Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to answer the questions raised in the debate by the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to speak a few moments discussing why we are all here.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, at this time I ask the amendment be divided in the form which I send to the desk.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Barack Obama, Thomas Carper, and John McCain, I introduced legislation to create an online public database that itemizes Federal funding. The bill ensures that the taxpayers will now know how their money is being spent. Every citizen in this country, after all, should have the right to know what organizations and activities are being funded with their hard-earned tax dollars. The Federal Government awards roughly $300 billion in grants annually to 30,000 different organizations across the United States, according to the General Services Administration. This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to establish and maintain a single public Web site that lists all entities receiving Federal funds, including the name of each entity, the amount of Federal funds the entity has received annually by program, and the location of the entity. All Federal assistance must be posted within 30 days of such funding being awarded to an organization. This would be an important tool to make Federal funding more accountable and transparent. It would also help to reduce fraud, abuse, and misallocation of Federal funds by requiring greater accounting of Federal expenditures. According to OMB, Federal agencies reported $37.3 billion in improper payments for fiscal year 2005 alone. Better tracking of Federal funds would ensure that agencies and taxpayers know where resources are being spent and likely reduce the number of improper payments by Federal agencies. Over the past year, the Senate Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, which I chair along with ranking member Carper, has uncovered tens of billions of dollars in fraud, abuse and wasteful spending, ranging from expensive leasing schemes to corporate welfare to bloated bureaucracy. This database would ensure that such spending is better tracked and the public can hold policymakers and Government agencies accountable for questionable spending decisions. The Web site required by this bill would not be difficult to develop. In fact, one such site already exists for some Federal funds provided by agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. The CRISP, Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects, is a searchable database of federally funded biomedical research projects conducted at universities, hospitals, and other research institutions. The database, maintained by the Office of Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health, includes projects funded by the National Institutes of Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, and Office of Assistant Secretary of Health. The CRISP database contains current and historical awards dating from 1972 to the present. This type of information should be available for all Federal contracts, grants, loans, and assistance provided by all Federal agencies and departments. It often takes agencies months to verify or to determine an organization's funding when requested by Congress. There are numerous examples of Federal agencies or entities receiving Federal funds actually trying to camouflage how Federal dollars are being spent or distributing public funds in violation of Federal laws. In October 2005, the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources questioned the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, assistant administrator to determine if the agency was funding a proprostitution nongovernmental organization called Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha, SANGRAM, in apparent violation of Public Law 108-25. This law prohibits funds from being used ``to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking,'' and organizations seeking Federal funding for HIV/AIDS work must have a policy ``explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.'' According to an unclassified State Department memorandum, Restore International, an antitrafficking organization working in India, was ``confronted by a USAID-funded NGO, SANGRAM while the former attempted to rescue and provide long-term care for child victims of sex trafficking. The confrontation led to the release of 17 minor girls-- victims of trafficking--into the hands of traffickers and trafficking accomplices.'' According to this memorandum, SANGRAM ``allowed a brothel keeper into a shelter to pressure the girls not to cooperate with counselors. The girls are now back in the brothels, being subjected to rape for profit.'' On November 16, 2005, a USAID briefer asserted to subcommittee staff that USAID had ``nothing to do with'' the grant to the proprostitution SANGRAM and that the subcommittee's inquiries were ``destructive.'' Nonetheless, congressional investigators continued to pursue this matter and eventually proved that USAID money financed the proprostitution SANGRAM through a second organization named Avert, which was established with the assistance of four USAID employees as a passthrough entity. USAID has held the ex-officio vice chairmanship of Avert since inception. According to documents obtained by the subcommittee, the USAID board member of Avert voted twice to award funding to SANGRAM--July 27, 2002 and again on December 3, 2004--the last time being some 18 months after the provisions of Public Law 108- 25 prohibited taxpayer funding of proprostitution groups like SANGRAM. Last August, HHS sponsored a conference in Utah entitled the ``First National Conference on Methamphetamine, HIV and Hepatitis'' that promoted illegal drug abuse and dangerous sexual behavior. Conference sessions included: ``We Don't Need a `War' on Methamphetamine''; ``You Don't Have to Be Clean & Sober. Or Even Want to Be!''; ``Tweaking Tips for Party Boys''; ``Barebacking: A Harm Reduction Approach''; and ``Without condoms: Harm Reduction, Unprotected Sex, Gay Men and Barebacking.'' ``Tweaking'' is a street term for the most dangerous stage of meth abuse. A ``tweaker'' is a term for a meth addict who probably has not slept in days, or weeks, and is irritable and paranoid. Likewise, ``party boy'' is slang for an individual who abuses drugs, or ``parties.'' ``Barebacking'' is a slang term for sexual intercourse without the use of a condom. While HHS initially denied sponsoring the conference, it was later learned that thousands of dollars of a CDC grant were used to, in fact, sponsor this conference and CDC sent six employees to participate. In a letter dated October 28, 2005, CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding admitted that ``Although CDC was not listed as a sponsor, a portion of CDC's cooperative agreement with Utah, $13,500, was used to support the conference. While Utah informed a CDC project officer that Utah and the Harm Reduction Coalition were sponsoring the conference and shared a draft agenda with the project officer, Utah did not inform the project officer about the particular source of the funding for the conference.'' Previously, the CDC was questioned about its financial support for a number of dubious HIV prevention workshops, including ``flirting classes'' and ``Booty Call,'' orchestrated by the Stop AIDS Foundation of San Francisco. While CDC repeatedly denied to both Congress and the public that taxpayer funds were used to finance these programs, a Stop AIDS Project official eventually admitted in August 2001 to using Federal funds for the programs. An HHS Office of Inspector General, OIG, investigation also concluded in November 2001 that Federal funds were used to finance the programs and that the programs themselves contained content that may violate Federal laws and Federal guidelines were not followed. The OIG found that the activity under review ``did not fully comply with the cooperative agreement and other CDC guidance,'' that the CDC requirement for review of materials by a local review panel was not followed, and characterized some of the project activities as ``inappropriate.'' Finally, the OIG concluded that ``CDC funding was used to support all [Stop AIDS] Project activities.'' The Stop AIDS Project received approximately $700,000 a year from the CDC but no longer receives Federal funding. These are just a few recent examples from only a couple agencies uncovered due to aggressive congressional oversight. While the public, whose taxes finance these groups and programs, watchdog organizations, and the media can file Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests for this same information, such requests can take months to receive answers and often go completely ignored. If enacted, this legislation will finally ensure true accountability and transparency in how the Government spends our money, which will hopefully lead to more fiscal responsibility by the Federal Government.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, today the Senate considers The Year of the Museum resolution which asks for Congress to support the goals and ideals of the Year of the Museum and asks the President to call upon Americans to observe this year with appropriate programs and activities. I encourage citizens to utilize and support their local museums which serve as a wonderful resource for communities. There is great value for citizens in the arts, historic collections and museums. They are a reflection of our culture and people, and are important to our history and national identity. Children and young learners benefit tremendously from art programs in the schools. These activities make for well rounded citizens, tomorrow's leaders. Museums play an important role in our lives. The Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, which I chair, held a hearing on Federal funding of museums this week and found that Federal support of the arts and humanities, which includes museums, has increased 25 percent in the last 5 years. During a time of tremendous financial challenge, we must exercise thrift and frugality with taxpayer money. Why not hold museum and arts funding steady at current levels? I believe that budget increases for nonessential activities during a time of great challenge to our Nation are indefensible. It is Congress that holds the purse strings and, frankly, we have been unwilling to make the tough decisions today for the future well-being of our grandchildren. As a government we have spent over $7 billion on such programs and institutions since 2001, but where in the Constitution does it allow the Federal Government support museums and the arts by taxing citizens to pay for museums in other cities and States? Essentially taxpayers are being forced to subsidize museums they do not attend. Museums spend $21 for every visitor while only earning $5.50 in revenue per visitor according to the American Association of Museums. I remind my colleagues that the current fiscal environment of war, Katrina and Social Security and Medicare insolvency is a very serious situation. One criticism of the President I have is that he has not asked the American people to sacrifice during wartime. We cannot, as a government, do everything we would like to do. I think the American people would be very forgiving and willing to make sacrifices if only asked. During a time of war Presidents Roosevelt and Truman slashed nondefense spending by over 20 percent. It can be done. There are several opportunities for Federal funding of museums through competitive grants administered by the Institute for Museum and Library Services and the National Science Foundation which are peer reviewed and grantees are held accountable and must meet financial management requirements as well as other conditions. Museum earmarks, however, proliferate, especially in the home States of members of the powerful Appropriations Committee. This year 69 percent of museum earmarks went to their home States. These museums get to cut in line and skip the competitive application. Favored projects receive money without having to compete with the other museums. These projects have not had to demonstrate their merit or worth to a community, but get a cash award nonetheless. There is something wrong with this system. What's more, several museums split their earmark requests across bills in the same year to hide the true cost. The same museums request earmarks every year, and get them. Since 2001, over 860 earmarks have been handed out to museums. I support the ideals of the Year of the Museum, but I ask my colleagues to exercise fiscal restraint and stop focusing on political expediency and start thinking about future generations. Given the local nature of most of the grants and earmarks, it is difficult to defend the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to benefit a small group of people in Muskogee, St. Louis, or Anchorage. If a community truly wanted such an institution or program, they would and should find a way to pay for it with local and State money, or through admission fees.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators Barack Obama, Thomas Carper, and John McCain, I introduced legislation to create an online public database that itemizes Federal funding. The bill ensures that the taxpayers will now know how their money is being spent. Every citizen in this country, after all, should have the right to know what organizations and activities are being funded with their hard-earned tax dollars. The Federal Government awards roughly $300 billion in grants annually to 30,000 different organizations across the United States, according to the General Services Administration. This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to establish and maintain a single public Web site that lists all entities receiving Federal funds, including the name of each entity, the amount of Federal funds the entity has received annually by program, and the location of the entity. All Federal assistance must be posted within 30 days of such funding being awarded to an organization. This would be an important tool to make Federal funding more accountable and transparent. It would also help to reduce fraud, abuse, and misallocation of Federal funds by requiring greater accounting of Federal expenditures. According to OMB, Federal agencies reported $37.3 billion in improper payments for fiscal year 2005 alone. Better tracking of Federal funds would ensure that agencies and taxpayers know where resources are being spent and likely reduce the number of improper payments by Federal agencies. Over the past year, the Senate Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, which I chair along with ranking member Carper, has uncovered tens of billions of dollars in fraud, abuse and wasteful spending, ranging from expensive leasing schemes to corporate welfare to bloated bureaucracy. This database would ensure that such spending is better tracked and the public can hold policymakers and Government agencies accountable for questionable spending decisions. The Web site required by this bill would not be difficult to develop. In fact, one such site already exists for some Federal funds provided by agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. The CRISP, Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects, is a searchable database of federally funded biomedical research projects conducted at universities, hospitals, and other research institutions. The database, maintained by the Office of Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health, includes projects funded by the National Institutes of Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, and Office of Assistant Secretary of Health. The CRISP database contains current and historical awards dating from 1972 to the present. This type of information should be available for all Federal contracts, grants, loans, and assistance provided by all Federal agencies and departments. It often takes agencies months to verify or to determine an organization's funding when requested by Congress. There are numerous examples of Federal agencies or entities receiving Federal funds actually trying to camouflage how Federal dollars are being spent or distributing public funds in violation of Federal laws. In October 2005, the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources questioned the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, assistant administrator to determine if the agency was funding a proprostitution nongovernmental organization called Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha, SANGRAM, in apparent violation of Public Law 108-25. This law prohibits funds from being used ``to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking,'' and organizations seeking Federal funding for HIV/AIDS work must have a policy ``explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.'' According to an unclassified State Department memorandum, Restore International, an antitrafficking organization working in India, was ``confronted by a USAID-funded NGO, SANGRAM while the former attempted to rescue and provide long-term care for child victims of sex trafficking. The confrontation led to the release of 17 minor girls-- victims of trafficking--into the hands of traffickers and trafficking accomplices.'' According to this memorandum, SANGRAM ``allowed a brothel keeper into a shelter to pressure the girls not to cooperate with counselors. The girls are now back in the brothels, being subjected to rape for profit.'' On November 16, 2005, a USAID briefer asserted to subcommittee staff that USAID had ``nothing to do with'' the grant to the proprostitution SANGRAM and that the subcommittee's inquiries were ``destructive.'' Nonetheless, congressional investigators continued to pursue this matter and eventually proved that USAID money financed the proprostitution SANGRAM through a second organization named Avert, which was established with the assistance of four USAID employees as a passthrough entity. USAID has held the ex-officio vice chairmanship of Avert since inception. According to documents obtained by the subcommittee, the USAID board member of Avert voted twice to award funding to SANGRAM--July 27, 2002 and again on December 3, 2004--the last time being some 18 months after the provisions of Public Law 108- 25 prohibited taxpayer funding of proprostitution groups like SANGRAM. Last August, HHS sponsored a conference in Utah entitled the ``First National Conference on Methamphetamine, HIV and Hepatitis'' that promoted illegal drug abuse and dangerous sexual behavior. Conference sessions included: ``We Don't Need a `War' on Methamphetamine''; ``You Don't Have to Be Clean & Sober. Or Even Want to Be!''; ``Tweaking Tips for Party Boys''; ``Barebacking: A Harm Reduction Approach''; and ``Without condoms: Harm Reduction, Unprotected Sex, Gay Men and Barebacking.'' ``Tweaking'' is a street term for the most dangerous stage of meth abuse. A ``tweaker'' is a term for a meth addict who probably has not slept in days, or weeks, and is irritable and paranoid. Likewise, ``party boy'' is slang for an individual who abuses drugs, or ``parties.'' ``Barebacking'' is a slang term for sexual intercourse without the use of a condom. While HHS initially denied sponsoring the conference, it was later learned that thousands of dollars of a CDC grant were used to, in fact, sponsor this conference and CDC sent six employees to participate. In a letter dated October 28, 2005, CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding admitted that ``Although CDC was not listed as a sponsor, a portion of CDC's cooperative agreement with Utah, $13,500, was used to support the conference. While Utah informed a CDC project officer that Utah and the Harm Reduction Coalition were sponsoring the conference and shared a draft agenda with the project officer, Utah did not inform the project officer about the particular source of the funding for the conference.'' Previously, the CDC was questioned about its financial support for a number of dubious HIV prevention workshops, including ``flirting classes'' and ``Booty Call,'' orchestrated by the Stop AIDS Foundation of San Francisco. While CDC repeatedly denied to both Congress and the public that taxpayer funds were used to finance these programs, a Stop AIDS Project official eventually admitted in August 2001 to using Federal funds for the programs. An HHS Office of Inspector General, OIG, investigation also concluded in November 2001 that Federal funds were used to finance the programs and that the programs themselves contained content that may violate Federal laws and Federal guidelines were not followed. The OIG found that the activity under review ``did not fully comply with the cooperative agreement and other CDC guidance,'' that the CDC requirement for review of materials by a local review panel was not followed, and characterized some of the project activities as ``inappropriate.'' Finally, the OIG concluded that ``CDC funding was used to support all [Stop AIDS] Project activities.'' The Stop AIDS Project received approximately $700,000 a year from the CDC but no longer receives Federal funding. These are just a few recent examples from only a couple agencies uncovered due to aggressive congressional oversight. While the public, whose taxes finance these groups and programs, watchdog organizations, and the media can file Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests for this same information, such requests can take months to receive answers and often go completely ignored. If enacted, this legislation will finally ensure true accountability and transparency in how the Government spends our money, which will hopefully lead to more fiscal responsibility by the Federal Government.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I object.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the spending process in the Congress is broken. Some will argue that now is not the time to debate spending reform or budget reform. They will say that now is not the time to have a debate about our country's spending priorities. They will argue that right now we need to just ``pay our bills'' for past transactions and discuss reforms some time in the future. Raising the debt limit, however, does not count as ``paying the bills.'' We are not paying our bills. Last fiscal year, the real Federal deficit--the amount by which the Federal debt increased--was $538 billion. When we raise the debt limit, we are not ``paying our bills.'' We are merely taking out another line of credit--another loan--to allow for more spending that we can't afford. It is akin to a deeply indebted family getting a loan for a new car or getting a new credit card or line of credit without cutting up the old credit cards that got them in trouble in the first place. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Government spent roughly $2.5 trillion during the last fiscal year. Let's look at that amount of spending another way. If the Federal Government spent $2.5 trillion last year, that means that on average, $6.8 billion was spent each day, or $78,418 was spent per second by the Federal Government. I believe that it is absolutely necessary to have an open and honest debate about our spending priorities. We are getting ready to increase this country's debt limit to almost $9 trillion. Over the past 5 years, our national debt has increased by $3 trillion, or nearly $9,000 per American. That is a lot of money. In 1990, our total national debt was about $3 trillion. That means that it took our country more than 200 years to accumulate that amount of debt--200 years to increase our debt by $3 trillion. We just added that much new debt in only 5 years. In 2001, the share of Federal debt per person in this country was a little over $20,000. That includes everyone--not just those in the workforce. According to the Office of Management and Budget and the Census Bureau, total Federal debt per American will rise to $29,000 per American by the end of 2006. That is an increase of $9,000 per man, woman, and child in this country since 2001. But a lot of people are quick to dismiss that figure. They will say that it doesn't matter, that we only need to worry about how debt and deficits compare to economic growth or to the size of the economy. I think a better rule of thumb is how Government growth compares to the growth of wages and earnings. If regular Americans are tightening their belts, the Federal Government should do the same instead of engaging in yet another spending binge. Since 2001, total Federal debt per American has increased by $9,000. But over that same time period, the average wages of American workers have only increased by $4,200. Over the past 5 years, the growth of Federal debt per person has doubled the growth of average wages of American workers. What makes this situation even worse is that that $9,000 increase in debt per person is just going to get bigger and bigger because we are not doing anything to cut spending or prepare for the impending fiscal crisis that will result from the retirement of the baby boomer generation. Interest on that debt is just going to get larger. Last year, interest costs--the costs of Federal debt that the Government must pay to those who buy U.S. Treasury bonds--were about 8 percent of the total Federal budget. In contrast, the average American spends roughly 5 percent of his or her income on credit card debt and car loans according to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Government spent close to $200 billion on interest costs alone last year. According to the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, interest costs will consume 25 percent of the entire Federal budget by 2035. Let's put that figure into perspective. Twenty-five percent of the Federal budget is a huge amount. By way of comparison, the Department of Education's share of Federal spending in 2005 was approximately 3 percent of all Federal spending. The Department of Health and Human Services was responsible for approximately 23 percent of all Federal spending. Spending by the Social Security Administration was responsible for about 20 percent of all Federal spending. Spending on Medicare was about 12 percent of all Federal spending. Spending in 2005 by the Department of Defense--in the midst of two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a global war against terrorism--comprised about 19 percent of all Federal spending. Thus, if we do not change our current spending habits, GAO estimates that as a percentage of Federal spending, interest costs in 2035 will be larger than defense costs today, Social Security costs today, Medicare costs today, and education costs today. No family in America would ever be able to manage its finances this way. No family would be able to build up insane amounts of debt, unilaterally increase all of its credit card limits with no ability to ever pay them off, and still be able to spend, spend, spend without any accountability. We have some very serious problems to address regarding spending priorities in this country. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress appropriated $64 billion in earmarks for 2006, the current fiscal year. That doesn't even include the earmarks from the highway bill that was passed in 2005. We are going to spend $64 billion on earmarks and pork projects across the country this year even though it is estimated that the real Federal deficit--including the money that is regularly stolen from Social Security--will again surpass half a trillion dollars. Earmarks are a serious problem because they put parochial interests ahead of national priorities. They put the interests of the next election ahead of the interests of the next generation. Some, however, argue that earmarks are not really a problem because they comprise a small percent of the budget. They argue that entitlement spending is the problem and that we ought to address that problem instead of focusing on earmarks. These arguments completely miss the point. If entitlements are the real problem and earmarks are not a problem, then why did entitlement savings passed in the last budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 only amount to $5 billion? If entitlements are the real problem, why did we spend 13 times more money on earmarks last year than we saved in entitlement programs? At that rate, we will solve our country's fiscal problems some time after never. The budget resolution we passed last year created entitlement savings of about $40 billion over the next 5 years. We spent more on earmarks in 1 single year than we saved from entitlement programs over 5 years. Over the past 3 years--since 2004--we have spent nearly $160 billion on earmarks and special interest pork projects according to the Congressional Research Service. Since 1994, the number of individual earmarks has more than tripled, increasing from 4,126 in 1994 to 12,852 in fiscal year 2006. Of those 12,852 earmarks, over 95 percent were not even included in bill language. Instead, they were hidden within conference reports. Many never even saw the light of day until they were snuck into unamendable conference reports that were sure to be rammed through at the last minute. Earmarking is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed before we can get our fiscal house in order. However, there are also other spending issues that this body should address. The issue of improper payments by the Federal Government is one that can and should be fixed. The subcommittee that I chair--the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management--has examined this issue in depth. We have uncovered numerous examples of improper payments that waste taxpayer money and harm those who aren't receiving the assistance they need. An improper payment is basically a payment that was either made to the right person in the wrong amount or a payment that was given to the wrong person, regardless of the amount. Improper payments include payments that were too high and payments that were too low. According to estimates by the Office of Management and Budget, improper payments last year totaled $37 billion. That figure is larger than last year's expenditures by the Departments of Commerce, Interior, State, and Environmental Protection Agency combined. The amount of improper payments just from last year could have completely funded four major Federal agencies. Improper payments are a very serious problem. For example, 28 percent of all payments within the earned income tax credit program are incorrectly made. Thus, for every dollar we spend in that program, 25 cents are completely wasted. Improper payments within the Social Security Administration totaled nearly $6 billion. And these figures don't even take into account the seven major programs with outlays totaling about $228 billion that are not yet even reporting their improper payments. There are some who wish to make the issue of spending a partisan issue, but it is not a partisan issue. Members of both parties are guilty of putting short-term interests ahead of long-term priorities. Last week, Members of both parties voted to ignore Senate budget rules in order to spend an additional $1 billion that is not paid for on home-heating costs even though the month of January was the warmest on record and winter will be over in less than a week. Both parties appear to lack the political courage to make the hard choices to address our impending fiscal crisis. This issue has nothing to do with Republicans and nothing to do with Democrats--it has to do with what is best for the American public. Mr. President, the spending process in this body is broken. Our priorities are completely out of whack. Earmarking and wasteful spending are out of control. It makes no sense to effectively max out our credit cards and ask for a higher credit limit when we have no intention and no ability to ever actually pay for our debts.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I cannot help but make a few comments on the speech we just heard, noting the fact that over $500 billion in new spending was offered, of which over half was voted for by the ranking member on the Committee on Finance last year--new spending unpaid for-- and has the audacity to talk about the President getting us into this fix. I mentioned earlier, this Senate and the House, the Congress, got us into this fix. The bills start in the House, they come to the Senate, and the irresponsible spending that has gone on has been a compilation of many factors. But most of it rests upon the Members of the Senate who refuse to make the hard choices in terms of spending. I also note during last year's appropriations cycle, I offered amendments that were called sunshine amendments to make sure we knew what was in the bills we were voting on. I also note that the ranking member voted against those both times they were offered. It is disingenuous to claim lack of responsibility. It is all of our responsibility. The Nation does not want to hear Congress pointing fingers. They want a solution to the problem. That solution comes through by restraining the discretionary accounts, rather than offering another $200 billion or $300 billion this year of new spending that is unpaid for. It also comes through working the hard issues of changing the entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and reforming Social Security, like the President of this body has led on in the past. The record should be clear that actions speak much louder than words. The actions of the ranking member of the Committee on Finance do not match up to the words that were just spoken. The responsibility lies on all. All are guilty of not doing what is in the best long-term interests of this country. That is what has to change. We can play the political games. We can point fingers. But the fact is, I take responsibility for that, and every other Member of that Senate who has been here since 2001 should, September 11, 2001, when the economy failed, went through the tank. Since then we have been trying to build back this economy. Quite frankly, the economy is in the greatest shape it has ever been in, in terms of growth, productivity, jobs. What we do need to address and will address in the future is changing health care overall so people can have access to affordable health care.

Mr. COBURN. I am.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I don't want to be offensive in any way. I listened to two talks about where we are, and I agree with where we are financially. But there are some facts that are left out of the story. There is no question that spending has increased. There is no question the debt is going up. But who is responsible for it? We can talk about it. First, we had a recession, and then 9/11 came, and there were rosy projections we all knew for certain weren't right. But to turn around and blame our debt on the President of the United States is not only in error, it is not factually correct, and it also tends to shun the responsibility we have as a body. The President cannot sign any bill we don't pass. This President became President in early 2001, at which time the Republicans weren't in control of the Senate. There was a divided--in 2002, that is, and there was a divided control. But during all that period of time, the bills that went to the President were voted on by Congress; both the House and the Senate passed bills. I also note that those people who have been so earnestly talking about our debt limit, which I plan on attacking aggressively--there is some credibility there with the talk. This last year they voted for over $700 billion in new spending. So if, in fact, you want to control the spending and you don't want the debt limit to go up, you can't continue to vote for unlimited spending increases. There is no question that we have increased revenues that are not what they probably could be if we ran the Government much more efficiently, but the very fact that we would have people who claim they are appalled at the debt limit and then every time we cast a vote for an increase of spending that is not paid for or not offset in another way adds directly to that debt limit. The responsibility lies in the Congress for the spending. It is not the executive branch. As a matter of fact, we have sent multiple bills, and if you look at the votes on the multiple bills that have come through this body, they are not just a majority vote, they are a supermajority and many times unanimous. So to claim and lay that on the executive branch when, in fact, it is our responsibility belies the truth. The facts that the Senator from North Dakota outlined are very accurate in terms of where we are. Here is one of the most important facts. The increase in debt per Americans since 2001 is over $8,000. The increase in the annual earnings per American workers since 2001 is less than $4,000. We are about to become the first generation of Americans to leave the next generation worse off. But as long as we are finger pointing and saying it is somebody else's problem, we are not going to solve the problem. We had an opportunity this past year in which we slowed down the growth of Medicaid by $4.8 billion a year and over a 5-year period. That total cumulative cost is $38.8 billion. That is the savings for 5 years. But the earmarks alone that this body passed last year were $64 billion. I am highly concerned about the debt limit, and it is doubtful that I will be voting to extend the debt limit, but I certainly am not going to stand here and let people claim that it is the executive branch's responsibility. It is not. It is ours, and we failed. We have failed our grandchildren, we have failed our children, we have failed the people who are paying taxes today in this country. We would rather get reelected by doling out earmarks and pork than solve the real long-term problems of our country, and we can see that very easily when we look at earmarks related to the size of the Federal Government. There is a cause-and-effect relationship. As a matter of fact, tomorrow morning we are having a hearing on earmarks in the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, the oversight Committee on Homeland Security. What you see is that in 1994, there were 4,000 earmarks and about $4 billion. Last year, there were 15,877 earmarks, and the total spending by the Federal Government was over $2.6 trillion. There is a correlation. It is that we don't want to do the hard work of making the hard decisions. So when we have $64 billion in earmarks in 1 year and we can't get the hard savings of $4.8 billion in just slowing the growth of Medicaid from 8 percent to 7.9 percent, and we barely pass that, what we have is a refusal to do our duty. The points the Senator from North Dakota made in terms of his financial analysis were all accurate. You can't dispute it. He points out very accurately the double standard on accounting gimmicks that the Congress is using. It is my hope that tomorrow we will be able to discuss this more. I know the chairman of the Finance Committee would like to have the floor, and at this time I yield the floor.

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9 a.m. on Thursday, March 16. I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 83, the budget resolution, as under the previous order.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 402, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, today we have made significant progress on the budget resolution. We had 10 rollcall votes on amendments to the resolution. The bill managers have done an exceptional job working through the process. That being said, we have many amendments filed, and Senators who have amendments should already be working with the bill managers. Tomorrow will be a very busy day. Under an agreement reached this afternoon, tomorrow morning at 10:30 we will have a series of votes on the budget resolution and the debt limit bill. At 1:30, all time on the budget resolution will be deemed expired and the vote-arama will begin. Senators are reminded to stay close to the Chamber and plan their schedules accordingly.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. In executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following nominations, and that they be placed on the calendar: PN 1079 PN, Marc L. Kesselman; PN 1329, Linda Avery Strachan; PN 1196, Boyd Kevin Rutherford; PN 1158, Gale A. Buchanan.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have sat and listened to a lot of what we have heard today. I will tell you that myself and Senator Lautenberg and Senator Schumer raised this issue some 3\1/2\ weeks ago at a press conference, in which we agreed there ought to be a timeout on this. From that day forward, there has been significant increased knowledge by the American people. There has been significant uproar. During all the time of that, the intention was--and I was led to believe by the Senator from New York--that the purpose was to find out what is best for the country, to find out what needs to be done, and to do it. That is not what we are doing today. That is not what this amendment does today. I used to serve in the House, starting in 1994. The House Members do tend to reflect the current situations in the country. But a higher standard is required of us as a body. And one is to know the facts before we act. I would contend that the Senator from New York and the Senator from New Jersey do not know the facts on this deal. Several statements have been made about this being a done deal; it is a closed financial deal. It is not a closed deal that Dubai Ports will, in fact, operate these ports. As a matter of fact, the company has been very straightforward with information with my office, the communications we have had. I do not believe we have the answer to the problem as of yet, and I do not think we have clearly identified it. What it has done is give us a wonderful chance to look at two things. The first thing we need to look at is overall port security, which we know on the Homeland Security Committee, for which myself and the Senator from New Jersey are members, we have a lot of work to do still in terms of port security, especially container inspection overseas and limiting the risk of those things that come into this country. But it also raises another opportunity, and it is something I have been calling for since I have been in this body. It is for us to start thinking long term and not about the politics. The tendency that we see negates that which my favorite hero of the 20th century espoused, Martin Luther King. He said: Vanity asks, is it popular? And cowardice asks, is it expedient? But conscience asks, is it right? The right thing to do right now is not to vote on this amendment. The right thing to do is to fill ourselves with the knowledge we need to have and to exert our privilege in this body to do something once we have that knowledge. I would portend to you the amendment that is attempting to be offered is a political stunt. It is not based on knowledgeable information about what are and are not the facts. It is based on what is most politically expedient. I think that is harmful to our country, and I know it is harmful to the body. If you go to the root cause of every problem we have in this country, it is because we are looking for political expediency rather than to make the hard choices about the long-term consequences of what is best for our country. Usually, when it gets into these things, since I am not an attorney and not a lawyer, but I am on the Judiciary Committee, I use a little book. It is called the Constitution of the United States. There are some pretty interesting things in the Constitution about where we are today on this issue. Article I, section 10 of the U.S. Constitution provides: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power. . . . It is called the Compact Clause. It has been upheld multiple times. Article II, section 2, provides: [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice . . . of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. . . . In other words, for a State or a port authority to enter into a contract with a foreign government or a company wholly owned by a foreign government, they must receive permission from the Congress. That is what the Constitution says. There is no question there needs to be CFIUS reform. But one of the ways out of this--to recognize the value of the ally we do have in Dubai, regardless of the negatives that may be associated with it, and to recognize other allies that also have negatives in terms of what we believe as parameters for faith and justice and liberty--is to do what the Constitution says, and that is recognize the Compact Clause and the treaty clause in the Constitution and to convince all those involved to take a timeout. The Senator from New Jersey rightly states that the financial closings of DP Ports International did take over the assets of the previous owner, the British company, as of 1 o'clock yesterday or 2 o'clock yesterday. But that company has put forward that nothing has changed within the American ports. They have graciously, in the situation they find themselves, extended that period for 45 days, and probably will extend it for a longer period of time should we so desire. But I think one of the most important points I want to make in this debate is, let's do what is right in the long run, not what is politically expedient in the short run. For the American people to know, the real reason they want a vote is because they want to say, Who is going to vote against this so they can run a campaign commercial against you because you voted against them-- not because you did not take the time to do what is right and to think and to, on the basis of knowledge and information and informed intellect, make a decision about what is best for this country. But hurry up and run a vote so we can create a politically intriguing moment. That is not what the Senate was intended to be. It is not what we should be about. And it is not what we should be doing today. I must express I am extremely disappointed with the Senator from New York in terms of the assurances he gave me that this stunt would not be pulled. But, in fact, he has done that. I do not know if that is because the Appropriations Committee in the House decided to run real quick and get it done and getting beat in terms of the headlines or he has some new information none of the rest of us knows that requires the immediate passing of this today. It does not. This is a political stunt. Our obligation to the people of this country is to secure this country and to make sure we do it in a way that creates the best interests for us, both domestically and internationally. This amendment is not going to do that. What it is going to do is slap the country of Dubai, which may or may not need to be. But we do not know that information. It is going to insult them, somebody who is very critical to us in terms of what we are doing right now in the Middle East. It is going to set us backwards. It is going to make this a more partisan body. I would remind the Senator that what goes around comes around. I can play hardball on this. I choose not to. The Senate was not designed for that. The Senate was designed to be a collegial body through thinking, knowledge, and informed consent, and coming together; that we, in fact, try to solve the problems of this country. This is not trying to do this. This is trying to create division in the answer of political expediency, in the answer of vanity, not in response to conscience and courage. The courageous thing now is to take the timeout and find out what is going on and what needs to be changed, both in the process of how this came about, but also in the facts of this particular case. If that is the case--what the Senators from New York and New Jersey want to do--then why do we have COSCO running the Port of Los Angeles? Why do we have foreign governments running other ports? If this was a sincere amendment, it would be reversing all of those. It is not a sincere amendment. It is an amendment about politics.

Mr. COBURN. I want to finish my point, if I may. Federalist No. 44 commented on the compact clause saying that it was so clearly needed, that the particulars of the clause fall within reasonings which are either so obvious or have been so fully developed that they may be passed over without remark. Our forefathers had this figured out. All we have to do is follow the Constitution. Senator Shelby in the Banking Committee is looking at CFIUS reform. We have plenty of time to do what we need to do. But to run off in response to a motion without the facts is a dangerous precedent for this body. This is a reasoned body. The more partisanship we have, the less reason will prevail. In several cases, courts have said the application of the compact clause is limited to agreements that are directed to the formation of any combination tending to increase a political power in States which may encroach on or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States. So we already have the power to fix this under the compact clause and the treaty clause, both under article I and article II of the Constitution. That is what we ought to be doing. We have plenty of time to address that, while the appropriate committees within Congress address the actual facts of this case. The United States has no national port authority. Jurisdiction is shared by Federal, State, and local governments, but it does not lessen the power of the U.S. Congress to have control over this. We do need to make some changes. The CFIUS program is wrong. My fellow colleague from Oklahoma has a wonderful bill in terms of reforming that. Senator Shelby is changing some things. The fact is, not a good job in looking at some of these things has been done, and we have shirked our responsibility as the Senate in looking at it. But to run now to an amendment on the basis of pure political expediency does a disservice to this country in the long run. We ought not to do it. We can do it, and lots of Americans would be happy, but the consequences that will follow are grave, not only the consequences with this act but the consequences of the behavior of this body in the future, if we so act that way. I call on my colleagues to refrain from doing anything other than gathering the appropriate knowledge, the details, look at the workings of the committees that are going on. Homeland Security is looking at this. Banking is. There will be several opportunities for us to fix this so that we appropriately can take a look at it. When the time comes, if this is not appropriate for the United States, it won't go through. But it will be done on the basis of a reasoned analysis of what is both good for us domestically in terms of our security, our economic security, as well as our foreign policy. We can have all sorts of speeches that beat up the President. The fact is, he is operating under the law. He has operated under the law. There is a law that this body created and gave him. We may need to change that law, but to cavalierly criticize what has been done is inappropriate. We have already said we want an extra 45 days. We have that. If we need additional time, we will get it. This company is more than willing to work to make sure that we assure ourselves of absolute security. If it is so that we should not have this go through, then this body will not allow it. But it will be on the basis of facts, not emotion and not political expediency and trickery. With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to help those people who cannot help themselves, but I have also discovered that there is very limited authorization for us in the Constitution for us to be paying the heating bills of people in this country. There is no such thing as compassion when you are using somebody else's money to offer compassion. The real answer to heating bills is solving our energy crisis and local communities taking care of their local citizens with their assets. I will not vote for cloture, although I know cloture is going to be invoked, but I think this is a great time that everybody in this country ought to be questioning the process here and the utilization of earmarks which could have paid for the heating bill, but instead we did things to help us back home, help us get reelected. I remind the Members of this body, Mr. President, when they take the oath of this body, they don't take an oath to protect their State or bring home the bacon. They take an oath to do what is in the best long- term interest of this country, not what is in their best short-term political interest. I believe, as the American people look at this--I know this recent polling said 69 percent of the people in this country think we ought to eliminate earmarks, even if it hurts them. The only way we will get out of the financial mess we are in is start attacking the process of earmarks that greases the sled for spending that is out of control. I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have been on the floor numerous times to talk about priorities. We are on an unsustainable course in our country. The GAO says that. Anybody who looks at our books, our budgets, and our deficits would realize that. We have before us a $1 billion expenditure that I am sure we are going to do. I have done everything I can to keep us from doing it. Without paying for it, we will transfer that money to our children. I think it is important for the American public to know how awry we are in this body. I want to put forward and into the Record what the cosponsors of this bill did. They did, collectively, $777 million worth of earmarks last year. Those States of the cosponsors are going to get $145 million in LIHEAP money. The fact is, we spent over $770 million on earmarks. I wish to spend a few minutes reading some of them so we can see whether the American people think it is a priority. Do we help people who need heat with their homes or do we build the Katahdin Ironworks in Maine? Or do we build a new industrial park in Maine? Do we buy new land--the Rachel Carson land acquisition for $600,000? Do we pay for a new building for the city of Brewer, an administrative building? I cannot find in the Constitution where that is a responsibility of the Federal Government. We are going to build a new Bangor waterfront park. We spent $246,000 on earmarked lowbush blueberry research. Here is a George and Barbara Bush cultural center at the University of New England, $300,000. Do we do that and charge it to our children and grandchildren, or do we help people with their heat? To me, it is an obvious choice. But we refuse to make those hard choices here. We would rather spend the money and charge it to our children and grandchildren. Here is a Franco-American Heritage Center renovation project in Lewiston. And Bowdoin College in Brunswick, ME, gets $100,000 for site planning and renovation. Here is a purchase of land, Brainard Lakes, MN. Here is Midtown Greenway, Minneapolis, $1.5 million. Here is Augsburg College, in Minnesota, $1 million. I didn't know private colleges were part of the responsibility of funding from the Federal Government. Next we have Grand Portage in Minnesota, to establish a heritage center, $4 million. We are going to establish a heritage center for $4 million and we cannot help people with their heating bills. We are going to try to do both because it is politically expedient, but it is not politically expedient for our grandchildren. We gave $200,000 to the Hmong American Mutual Assistance Association. We gave $500,000 to the Minneapolis American Indian Center in Minneapolis. We sent $1 million to the Pine Technical College in Minnesota. We rehabilitated the Ames Lake Neighborhood, Phalen Place Apartments, in St. Paul with $150,000 of taxpayer money. Here is the Willard Pond in New Hampshire, $550,000. Then we have Roseview, a purchase of land for $2 million. Here is the Hubbard Brook Foundation and the Daniel Webster College. Here is the city of Portsmouth, to build an environmentally responsible library. We are going to build a library instead of paying for people's heating bills, and we are going to charge it to our children and grandchildren. We spent $150,000 for site preparation for improvements to White Park in Concord. We are going to restore Temple Town Hall in the town of Temple, $225,000. That is not a Federal responsibility; it is a State responsibility. Yet the American people are right to ask the question: How is it that we can have $775 million in earmarks from five States, and those five States under this formula would get $145 million in LIHEAP? I suggest that we shouldn't take it from our children and grandchildren. I suggest that we ought to pay for it, and the way to pay for it is either reduce the number of earmarks that are not legitimate under the Constitution, but are very politically expedient, or find the money elsewhere. I am not just picking on these items. This goes across this body throughout. The culture of earmarks is killing our country in terms of how much money we spend and who is paying for it. And who is actually paying for it is not us. We are shifting it to the next two generations. I will show this document in the Record--it lists the earmarks by the five cosponsors of this bill--and let the American public decide whether they think we ought to take $1 billion from our grandkids or cut out some of these projects that are not necessary right now. We are in a time of tremendous fiscal severity, and it is time we start acting as grownups. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the document that lists earmarks.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I agree with both Senators from Maine. Our goal is not to have additional LIHEAP funding. Our goal is to make sure we don't steal it from our grandchildren, robbing from the unborn and the young in this country to do something in the name of good. It is not moral at all. What we are saying is pay for it. To say it is paid for, to say you are paying for it, there is $1 billion allocated for next year, we are going to take that away and that is going to have to be paid for by somebody. You know who is going to pay for it? Our grandchildren. If we want to help the people of Maine, there are a couple of things we can do. No. 1, you can use your TANF money for LIHEAP right now. That is allowed under Federal law. There is no reason anybody in Maine doesn't have the LIHEAP funds. You have money in your TANF account right now that you can transfer to solve that problem in terms of the acute problem. The second thing you ought to know is that there is $11.2 billion in unobligated funds in Health and Human Services right now that the administration could release for LIHEAP. We don't have to be doing this. If it truly is an emergency, the administration has the money right now to send to Maine to do that. Your Governor has the ability to take TANF money right now and support LIHEAP in Maine. But it is unconscionable for us to steal from the next generation and steal from the next budget cycle saying that we have paid for it. We haven't paid for anything. What we are doing is sacrificing the standard of living for future generations in this country through this type of process. If you want to bring the bill to the floor, which we have offered the Senator from Maine, come to the floor, offer to spend $1 billion and give us the cuts to pay for it. Let us make the hard decisions that we were charged with to make among priorities in this country. The other point I would make is there was an offer by the chairman of the Budget Committee last year to put an additional $1 billion in this fund. The Senator from New Hampshire offered to put another $1 billion by taking a small percentage across the board from Health and Human Services. This body voted that down. This body said we don't want to take a little bit from everybody else to pay for additional LIHEAP. We wouldn't even vote for it. Now, when we are going to steal it from our children--the people who can't defend themselves, the future taxpayers of this country--then we are going to say it is OK, I believe it is morally wrong. The people who need help today can get it. They can get it from the TANF funds in the State of Maine and the Northeast. They can get it from Health and Human Services, unallocated and unspent money that is sitting there right now. We are not for not helping people, and it is not true to characterize it that way. We want to help anybody who truly needs our help. The distribution under this formula, if you were to divide the money by everybody who could be eligible under LIHEAP, comes to $35 a house. The other point I would make, since LIHEAP started, we have averaged $160 million a year in weatherization. That is $3.2 billion in weatherization. There are some people who would suggest that multiple homes have been winterized multiple times. There has been no oversight on weatherization. There has been no oversight on how the money has been spent. We have not done our job in terms of oversight to make sure the money that goes for LIHEAP is spent in the proper way. I believe it very noble that the Senators from Maine want to help their constituency. Let us help you help your constituency but let us not steal it from the next generation. I reserve the remainder of our time.