Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his comments. He has made a great contribution. He knows a little bit about this because of his own background as a veterinarian in terms of health care. I come to the floor to speak as somebody who has personally experienced the phenomenon of being placed in the position toward my practice--I am a practicing physician. I still practice on Monday mornings. I still practice on the weekends. I have delivered several babies during this session of the Senate. What the American people need to understand is we are going to spend $2.3 trillion this year on health care in this country. And $1 out of every $3 does not go to help anybody get well. We are never going to be able to compete globally if we cannot control the health care costs in this country. So I wish to walk you through, for just a minute, how this threat of liability raises the cost of health care for everybody in this country. Only 16 percent of the lawsuits that are filed across the entire country have any merit whatsoever. Mr. President, 84 percent of them are filed with the idea that we can intimidate people into settling a case so a lawyer can make money. It has nothing to do with the patient. It has everything to do with enriching the trial bar. I have experienced that personally as a physician who has delivered over 4,000 children into this world. What happens is, we change the behavior of physicians because of the tremendous liability that is out there. There are some very good statistics that reveal that. We know that 6 percent of the cost of health care today is for tests that are ordered on patients in this country that are not needed by the patient at all but are needed by the physicians to protect them in case they have some aggressive lawyer who wants to try to say: You didn't do everything in your power to make sure somebody is getting well. So we are going to waste $140 billion-- $140 billion--this year on tests that our people do not need because of the threat of liability exposure. Think what that money could do for access for everybody else who does not have health care today. We could buy everybody in the country who does not have health care health care with just the money we are wasting on the tests. The idea of extorting a settlement from a frivolous lawsuit does not come without significant cost to this country. It is not just the cost of the tests that are ordered that are not needed, there is also the cost of defending it. In the one case I have had in 24 years as a physician, the lawyer costs to defend me in that case, which was thrown out of court twice, were $65,000--for that one case. That was just the lawyer fees, and that was back in the 1980s. And I spent about $60,000 worth of time that I was not working taking care of patients to prepare myself for all the grilling and interrogation that comes from an aggressive lawyer who thinks they are going to hit a home run off my insurance that I pay. The consequences of that have been that malpractice rates, liability insurance rates, have skyrocketed. In Texas, what we know is happening is, it is not just that with their new system, they have more doctors coming, it is not just that the cost of liability insurance is going down, but the availability of care is increasing, and the number of dollars spent on waste for tests we don't need is declining in Texas. But it is going up everywhere else where we have not addressed this problem. We are going to hear all sorts of cases: that the problem is not the trial bar; the problem is we make mistakes and don't get compensated. Well, that is not the case because most insurance companies, if there is a legitimate case--and doctors make errors--they settle the case. They don't go to court. What actually happens some of the time as to that 16 percent of the cases that are legitimate, in Oklahoma, is that somebody who truly had an injury does not get compensated because the lawyers who are now defending the doctors have gotten so good that they win cases they probably should not have. So we have all these distortions that are occurring because the focus is on how much money can we put in the hands of people who ``are representing somebody with an injury,'' when, in fact, they are representing themselves and their own wealth. I am going to support both of these bills, but we need to wake up in America. If we are going to compete globally, then we have to readdress all of health care in this country. We have to go to a consumer-driven, transparent market where you know what the price is, you know what the outcome of the provider is, you know they are following best practices, and you should not be paying more than anybody else for the same thing. And the value judgment you make on your health care needs to be yours. We also need to make your insurance yours, not your employers'. And it needs to be able to go with you wherever you go. There will never be job lock if we do that. We need to give the individual the tax break rather than the company the tax break. And we need to put everybody with some skin in the game when it comes to health care. In our country, we know, if we have markets that really drive that, we will improve the quality, we will increase the access, we will get rid of the bad players, and we will lower the costs. And we have to lower the costs of health care. We can do it. At $2.3 trillion, if we took 20 percent and squeezed it out, we would have $460 billion we would not be spending on health care because it is not being spent on it now--it is spent on the machine of health care and the waste, as I just described it, on tests that are not necessary. That money would go into capital which would raise innovation, which would raise salaries, which would create more jobs, which would create greater prosperity. But when we have this false sense of entitlement to the trial bar, through extortion--and that is what it is; it is pure extortion, because most of them are filed not with the hopes of winning the case but with extorting the settlement because it is cheaper to settle than to pay all the lawyer fees--we continue to have this ordering of tests that are not necessary because we have to defend ourselves. I am glad we are going to be addressing that. I plan on introducing another couple of bills in the next week as we address health care to move some of the things I talked about. In Oklahoma, we have three cities that have over 50,000 people. Since 2003, they each had a total of six OB/GYNs. There are two left out of those three cities because of malpractice rates. Malpractice rates for OB/GYNs in Oklahoma rose 89 percent last year. My partners can't deliver over 100 babies a year without having a tremendous increase, and their average cost for the delivery per baby is over $500 per child, based on the malpractice cost alone. We have great problems. We can fix them. But we can't fix them by protecting a special interest group that has been protected for years that claims they want to do something great for people but who most of the time are motivated to do something great for themselves. I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, in the past week, the Senate has voted to reduce the overall cost of H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, now totaling nearly $110 billion by a mere $15 million. I am delighted that President Bush has pledged to veto this bill because Congress has, once again, been unable to resist the temptation to load up a must-pass bill with pork. I offered several amendments to eliminate nonemergency items in this bill. I appreciate the patience of my colleagues. I am very pleased and encouraged that this body is increasingly willing to depart from our business-as-usual practices. That is good because the American people are paying attention to this process. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, the American people said that ending earmarks should be the No. 1 priority for Congress this session. Thirty-nine percent said that members should be prohibited from ``directing federal funds to specific projects benefiting only certain constituents.'' It is interesting to note that ending earmarks was ranked ahead of immigration reform, which was cited as the No. 1 priority by 32 percent of Americans. I hope that these results, combined with polls showing a 22-percent approval rating for Congress, will encourage conferees to avoid a confrontation with President Bush over spending. I would hope that when conferees look for items to remove from this bill they take a close look at my amendments that lost by a narrow margin as well as those I withdrew. I believe that in this time of war and disaster recovery the American people expect us to make hard choices about spending. Taxpayers want us to be serving in a spirit of service and sacrifice, not searching for new ways to raid the public Treasury. Congress is raiding the Treasury in two ways with this bill. First, many of the items in this bill should be considered in the regular appropriations process and through the regular order. The war on terror is no longer a surprise. We are entering our fifth year of this war. It shouldn't come as a surprise to Congress that we have needs related to this effort. We have also developed a good understanding about many of the priorities in the gulf coast that could have been addressed in the regular budget process. Congress has also added billions of dollars for items that have no connection to the war on terror and the gulf coast recovery. Again, few of these items are true emergencies. The American people deserve to understand what defines a true emergency. According to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 all of the following five criteria must be met to be considered an emergency: necessary, essential, or vital; sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and not permanent, temporary in nature. Designating a project as an ``emergency'' excuses Congress from paying for a project. The result of abusing the ``emergency'' designation is an even greater emergency. Our Nation's debt is nearly $8.4 trillion. Each American's share of this debt is $27,964.86. Our national debt is increasing by an average of $1.95 billion per day. Social Security, Medicare and the standard of living of future generations of Americans are in jeopardy as a result of decades of fiscal irresponsibility and rationalizations for spending more money today without considering the consequences tomorrow. The Social Security trustees reported this week the program will exhaust its trust fund and begin running annual cash deficits in 2040. A year ago, that prediction was 2041, effectively meaning 2 years have been lost by a refusal to act. The trustees reported Social Security's unfunded liability is $13.4 trillion. Of course, the real problem with Social Security and Medicare is much worse because the Federal Government uses an Enron-style accounting scheme. We habitually borrow or, more accurately, steal money from these trust funds to pay for more spending today. When the 77 million baby boomers begin to retire in 2011, our Nation will be faced with the greatest economic challenge in our history. If we continue to indulge in earmarks, the gateway drug to spending addictions, we will never address these complex challenges, particularly if we can't resist the urge to abuse the earmark process on a bill designed to address the emergency needs of our troops and displaced people in the gulf coast. Another reason we must act today to rein in wasteful spending is because our ability to influence world events is diminished by our debt to other nations. We now have the distinction of being the world's largest debtor nation, and this bill will add to that debt. Many serious economists are warning that our excessive borrowing from foreign sources could cause the value of the dollar to collapse, which would lead to a disaster for our economy. It is incredibly shortsighted for this body to sell Treasury bills to countries such as China so we can finance economic development programs and other pet projects while, at the same time, we hope to encourage China to be more aggressive in terms of discouraging Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This is not just a numbers game. The future vitality of our nation is at stake. We are slowly but surely whittling away our national power and ability to leverage other nations away by our refusal to make hard choices about spending. Many of the items in this bill are obviously not emergencies, which is why this bill will be vetoed by President Bush if it is sent to him in its current form. Again, I hope conferees do not force the President to take this step. I am confident the President will veto this bill. He understands that it is more important to secure the next generation rather than the next election. Past Presidents and Congresses have made hard choices during difficult times. Between 1939 and 1942, Congress and FDR cut spending for nondefense programs by 22 percent. In 1950, President Truman and Congress cut nonmilitary spending by 28 percent. I suggest to my colleagues that if we want to be here past 2006, we better do the same. Still, I agree with my colleagues who say that the President's priorities don't come down from heaven. I suggest, however, that we are all subject to the judgment that comes down from the taxpayers. If we flippantly disregard the President's insistence that we make hard choices, the judgment of the taxpayers will not be kind to any of us. Families across this country are faced with hard choices every day in order to live within their budget. They have elected us to make hard choices. Our refusal to do this only reinforces the perception that we are disconnected from the priority-setting reality that governs the rest of the country. It is wrong, for example, for this body to fund pork projects such as grape research in the State of California force the taxpayers in my State and every other State to pay for a so-called emergency project that has been ongoing for the last 46 years and has already received more than $130 million from the American taxpayer. Where this body sees an emergency the taxpayers often see a series of misplaced priorities. The State of California received 549 Federal earmarks this year totaling $733 million. That included $10 million in Federal resources alone for museums. Is it more important to protect the residents at risk from flooding by the Sacramento River or to fund grape research? Congress is spending over $3.6 million on a grape research center in California this year. We are spending another $1 million on a pedestrian walkway project in Calimesa and a half million on pedestrian/bike improvements on Tower Bridge in Sacramento? What is more important for Sacramento? Why can't we prioritize today so future generations are not forced to make even tougher choices between massive tax hikes, drastic cuts to Medicare and Social Security, or the defense of our Nation? Martin Luther King Jr. once said, ``Cowardice asks the question--is it safe? Expediency asks the question--is it popular? Vanity asks the question--is it popular? But conscience asks the question--is it right?'' I plead with my colleagues. Do what is right. Our Nation is on an unsustainable course, and that course correction must begin today, not when it is too late.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we are wrapping up the debate. It is finished on this bill, and we are going to have votes in the morning. I think we need to ask some questions. We have a supplemental bill. Regardless of the amount of it, it is here. I think there is a real question in the country, and there should be a real question for us, on why we are doing a supplemental bill on the war which we know is happening, and also on projects associated with Katrina and Rita that we know are going to come through the authorization and the appropriations process. I think we need to look at that as a Congress and say why are we doing that, and be very honest about why we are doing it. The second point I would make is, in emergency legislation we have a lot of things that really aren't emergencies. I think we as a body ought to look at that and use self-discipline. But the third point is, and this is the one I think the American people are asking, we have a bill out here that is going to spend somewhere between $94 billion and $108 billion of taxpayers' money, and there was no attempt whatsoever to offset this spending--nothing. There were attempts on the floor to change it, but there was no attempt to do a rescissions bill. There was no attempt to look at the things where we know there is wasteful spending. There was no attempt to look at some of these things. This is a list of $54 billion in potential rescissions that I bet we could agree on $10 billion or $11 billion of if everybody knew the facts or the details. But we didn't do that. We didn't ask the Appropriations Committee to do that. It was not asked of them to do that. It is not their fault. They weren't asked to do it. That is the question the American people ought to be asking. Where is the oversight to see if everything is running well? If you ask the American people: Do you think the Federal Government is efficient, there is not going to be 1 or 2 percent that will say yes. If you ask the American people: Do you think we could do it more efficiently for less money, the vast majority of the American people would agree with that. And that is probably true. If you ask Federal employees, they will tell you that, too. The question is, Why are we not doing it when we are spending money we don't have? We ought to think about this the next time an emergency supplemental comes around. We ought to make an effort to find the offsets, and we ought to work together across party lines to say how do we secure the things we want. Some of those are different. If you are liberal or conservative, you may want different things. But if you are going to secure the future for those programs that help individuals and go a long way in securing what we need to do to make sure people have an honest, even start in this country, things that are valuable in that regard--whether it be the Food Stamp Program or Head Start or something like that--we are going to run out of money for those. In 9 short years, 81 percent of our budget is going to be consumed by Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest. We should have the discipline to start now to make the significant changes that we need to make to be able to handle that emergency that is coming. The real emergency is not right now. The emergency is going to happen starting in 2009. I just ask that we look at that and think about it. How do we answer to the American public that we didn't try to trim any other type of spending as we spend $104 billion? With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I intend on withdrawing this amendment. I wish to make a few points before I do so. In the supplemental bill, the Job Corps receives a direction that the Department of Labor can't manage it, can't use the resources to manage it. There are documented errors and documented fraud within it. Mr. President, section 7017 of the Emergency Supplemental would mandate that Job Corps operate with less accountability. Specifically, the language would make Job Corps the only program out of 100s to be operated out of the Secretary's office with direct contracting authority. The Office of the Secretary of Labor does not have the staff or resources to effectively manage and conduct oversight on the Job Corps. The language of Section 7017 forbids the Secretary from shifting oversight and management personnel from any other support office in the Department of Labor. Secretary Chao is forbidden to utilize the same oversight and management that every other program normally receives from other support offices within the Department. Section 7017 ignores recommendations from the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector General that warn against the dangers of waste, fraud, and abuse that will go undetected in the Job Corps program when one office controls all aspects of a contract- drafting, soliciting, bidding, and managing. The incestuous relationship between the contractors who operate the Job Corp program and the program officers operating the program will have no independent oversight to guard against improper payments, improper use of resources, fraudulent performance reporting resulting in fraudulent salary bonuses, and non-compliant accounting and record keeping. Secretary Chao is trying to clean up the Job Corps program so that it effectively serves low income teenagers and young adults with a residential job training program. The Job Corps program needs accountability. According to the Office of Job Corps, the program failed to have aggressive monitoring of performance data making evaluations of the program's effectiveness unreliable. The Job Corps contractors are reporting misinformation regarding the number of students that successfully graduate or receive GEDs. The contractors fail to report that almost 40 percent of the students who go through the program fail to obtain a GED or diploma. This results in fraudulent bonus increases to the contractor's pay. The program fails to report that the median stay of a student at a Job Corps location is 8 months, while it takes at least 12 months to successfully obtain a GED. The program also fails to accurately report how many students successful receive job placement into the skilled jobs for which the Job Corps is supposed to equip the students. They fail to report that only 5 percent of the graduating students are placed in apprenticeships for skilled jobs. The contractors incorrectly consider job placement in unskilled jobs and the military--(obtainable without a high school education)--as benchmarks for success. This results in fraudulent bonus increases to their pay. Examples of mismanagement illustrated in past Inspector General Reports include doctoring of program performance resulting in bonus pay, unethical use of resources, lack of cost controls and resource management. These examples makes the point for Secretary Chao--that the Job Corps program is in desperate need for accountability and oversight. The September 30, 2005 Inspector General report, San Diego Job CORPS Center: Student Attendance and Training Data Overstated, stated that the number of vocational completions was overstated by over 50 percent. Training records did not support that students had completed all the vocation's tasks with an appropriate level of proficiency. In the March 30, 2005 Inspector General report, Kittrell Job Corps Center: Manipulation of Student Attendance and Training Records, the Inspector General found that Kittrell managers manipulated student attendance and training records to improve the center's reported performance. Reported performance of high school diploma attainment and job placements was also was not reliable. This unreliable data affected Job Corps financially because reimbursed operating expenses and incentive fees paid to contracted center operators are based on reported performance. In the 2001 independent auditor's report on the schedule of Job Corps expenses for the Turner Job Corps Center, the Inspector General found inadequate controls over payroll processing, that included hiring two instructors without proper credentials and keeping inaccurate records of leave. There was also lack of accountability over inventories of consumable supplies, evidence that the center underreported medical and dental expense, and the purchase of property and equipment that Department of Labor did not approve prior to acquisition. In the January 31, 2000 report entitled OIG Questions $1.3 Million of Additional Costs Claimed by Contractor Report No. 18-00-003-03-370, the Inspector General found that the contractor Will H. Hall & Son, Inc. received an additional $2,365,622 due to delays at their construction site. The Inspector General found that this contractor failed to substantiate its claim that various events under the Department of Labor's contract constituted compensable construction delays caused by the Department of Labor. Certain amounts claimed were either double counted as both direct and indirect costs, already covered under the original firm fixed-price contract, or based on estimates instead of actual costs incurred. Section 7017 of the Emergency Supplemental will virtually guarantee that we will see many more examples of waste, fraud and abuse within the Job Corp program. Furthermore, why is the Senate being asked to make a program change to a 40-year-old program within an Emergency Supplemental bill? Why hasn't the Department of Labor been consulted in making this unprecedented move away from accountability? Why hasn't the Appropriations Committee or the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held a single hearing about this radical change to the Job Corps program? Due to time constraints and my desire to move Senate business forward, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. COBURN. I had planned on withdrawing that amendment, but I wish to make one last point. California received $753 million in earmarks last year. This amendment was to eliminate almost $11 million on levee reconstruction. Seventy times that amount went to California in earmarks. That is the problem. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 3817 be called up.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. I would resume where we were last night, if I could get recognized on amendment No. 3641, division XIX.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what is the pending business of the Senate?

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up Coburn amendment No. 3641, Division V, and I ask unanimous consent for its withdrawal.

Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, since it is a question, this isn't about whether you pay your share. It is about whether it is an emergency. If it is an emergency, then why wasn't it done last time? Why are we going back--why isn't a Corps that spent 46 years doing this project going back to repair what they didn't do right in the first place? I am going back to the main point and then I am through. I will talk again in the morning. Where is the money coming from? Had the money been paid for, I would not be out here. But the money isn't paid for. It is borrowed. So when you take $10.9 million, take your calculator out and put it at 30 years and amortize it at 6 percent, you will come up to about $55 million. That is what we are actually going to pay to do this $10.9 million because we are borrowing the money. That is my point. I am not against doing it, not against getting it done, against prevention. What I am against is borrowing the money against the future of this country because we refuse to make the hard choices. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. I understand that.

Mr. COBURN. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the arguments that have been made by the Senators from California, in terms of needing to fix things, are probably accurate. But I am sitting here thinking to myself, if it would take only $11 million to take care of this, and to know that the earliest this money is going to be there is 8 weeks, if I were Governor of California, I would find $11 million. I would get that tomorrow. If it is not going to get done tomorrow, we ought to be asking why not, if the threat is that great and it imperils that much of the economy and that many people. I still raise the same questions. I am not denying this needs to get done. I am denying how we pay for it. We are not making the hard choices to cut something else out of the bill to pay for this because it is a higher priority. No, what we are doing is taking the money from future generations because we refuse to make those hard choices. That is what it is all about. We could have reprogrammed money within the Corps to get this done. The Governor could ask the legislature for $11 million to get this done starting tomorrow. If there are 29 sites, what we do know about the Corps is it doesn't do anything fast. In this project, we know what they have done over the last 46 years has not been sufficient because they are having these problems. We will finish the debate tomorrow morning. The point is, I don't deny that this needs to get done. If it is the case that has been made by the Senators from California, then why hasn't it already been done? If there is this impending emergency, why hasn't California ponied up to put up the $11 million that is so desperately needed right now to pay for it, rather than asking the rest of the country's children and grandchildren? If this bill had come to the floor paid for, I would not be out here. But it is not paid for. We are going to go write the bills and bonds to pay for this $11 million. Maybe that is what we should do. Maybe that is the priority we should have. But I would think that the rest of the American people ought to say, where are you getting the money? We are not making hard choices. We are passing it down the line. I agree if something were to happen, the cost would be much greater. I am a physician and I believe in prevention. That is what this debate is all about, preventing America from becoming a second-rate economy because we refuse to make hard decisions here on how we spend money. That is what this is about. I don't deny the desire to address this issue. That doesn't have anything to do with it. But if it is an emergency as described at the present time, why doesn't California fix it? Why hasn't California ponied up the $11 million, which is a small amount there. It is the fifth largest economy in the world. They can come up with $11 million.

Mr. COBURN. I question how we are paying for it. We are borrowing the money from future generations to do it rather than make the hard decisions of trimming something else. That is important.

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COBURN. I also note that Northrop Grumman is the fourth largest defense contractor we have in the country. I also note that Northrop is already the recipient of billions of dollars in Government contracts, including some contracts that otherwise could be considered largess. I will not go into that. I would make a final note that the House Appropriations Committee, when they passed their bill, put this into the Record: The Committee believes strongly that funds in this Act and under this heading in prior Acts should not be used to substitute for private insurance benefits. The Committee is aware that some shipyards have business interruption insurance coverage that could potentially overlap with the Navy's budget for increased delay and disruption costs. I understand the Navy. We have an obligation for delay and disruption costs. There is no question about that. On March 1, 2006, the Committee received the Navy's certification that there is no overlap between shipyard insurance claims and the Navy's funding plan, and that costs covered by private insurers were not included in supplemental request estimates. Once again in this bill, the Committee directs the Navy not to obligate funds under this heading until the Secretary of the Navy certifies that no such funds will be used for activities or costs that are subject to reimbursement by any third party, including a private insurer. The final point I would make is the President's message to Congress on why he would be against us funding this. He made some significant points, and I will summarize them. One is they do not think this is necessary. No. 2, it violates clear contracting guidelines. And, No. 3, it sets a terrible precedent for the future, not just on our coast but for any other defense contractor that might have a loss based on a natural catastrophe, that we would now have a precedent that we would supply that. The American people want to help solve the problems on the gulf coast. We want to create a vigorous business environment. We want to create a vigorous defense industry. This is a step too far. I believe we need to back up and let the private sector take care of its obligations, as it should, to help us meet our obligations and then move forward. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have every intention of withdrawing this amendment. But I wish to mention for a moment that this is an amendment that would have removed $20 million from the National Marine Fisheries Service to study catch, bycatch, shrimp and relief and fishery profitability in the Gulf--the study of profitability. We are going to spend $20 million to study profitability. The Louisiana Seafood and Marketing Board considers this to be unnecessary spending and a low priority. That is what the people who market the seafood from Louisiana said about this amendment. I am not going to put us through a vote on it, but I think we ought to pay attention to the people down there who are now saying they don't need $20 million for marketing and studying. They believe it is a waste of money. When the people of Louisiana are telling us it is wasted money, it is certainly wasted money. I ask unanimous consent it be withdrawn.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3641, Division VII.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I don't intend to ask for a vote on this amendment and may, in fact, withdraw it, but I think it is something that the American people should know. This is about AmericaCorps, the National Civilian Community Corps. There are three things we ought to know. The idea behind this is fine. They have done a great deal of work on the gulf coast. However, there are some real problems with this program. The House also has significant problems with this program. Here is the key point: It has never had a comprehensive evaluation in 13 years to see if it accomplishes anything of importance. Compared to all the other AmeriCorps service programs, this one is about 50 percent more costly per person. This one costs $28,000 per volunteer for 10 months. That annualized out to $34,000 per person per year. No. 3, no one is measuring any performance. There are no set goals. No one is saying what they are intended to accomplish? How do we measure that? Could we do it cheaper? Can we do it a better way? None of that has been evaluated on this program. People will oppose this. I have no lack of reality in knowing we do not have an opportunity to eliminate this money. However, contrast what actually happened on the gulf coast with this AmeriCorps. We had people from all over this country go down and help. We didn't pay them a penny. We did not pay them a $35,000 annualized salary. We had college students from all across this country spend their spring breaks, their Christmas breaks, their Thanksgiving breaks on the gulf coast volunteering. We had churches, civic organizations, local charities, we did not pay them a penny. They all came because there was a need. There is something very wrong behind the idea that we have to pay people to be volunteers. As a matter of fact, it is an oxymoron. You cannot have a paid volunteer because they are not volunteering if they are getting paid. The motivation and commitment shown by true volunteers is unmatched by any congressional appropriation. The Nation is answering the call to be Good Samaritans and treat others the way they want to be treated. This program was started in 1993 with good goals, and the purpose was to create leadership. We may have done that, but the fact that we do not know if we have done that, the fact that we keep throwing this money--which does not go to the individual volunteers; $4,000 does, but it costs too much to operate. I will ask unanimous consent for withdrawing of this division, but we certainly ought to have some oversight. I intend to have an oversight hearing in the Committee on Federal Financial Oversight. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the division.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment 3641, division IV, be called up.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. One of the things we know we are all going to have to look at in the 2007 farm bill is how do we continue down this road and be able to afford it. The 2002 farm bill put in what was called crop insurance. Every time we put in a program that undermines the incentive to use crop insurance, all we do is add it to the deficit, and we come back. There is no question there are some needs, and probably legitimate, but what this appropriation does is create an incentive for people not to use crop insurance. That is exactly what it does. So if we want to unwind further and raise the costs for the American people of the farm bill we have today, all we have to do is keep this kind of funding in, and we will undo and make sure we spend more money in the future. I yield the floor.