woods and waters of the Lowcountry. He would intersperse these pleasures with his passion for bringing great food to others and what he created in Charleston Bay Gourmet. I remember getting a dinner from him over at the Mt. Pleasant Farmers Market, and watching him at work there at the food trailer fit with what Dr. Martin Luther King said years ago on passion in the work at hand. He cared, and it showed. John will be missed. I wish him the greatest of hunting in the great delta we will all one day see. He touched my life, just as he touched those of all who were lucky enough to spend time with him. So, accordingly, I ask that we observe a moment of silence in his honor.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Maggie Maine of Bluffton, South Carolina. It is my privilege to recognize her and all that she has overcome and accomplished in just seven short years. On Saturday, February 3rd, 2018, the American Heart Association's Southern Coast Heart Ball will celebrate Maggie's life and the odds she has defied. Albert Einstein once said that ``there are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.'' Maggie lives every day as if it is a miracle and, in so doing, inspires all who know her to ask the larger question of how they might make the most of the miracle we have all been granted in life. Before ever taking a breath, Maggie was diagnosed with Dandy-Walker Syndrome when Renae, her mother, was just 26 weeks pregnant. Since then, Maggie has defied the odds and shown true grit She lives with multiple congenital heart defects, a malformation of the cerebellum, and is completely dependent on a pacemaker that was installed when she was just an infant What these things mean is that her ability to see, walk, jump, and dance are things the doctors told her parents she would never be capable of doing. Yet, she does. Maggie is indeed a miracle kid. Even at such a young age, she is an inspiration to those around her. As said best by her parents, she is always smiling, even on the worst of days. With that, I would again ask that you join me in honoring Maggie Maine on this momentous occasion for the life she is living, her strength and calm, and for the way she stands as an inspiration that should make all of us smile.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wanted to join him just for a few moments to simply applaud the way in which he is raising this issue tonight. I think it is incredibly important because it was Jefferson who actually said ``that the normal course of things was for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield.'' And you think about the significance of the 10th Amendment and what it says. Its words are real simple: ``Those powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' This is a gut-check moment on the degree to which we really believe in the 10th Amendment, and we really believe in a limited Federal Government. So I would make very quickly three points: one, what you are talking about tonight is ultimately about this larger question of whether States are simply proxies, if you will, worker bees, if you will, for the Federal Government and nothing more than that. Are all decisions to be made in simply Washington, D.C., or can they actually be made at the local level? This issue that you are raising is ultimately not about marijuana, but it is about local voice and local control. For instance, we have an oil drilling issue off the coast of South Carolina, and a number of us have raised it, not because it was our idea, but because every single municipality along the coast of South Carolina came out in unison with different resolutions, different proclamations that said: We don't want offshore, not so much for offshore, but for its impacts in the way that we develop as a coastline. And so this is ultimately about simply this larger question of: Does Washington make all of the calls, or is there a State government, a local government, and an individual involvement that actually are involved in the way that decisions get made? I would, furthermore, say that this is a gut-check vote on the notion of federalism. Federalism is hard. The reason our Founding Fathers didn't want a king or a queen but wanted this massive process called a Republican and a Democratic voice that went with it was because, though it is a lot harder, it is a lot fairer--one man, one voice; not all voices in Washington. So what I think is interesting, back when I was in a different role at the State level, I remember different bills coming across my desk from different counties, for instance, for proposed tax increases. And staff would say: You have got to veto that. And I would say: No, the counties are free to make stupid decisions. I don't agree with it. I think it is a mistake, but counties ought to be able to have the voice to decide what they want to do. This is that exact same principle at play at the Federal level. And by having this quiltwork of different experiments in different States, and then being able to determine what works and what doesn't work, we are able to formulate national policy, not from on high, top down, but from the bottom up. Finally, I make this simple point: this is about saying the Federal Government does not decide the complexion of a local business. I think that what was significant about one of your earlier speakers, Carlos Curbelo, H.R. 1810--I am a cosponsor of his bill--it simply says, you have got to treat a local business as a local business. If it is legal locally, then you have got to treat it as such. And you can't come in and preempt from a Federal level and decide how local business is going to operate. So for a lot of different reasons, I simply applaud what you have raised tonight. And I thank the gentleman for his voice and his very strong stand for liberty and conservative principles in doing so.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 672 and YEA on Roll Call No. 673.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I was detained this afternoon at Georgetown University Hospital as my youngest son Blake broke his nose last evening and I was attending to him. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 616, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 617, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 618.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Elizabeth ``Lilly'' Chace. She was a remarkable young woman from Providence, Rhode Island who I had the pleasure of knowing over the whole of her life. She died on October 12th of this year at the tender age of 28 and was buried today. I pause not only to remember her life, but out of love and respect for her parents, Buff and Johnnie Chace. I also rise because it's in these moments that we think about life and how we might live it more abundantly. How we might make each of our lives count. How we might be a blessing to others and make the most of our time here on earth. I think that the short life that Lilly lived offers insights into each of those areas and, for that reason, believe that a moment of reflection is worthwhile. She did two things I want to do more of in my life. One, she did not idly watch it pass by. She lived it. She seized it. I remember years ago, upon the death of Malcolm Forbes, the front page read that ``while alive, he lived.'' I think that this would be a pretty good description of the way that Lilly seized life and the way that I'm inspired to do the same with an example like hers. In fact, Eleanor Roosevelt said ``the purpose of life is to live it, to taste experience to the utmost, to reach out eagerly and without fear for newer and richer experience.'' Indeed, Lilly walked across the glaciers of Patagonia, rode camels through the Moroccan deserts, and ventured into the Alaskan wilderness. I had not seen her much since she was a child, but by all accounts, she had more than an adventurer's spirit and the merit badges to go with it. It has made me think about how I might add in living more richly the years I have before me. Two, she was all heart. I have on more than a few occasions tied myself in knots over-analyzing some situation before me; but again by all accounts, this was not her nature. She listened to that voice that we all have inside and ran with it. I think the old saying is ``people don't care about how much you know, until they know about how much you care.'' As humans, we ultimately respond to the heart in each other much more than the technicalities of debate talking points. In thinking about her death, I have considered more than a few times about how I might live with a bit more heart and passion the task that's now before me in this chamber. And I think this idea would be worth a bit of focus and collective soul-searching, given the enormity of the issues that face this body. I point these things out not only because I believe they're worth our shared examination and thought but because I wish so much I could be with the Chace family today in Providence. That's not possible due to this vote we're taking on the budget, but I rise to honor Buff and Johnnie and to say farewell and Godspeed to their daughter Lilly.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I would make two quick points on the importance of tax reform. One, I would refer to an editorial that appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. What it talked about was the nexus between deficits and tax reform. Oddly enough, if you look at the numbers here of late and if you look at the 2017 CBO report, what it shows is that, in fact, deficits are creeping up again. Last year's number is $668 billion. What they point to in this editorial was that a good part of the reason why deficits have escalated has been tied to anemic economic growth and that, unlike other recoveries that had been more robust in nature, the revenues had not come in as they have in past recoveries. As a consequence, deficits have exploded. So if you care about the deficits--and I do, and I know that the gentleman from North Carolina does, and I know that other members of the RSC do. If you care about deficits, then you have got to do something about tax reform this year was, in essence, the premise of the editorial. The other point I would make is this. In a capitalistic society, capital matters. In essence, it is a mathematical formula. Savings drives investment, which drives productivity gain, which ultimately impacts standards of living or wages, which we talk about. There are only two ways of increasing or improving human productivity. One is with gray matter: you can build a better mousetrap because you have been well educated and you can think of something different. The other is with physical capital. One person with a bulldozer can move a lot more dirt than one person with a shovel. Yet what we oftentimes forget in the debate on tax reform is how important it is that we encourage and, in essence, complement the efforts of those who are out there risking on a daily basis. So with that in mind, it is important that we have tax reform that includes people who are actually, again, building businesses. Think about this: the top 25 percent of the earners out there pay 90 percent of the taxes; the top 10 percent pay 60 percent of the taxes. Now, let's define that for just a second. If you are in the top 25 percent, that begins at $77,000. If you are in the top 10 percent, you are at $133,000. Now, tell me this: When I talk to a truck driver and a schoolteacher at home, their combined income could be around $100,000. Are they rich? I would say no. But they are out there making the kinds of risks that are necessary to the building of capital that was exactly what The Wall Street Journal talked about. If we want to do something about deficits, and if we want to do something about capital formation that is so necessary to raising wages, then we have got to do something about this equation. It is important that those earners and those small-business people not be left out, as is the case right now. That is yet another reason why tax reform is so important this year.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise, as well, in opposition to the substitute amendment, and I do so because I am struck by the ways in which you can, at times, agree on the diagnosis but disagree on the cure. I think we would all agree, Republicans and Democrats alike, that we have a real problem in the way that wages have indeed stagnated over the last 30 years. A lot of my Democratic colleagues are nailing it in terms of that diagnosis. The question though, is the cure. And the question there is: Can we fix that problem by raising taxes by $2.7 trillion? Can we fix that problem by increasing spending by $6.2 trillion? Can we fix that problem by increasing the debt by $3.9 trillion and, in essence, having a budget that never balances? I would argue, no, and I would say, instead, what we have to look at is the basics, which we have been dancing around, which is the mathematic formula that says: Savings drives investment, which drives productivity gain which, ultimately, impacts standard of living or wages. And what we don't focus on enough is this notion of the investment part of investment; if you want to increase productivity, you have got to increase investment. In fairness to my Democratic colleagues, part of that is public investment, but another part is private. What my colleague from Virginia was just getting at a moment ago was, for 50 years, regardless of tax rate, 90 or 28 percent, the take to government has been about 18 percent of GDP very consistently. So what I would argue is we, indeed, need more public investment, but we also need private investment to go with it. And if we don't watch out, what is being contemplated with this Democratic substitute is a process that will ultimately crowd out that much more in the way of private investment so key to increasing productivity.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I would say to my colleague from Kentucky, I think the rhetorical device that he is using at the end of each speaker is very effective and it is persuasive. But I would challenge him with this: I think one of the things that we have got to struggle with as a body, both Republicans and Democrats alike, is not being selective on the issue of the deficits. What we can't say is deficits are okay if it involves more spending for all of us as a body to distribute as we see fit, but deficits are not okay if they involve a tax cut and sending money back to individuals within each of our communities. It is for that reason, again, I have voiced my concerns with regard to some of the components of this budget. But I think that the big issue for me is, simply, we cannot continue to spend as we are and have the ship of America sail forward. It was Erskine Bowles who was the Democratic Chief of Staff to former President Clinton who observed: ``We are walking our way toward the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man if we don't get our arms around spending.'' So, for me, while not perfect--and I certainly cede that point--I think the building blocks of what this budget is trying to get toward is a sustainable economy. How do you have a sustainable economy? Many of the things that my Democratic colleagues have talked about in terms of education, workforce development, those things. But it is also about the foundation of: Is our spending sustainable? You can't go on spending more than you take in forever without having bad things happen at the individual level, at the corporate level, and certainly at the governmental level. I think it is about: Is our tax load sustainable? Spending drives tax loads, which is interesting. I pulled a chart that shows for the first 100 years of our country's existence, we spent about 3 percent of GDP. It bumped up after World War II. We are now roughly around 20 percent, and we are on our way to 30 percent. The question we have to ask in this budget or any other budget like it is: Can we continue to do this without going to the exact spot that Erskine Bowles was talking about?

Mr. SANFORD. Finally, I would simply make this point: Not only can you only squeeze but so much blood from a turnip--and there are certainly limits that have shown themselves, which is around 18 or 20 percent of GDP, regardless of tax rate, up, down; there is that--but there is also this: You can pay me now, or you can pay me later in life. A deficit is simply a deferred tax. A debt is simply an accumulation of deferred taxes. One of the things, again, we have to get our arms around is that we are stacking up deferred taxes. We are stacking up an accumulation of taxes with debt and deficits. This budget, I think, begins to nudge us in the right direction in doing something about it.

Mr. SANFORD

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chair, I want to make clear I am offering this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from New Jersey, Frank LoBiondo, who I know has worked with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, Don Beyer, on this bipartisan measure. I think it is one that makes sense. It would, quite simply, restrict money with regard to seismic testing on the Atlantic waters and the waters of the Florida Straits. Now, why do I think that that is important? I think it is important because you don't build a foundation if you don't intend to build a house. And yet, fundamentally, what we are trying to do is move forward on something that I think begs this most Republican of questions, which is: Do we believe in home rule? At home, every municipality of every town and hamlet along the coast of South Carolina has come out unanimously against the idea of offshore drilling and seismic testing, not because they are against fossil fuel, but simply because they believe that they want to determine themselves how the coast of South Carolina develops. That is obviously the case with many colleagues from Florida, who have now headed home to deal with the hurricane, and a whole host of other places up and down the Atlantic and, again, the Straits of Florida. So I think that this amendment fundamentally is about this notion of, if you believe that the government that is most local governs best--not always, but generally--then might you not give this amendment a try, because fundamentally what it says is places like Port Fourchon are nice, but what the people of South Carolina have determined is that we don't want our coast to develop that way because of the amount of onshore that is necessary to support offshore operations. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my colleague.