Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I come to the floor first to meet those two who were just debating to wish them a Merry Christmas and a happy holiday season. This is a season, a time about giving. When you give something, most often it costs you. It is called sacrifice. It is what our Nation was built on. It is the very heritage that we have as a nation, that we sacrifice to do what is in the best long-term interests of our country. The chairman outlined the unfunded liability that is facing this Nation between now and 2070. He gave a figure of $51 trillion. That is an underestimate of what the true unfunded liability is for our country. We just added $8.7 trillion with the Medicare Part D Program. But it is such a large number we have a hard time getting our hands on it. One of the ways to get our hands on it is to think about what it means per individual, and $51 trillion in unfunded liabilities means every man, woman, and child in this country today is responsible for $171,000. Think about that. That is more than the net worth of the country. Why do I raise that? Because the debate we are having about this bill and movement forward and the comments about how you judge whether somebody is compassionate is based on how you treat those less than you and those who are going to follow you. I believe everybody in the Senate would agree that leaving $171,000 worth of obligation for every man, woman, and child in this country is inappropriate. It belies the heritage of this country. If you think about the great generations that have come before us-- the greatest generation, the World War II generation--those who have sacrificed in this country and those who are sacrificing today in the war on terrorism, it is inconceivable to me that we will not start doing some of the small things we can do, with the bills that are going to be before us today and tomorrow, to assure a Christmas gift to every American. Some say, How can you do that and still be compassionate? My argument is, if we don't start doing it, we are not going to be able to be compassionate at all. I would like to put up a couple of charts. The first is from the Government Accountability Office. It shows where we are going if we freeze discretionary spending in this country. If we absolutely freeze discretionary spending, what will happen is between now and 2040, there is no increase in any discretionary spending whatsoever. You did see how our growth and expenditures take place. You can see that the vast majority of that is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all other spending, of which the largest proportion in 2040 won't be on any program but will be interest on the national debt. I am also struck by the inconsistency that I hear in this body when one group of Senators has offered over $400 billion in new spending this year--$400 billion in new spending proposals this year. If you think about why this is important, this line is represented as a percentage of our gross domestic product. All we have to do is look at the country of Germany today to see where we are going and what is going to happen to us. They have unemployment of 13 percent. Their growth is minimal in terms of their gross domestic product. Why? Because 40 percent of their gross domestic product is taken up by the Government. This only goes to 2040. At 2050 and 2075, we are at 40 percent of our gross domestic product. That means money that could be invested in new jobs, in capital, in future opportunities for our children, won't be there because we will be consuming. Now let's look at if we just have the Government grow at the rate of inflation. What do we see? By 2040, we are above 40 percent. So the questions before this body and the criticisms of the bills on the floor don't make any sense if we are going to give a Christmas gift of a future to our children. This is unsustainable. The Government Accountability Office has said we are on an unsustainable course. It is impossible. The Senator from North Dakota earlier said he is going to bring a spending reduction bill to the floor. I embrace that. There is no question that I am known in this body to try to restrain our spending. But if we don't, we belie the very heritage this country has stood for since its inception; that is, one generation sacrificing for the next so opportunities and a bright future will be there. How have we done that? Because we are more interested in the next election than the next generation. We are more interested in making the easy choice, the expedient choice, rather than the difficult choice. The choice is this. The way things are set up now, there is no way we can keep our obligations to you if you are dependent on the Federal Government. What is compassionate about that? What message do we send to those who truly are dependent upon us if we will not make the hard choices to make sure anybody is in a position to help them in the future? I will talk about some specific things. This reconciliation bill didn't go nearly far enough in terms of reducing spending. Let me give you a couple of examples. The Federal Financial Oversight Subcommittee which I chair had a hearing on inappropriate payments. There is an Improper Payment Act which is law that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services has failed to enforce on Medicaid alone. But let us talk about Medicare, and then we will talk about Medicaid. In Medicare alone, it is estimated that over 10 percent of the payments that are made by Medicare are inappropriate. Of that, 90 percent are overpayments. What do I mean, overpayments? I mean fraud, I mean abuse, I mean cheating the Federal Government. And as a physician, I am talking about some of my peers and others in the health care industry, whether they are in durable medical equipment, in the pharmaceutical industry, or others who are taking advantage of the bureaucracy of the program. But this bill saves a small amount of money over the next 5 years. The total is under 8-point-some billion dollars. Less than half of that comes from Medicare and Medicaid. Think about 90 percent of $21.7 billion. That is $19 billion a year in Medicare fraud, and $19 billion a year times 5 years comes up to $95 billion. This bill doesn't even save $40 billion over the next 5 years. If we want to be serious about giving a Christmas gift of opportunity and future and making the sacrifices, it starts in this Chamber. That sacrifice is, there is no excuse for us not to rid Medicare of the fraud that is in it today, an estimated $19 billion a year. If, in fact, we rid Medicare of the $19 billion and we rid Medicaid, which is $18 billion worth of fraud--that is estimated because they have not followed the law and reported improper payments. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from New York Times that outlines some of the Medicare fraud issues in New York State.

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, in the past in this body, I have been highly critical of some of the things that have gone on in the appropriations process. But I want to say the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in this body, with the appropriations package we are going to look at today, or whenever we get to it, has done a phenomenal job. I think the American people need to know this is the type of leadership we have been looking for for a long time. All of the additional spending for the victims of the hurricane, for LIHEAP, for all of the additional things we are going to be doing, has been paid for not on the backs of our children and our grandchildren but in fact by making hard decisions on what to trim. A lot of resistance is probably going to come with this, and the reason people are uncomfortable with it is because we are trimming the size of the Federal Government at the same time we have neighbors on the gulf coast who need help, and those who are unfortunate with their heating bills this year need help. I want to have in the Record that both Senator Stevens on the Defense appropriations bill and Senator Cochran I believe have done a fantastic job, and they have set a benchmark for where we need to go next year in terms of any new programs we need to be paying for by making reductions in other programs. What it is doing is securing the future for our children and our grandchildren. My hat is off to them. I think they have done a great job. We have looked over the bill since last evening, since the numbers came through. We are very pleased. There are no gimmicks, no games being played with the numbers. Hard choices have been delineated in this bill which will require hard votes but for the right reasons. And for the next two generations, I thank them for their hard work on this bill. With that, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It is my understanding--and I ask the Chair if this is correct--that a Presiding Officer, under the rules of the Senate, is not allowed to engage in debate other than to object to motions in his capacity from the State from which he comes; is that correct?

Mr. COBURN. OK.

Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair. In the earlier discussion we had, it was stated by the minority leader that the Presiding Officer can debate from the chair. I did not think that was right. In fact, it is not correct. I want to wrap up with a couple of thoughts. We have had a lot of discussion this evening about process and precedent and keeping your word. As we think about what that means to our country, we ought to go a little further back and think about the heritage that has been given to this country by those who came before us. I want to characterize a couple points of that. One is doing whatever we have to do, including personal sacrifice, to assure opportunity and a great future for those who follow. It seems to me, as we get hung up on a discussion of process, that we ought to pay as much attention to heritage. I mean by that, we are having trouble passing the Labor-HHS bill. It is the first bill to come through this Senate in a number of years that doesn't have any earmarks on it. I suspect the reason people don't want to vote for it is because they did not get the political benefit of placing the public's dollars to their own political advantage. The other point is we hear debate that it does not supply enough. The real heritage that came before us is Members of this body making the hard choices--not easy choices, hard choices--about priorities. We are at such a point that this next year is going to be a very difficult year for us in terms of how we pay for a war, how we pay for Katrina, and the related items we have an obligation to pay for, and not diminish the opportunity and the future of our children and our grandchildren. I think we would be very wise to not put the purity of our own process ahead of our basic morality and ethics of maintaining the heritage this country has. I will not say any more. I know we are about to wrap up, and I appreciate the time. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to respond. First, I think it is unfortunate when somebody is in the chair that such a statement was made without thankfully someone else being in the Chamber to allow me the opportunity to respond to it. There is a lot wrong with the process in the Senate and I am sure the distinguished Senator from Nevada probably has an intellectual heads-up on me. I do not doubt that. But what is wrong is deception, not policy changes, and you have never heard this Senator say anything about problems with putting policy riders on appropriations bills. What I have been very clear about from the day I arrived in the Senate is that there should not be earmarks that are used in politically beneficial ways for individual Members of the body because what that does, in fact, is put the country second and us first. It puts the next election ahead of the next generation. To equate that with policy changes that go along and use my position as somebody who is fighting hard to change the appropriations process and to use me as an example, because you may not at this time be happy--I am not happy we are here, I am not happy that anything gets stuck on anything, but I also recognize the history of things that have gone on in this body and the other body and how at the end of a session things get tacked on to lots of things. I will not be used, nor will I allow my position to be used, to wedge other people into thinking I am inconsistent, and I will defend that. My consistent criticism of the appropriation process is on earmarks and on earmarks alone and us living within the amount of moneys we have and not using the earmark process to advantage your own political career. I want to make sure everybody in this country understands that what you are talking about is something wholly different than that. This is policy. I am not happy about any additional spending that is not paid for, I don't care what bill it comes through, and I have made it very clear to my leadership, on any bill that comes out of this end-of-the- year process.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would tell the Senator from Nevada I take no personal offense but would also state there hasn't been an appropriations bill coming out of this body in 20 years that hasn't had policy changes directed and attached to it. They all do. If you seriously look at them, there are policy directions on every one of them because the Congress spends all its time appropriating rather than authorizing--the very issue the Senator from Michigan is talking about. Consequently, this year we are going to appropriate $190 billion on items that are not even authorized. The Senator from Nevada is gracious. I wanted to make sure my point was clear on my position in terms of earmarks and spending. I don't like this process any better than he does, but I am willing to do what we need to do for our country to get it done. I don't want us to corrupt the process, but I will tell you that the process needs to completely be revised in terms of appropriations. We should never be in this position that we find ourselves today. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, approved by the Senate today contains an important provision that is intended to protect women who have already been victimized once by sexual assault from being assaulted again by either the deadly AIDS virus or the legal system which may deny them potentially life-saving information. Section 102 of VAWA now encourages States to implement laws that provide victims of sexual assault and rape the opportunity to know if the person indicted for the assault is infected with HIV. This new provision will require the Attorney General to reduce the amount of funding provided under Section 102 by 5 percent to a State or local government that has not demonstrated that laws are in place to allow a victim to request that a defendant, against whom an information or indictment is presented for a crime in which by force or threat of force the perpetrator compels the victim to engage in sexual activity, be tested for HIV disease if the nature of the alleged crime is such that the sexual activity would have placed the victim at risk of becoming infected with HIV. The defendant must undergo the test not later than 48 hours after the date on which the information or indictment is presented, and as soon thereafter as is practicable the results of the test must be made available to the victim. As medically appropriate, the victim may request follow-up testing of the defendant. If a State or local government does not currently allow victims of sexual assault such protections, assurances must be made to the Attorney General that the state legislature will bring their laws into compliance before the end of their next session or within 2 years. The 5 percent penalty will not go into effect until the expiration of the two year extension The bill will also now allow Federal VAWA funds to be used to pay for HIV testing of sexual assault perpetrators and notification and counseling programs. These provisions are desperately needed to address a real, grievous injustice that victims of sexual assault are facing in many states. In the summer of 1996, a 7-year-old girl was brutally raped by a 57- year-old aged man who later told police he was infected with HIV. The little girl and her 5-year-old brother had been lured to a secluded, abandoned building in the East New York section of Brooklyn. The man raped and sodomized the girl. Her brother, meanwhile, was beaten, tied up, and forced to witness his sister's rape. After the man's arrest, the defendant refused to be tested for the AIDS virus by the Brooklyn District Attorney's office. His refusal to take the test was permitted under State law. In the spring of 2002, Ramell Rodgers repeatedly raped ``Jane,'' a female New York cab driver at gunpoint. The New York Daily News reported at the time that ``Rodgers is in jail awaiting trial, while `Jane' spends her days vomiting from drugs she takes to stave off sexually transmitted diseases she may have contracted in the attack. Officials say DNA evidence links Rodgers to the March 31 assault. According to sources close to the case, he has even admitted guilt. But he is not required to be tested for diseases until he is formally convicted.'' ``Jane'' is determined to change the law to protect others who have been victimized by rape and sexual assault. Disguised in a scarf, wig sunglasses, she spoke at a New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers press conference: As a precaution, I have to take ``four different medicines [to help protect against HIV, chlamydia, herpes and other STDs], and I was told that, unless this guy volunteers for the test, I had to wait until he was convicted.'' She added: ``If you are assaulted, you should have the right to know whether or not this person has infected you with anything. One November evening in 2002, Doris Stewart, who was then 64, was awakened from her sleep when she heard a knock at her front door. When she went to the door, a man forced his way inside, then raped, sodomized and robbed her. Stewart's assault was just the beginning of her emotional distress. She harbors fears that her assailant may have HIV, but she has no way of knowing with certainty because Alabama is another of the few States that do not require testing of rape suspects for HIV. Stewart, who was advised by rape counselors to wait about 2 months before being tested, lived with fear of the unknown for months because it can take at least 3 to 6 months for HIV to be detected after infection. ``Everybody I talk to thinks it's so unfair that there's no law in Alabama,'' said Stewart who has attempted to change the state law to protect future rape victims. There are countless stories of other women and children who have been victims of rape and sexual assault who have been denied access to this potentially life saving information. In some circumstances, rape defendants have even used HIV status information as a plea bargaining tool to reduce their sentences. As a practicing physician, I believe that its is vitally important that those who have been raped do not also become victims of HIV/AIDS, and that requires timely medical attention including prompt testing of the defendant. Treatment with AIDS drugs in the immediate aftermath, usually within 72 hours, of exposure can significantly reduce the chance of infection. However, because of the toxicity and long-term side effects, these drugs should not be administered for long periods without knowing if HIV exposure has occurred. Victims can not rely solely on testing themselves because it can take weeks, sometimes months, before HIV antibodies can be detected. Therefore, testing the assailant is the only timely manner in which to determine if someone has been exposed to HIV. Furthermore, rapid tests are now available that can diagnose HIV infection within 20 minutes with more than 99 percent accuracy. The American Medical Association supports this policy because ``early knowledge that a defendant is HIV infected would allow the victim to gain access to the ever growing arsenal of new HIV treatment options. In addition, knowing that the defendant was HIV infected would help the victim avoid contact which might put others at risk of infection.'' While the HIV infection rate among sexual assault victims has not been studied, the National Rape Crisis Center estimates the rate is higher than the general population because the violent nature of the forced sexual contact increases the chances of transmission. I was very disappointed that the National Center for Victims of Crime, NCVC and the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU, opposed this provision. NCVC claimed that ``mandatory testing of sex offenders may not be in the best interest of the victim/survivor.'' The ACLU claimed that ``forced HIV testing, even of those convicted of a crime, infringes on constitutional rights and can only be justified by a compelling governmental interest. No such interest is present in the case of a rapist and his victim because the result of a rapist's HIV test, even if accurate, will not indicate whether the rape victim has been infected.'' The medical facts are quite obvious why knowledge of HIV exposure is vital to victims of sexual assault and it is astonishing that anyone would argue otherwise. Claims that providing this information to victims would compromise ``privacy'' are also quite shocking. Exactly whose rights are being protected by denying a victim of sexual assault the right to know if she has been exposed to the deadly AIDS virus when she was raped? If sufficient evidence exists to arrest and jail a rape suspect, the victim should have the right to request that the suspect be tested for HIV. Finally, the claim that testing of indicted rapists is unconstitutional is also unfounded. Numerous court decisions, in fact, have concluded otherwise. In 1997, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of two state laws that require sex offenders to undergo HIV testing. The ruling followed the case of three boys who forcibly sodomized a mentally-retarded 10-year-old girl. At the request of the girl's guardian, HIV testing was ordered for each of the defendants. The boys' public defender opposed such testing. The court ruled that the victim's need to know outweighed the defendants' rights to privacy and confidentiality. In December 1995, a Florida appeals court upheld the constitutionality of a state law allowing judges to order defendants charged with rape to submit to HIV testing. Duane Fosman was arrested and charged with armed sexual battery. At the request of the accuser, a Broward County trial judge ordered Fosman to be tested for HIV antibodies. Under the Florida law, a crime victim can ask a judge to order HIV testing of a defendant who has been charged with any one of 12 offenses, including sexual battery. The test results are disclosed only to the victim, the defendant and public health authorities. Fosman argued that the testing and taking of his blood amounted to an unreasonable search that violated the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He also said the action violated Article I, Section 23, of the Florida Constitution, which guarantees a person's right to be free from Governmental intrusion in his private life. In addition, he asserted that the law is unconstitutional because it doesn't give him an opportunity to rebut the presumption of probable cause. A three- judge panel of the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, said Fosman's situation was analogous to blood and urine testing for drug or alcohol use. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executive's Association ruled it was constitutionally permissible to test railroad workers who were involved in serious train crashes. In a companion case, National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, the high court allowed mandatory drug testing, without probable cause, of customs employees. Under the same rationale, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld a law which required HIV testing of persons convicted of prostitution, and a California appeals court affirmed a law requiring HIV testing of defendants charged with biting or transferring blood to a police officer. In each of the cases, the ``special needs'' of the public outweighed the individual's demand that probable cause be established, the Florida court said. ``Even if the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy, society's interest in preventing members of the public from being exposed to HIV would be a sufficient compelling state interest to justify the infringement of that right,'' the court said. It found the law to be ``the least intrusive means'' to deal with HIV transmission because blood tests are routine and disclosure of test results are limited. It is my hope that those States that do not allow victims of sexual assault the right to know the HIV status of their attacker will update their laws and begin protecting the rights of the victims rather than the perpetrators. I also thank Chairman Specter and Senator Biden for including this important provision.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes of my time talking about the Labor-HHS bill and a lot of the comments we have heard in the Chamber over the last couple days as to what we are and are not doing. I thought the American public should have a good perspective about what has happened in terms of the growth of this department since the fiscal year 1998 started. This is a tight budget. I commend those who are in charge of it. It is a vast improvement over what we have done in other years. There is no question there are some unmet needs that can be claimed out of this appropriations bill. That is the time we face in our country. The Federal Government cannot meet every need. In regard to history, Health and Human Services from 1998 to 2005, over that 8-year period, in real dollars has increased at over 10 percent per year. It has actually increased over 13 percent per year, but we have had inflation of 3 percent. So what we have seen is an actual doubling of the size of that component of the Federal Government from September 30 of 1997 to today. It has doubled in size. Education is the same. Actually, education more than doubled in size, net of inflation. That is in terms of real dollars. So when we hear the words that we can't do what we are doing, I would have our fellow colleagues look down the road a little bit. This is just a taste of what we are going to be facing if we don't start making the choices based on priority. I tell you, we are on an unsustainable path even with this bill. We cannot meet those needs that need to be met if we continue to not prioritize in the functioning of the Federal Government. Again, I take seriously the claim that we would take away food stamps from people who have no other source of nutrition. But I also take seriously the claim and the knowledge reported by the Department of Agriculture and the Food Stamp Program that last year they paid out $1.6 billion in food stamps to people who were ineligible, who had other sources of income. And yet they continued to spend $1.6 billion. Why is all this important? It is important because this last year, ending September 30, we spent $538 billion more in that fiscal year than we took in. So the debate has to be in the context of what are we doing to our children and our grandchildren. We have to make a measured balance about how we make these decisions. The decision of trimming programs that are not effective and doing the hard oversight--the real thing that is lacking is us doing the work of oversight. We have opportunities lost when we don't put money into those programs that are more effective and take money from those programs that are less effective. The debate is centered about us and our constitutional duties to do oversight but also in terms of the future and what kind of heritage and legacy in terms of debt are we going to leave to our children. Overall, the Congress has done a good job with this bill. There are still tons of waste in this bill. This bill totaled has $602 billion worth of spending in it. I have one last comment, and that is there is $55 billion for the new Medicare Part D Program, of which only 1 out of every 15 people who are eligible for that program is a new person who would not have had drugs. So we are going to pay for 14 people who had insurance or other coverage to cover one additional person. And none of that money is paid for. That $55 billion is coming from our grandchildren. This is a program on which I did not have an opportunity to vote. I would have voted against it. I also didn't have an opportunity to attach it to a supplemental, which I would have offered, to eliminate or freeze this program because our children and our grandchildren absolutely cannot afford it. It is $8.7 trillion between now and 2050 that we are going to put into this brandnew program that is starting today that helps 1 in 15. It helps 1 in 15 who need it. And yet we are saying it is OK for our children to pay that bill. I commend Senator Specter on his hard work on the bill. This is the first time in years that the hard choices have been made. I remind our colleagues that as we face the future with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and a war and natural disasters, hard choices is what we are here for. Yes, as Senator Kennedy said today, we do need to be concerned about those who can't take care of themselves, but I put forward to my colleagues that with $600 billion--that is $20,000 per man, woman, and child in this country--we ought to be able to take care of them. I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes to just kind of talk a little bit about the process of the end of the year here in the Senate and something that I do not think is healthy for the American people. It is certainly not healthy for the Senate, but in the long run it is not healthy for our country. I have thought a lot about this, considering the campaign I went through to become a U.S. Senator. The theme that keeps recurring in my mind is that we are all Americans. There are multiple parties, there are differences within parties, there are conservative Republicans, liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, liberal Democrats, but we are all Americans. If there ever was a time our Nation required leadership instead of partisanship, it is now. We are on an absolutely unsustainable financial course. We have heard great criticisms today, not by a member of any party but by a person who chooses to make those criticisms of the direction it is trying to go in terms of trying to get us off that unsustainable course. It kind of grieves me for our country that we lack the leadership to stay focused on what is important for the country and instead focus on what somebody else does wrong or is perceived to do wrong. We can have tremendously intelligent and respectful debate that is directed toward a difference of opinion about issues. But the problems that face this country today are greater than any in my lifetime. This last year, we charged to our children and our grandchildren $528 billion. That $528 billion is how much the debt grew last year. It is going to require absolutely zero partisanship over the next 20 years in this country for us to try to attack the structural problems that are going to undermine the future opportunities of our children. I am reminded of history because Franklin Delano Roosevelt, facing a similar situation to what we have right now in our country, cut out three of his most favorite programs and cut discretionary spending by 22 percent so he could do what was right for the next two generations. I worry we lack that foresight, or if we do not lack it, we place partisan political positioning and elections that are coming ahead of the best interests of our Nation. We have heard about cuts. We have heard about taxes. We have heard about all sorts of things, described in a way so you would think anybody who believed opposite of that would just be terrible. That is not the truth. It is not anywhere close to the truth. Anybody who is a Member of this body cares immensely about this country. They just differ about how they want to go about getting to a solution. If we have half a trillion dollars that we added to our children's debt this year and we are on a course, with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the national debt--by the way, which nobody ever speaks of, which is the fourth largest item and will soon become the largest item--if we do not have the desire and the will to work together as loyal opponents, with the best interests of our country at heart, taking the partisanship out of it--nobody is bad, they just have a different idea. I hope as we wind up the Senate year that we will keep in mind that what I believe to be true throughout the country and that is that country is nauseated by partisanship. It doesn't build our country, it tears our country down. It doesn't promote unity, it promotes division, it promotes polarization, and our problems are so great that we ought to be following the advice of John Kennedy. We ought to be following the advice that says: Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. If there is ever a time that we needed to be doing that, both as Members of the Senate and as citizens of this country, it is now. The numbers that face us in the future--a war in Iraq, the devastation on the gulf coast, and a structural deficit--require that we have a shift, and the shift is that we look to the long run, that we don't try to gain the short run, and that we do what is in the best interests of the country, and the first thing we do that is in the best interests of the country is to put partisanship aside. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to advise the American public. We just heard a very eloquent talk by the Senator from Iowa on the motion he plans to offer to instruct conferees on food stamps, but I think it is very important that the American people recognize that 1 out of every 19 people in this country who receive food stamps receive them illegally. In other words, they are not eligible. In this motion to instruct, it states in No. 5: The Food Stamp Program operates efficiently and effectively with its error rate at an all-time low. It is at an all-time low. It is 6.64 percent. In other words, 1 out of 14 who are getting food stamps have an error associated with what they are receiving, or 1 out of 15 or 16. But in terms of overpayments, 5.5 percent of the money spent, $1.6 billion, is spent on food stamps to people who don't qualify. An easy way for us to control food stamps is to make the error rate less--in other words, to do a better job--instead of to gloss over and say we don't have a problem here and it is running efficiently and effectively. Anybody else in their own personal budget, if they were paying out 5.5 percent more than what they should be, would be quick to change that. The Federal financial management oversight subcommittee which I chair had a hearing this year. It is true, they have reduced the error rate some. But a 6.9-percent overall error rate is unacceptable, and a 5.5- percent overpayment rate is highly unacceptable. In a time of tremendous budget deficits, in a time of war, and a time of natural disasters that have hit us greater than we have ever seen, accepting 5.5 percent and saying we can't do better is unacceptable. It is unacceptable by everybody who lives by a budget out there who is an American citizen. For us to have a motion to instruct to say that is good, that is effective, that is efficient, it is not the truth. We need to be cognizant of the fact that we have a long way to go to help those people who need us with food but at the same time to not help those people who are cheating the system, who are squandering money that would otherwise go to people who have needs when those people who don't have needs are stealing from the system. I think it is important for the record to reflect that.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, Congress has a moral obligation to make difficult decisions about spending priorities as we fight the war on terror, recover from natural disasters, and struggle to shore up Medicare and Social Security. Last year in fiscal year 2005 our national debt increased by $538 billion, or $1,738 per man, woman and child in this country. The American people, therefore, are justifiably outraged when Congress engages in an earmark spending free-for-all. Pork projects tend to be allocated outside of the regular priority-setting debate that governs the rest of the budget process. This is wrong. Members of this body should not be asking what right one Senator might have to question another Senator's projects. Instead, we should be listening to the American people who are asking what right we have to force them to finance questionable projects in all 50 States. Every pork project should be balanced against other national priorities. Pork is not a civil right for politicians. This bill contains more than 1,100 earmarks. Some of those earmarks inc1ude: $150,000 for the Alaska Botanical Garden in Anchorage, Alaska for expansion and renovation of its infrastructure; $750,000 for the construction of the Tongass Coast Aquarium; $100,000 to the city of Guntersville, for renovations to the Whole Backstage Theater; $250,000 for the Greenville Family YMCA for child care facility acquisition, renovation, and construction in Greenville, Alabama; $200,000 for the Hayneville Lowndes County Library Foundation for construction of a new library in Hayneville, Alabama; $250,000 for the Cleveland Avenue YMCA for facility expansion in Montgomery, Alabama; $150,000 to the El Dorado Public Schools in El Dorado, Arkansas for the expansion of a recreational field; $200,000 for Audubon Arkansas for the development of the Audubon Nature Center at Gillam Park in Little Rock, Arkansas; $350,000 to the City of Douglas, Arizona for facilities renovation of the Grand Theater; $350,000 to Valley of the Sun YMCA in Phoenix, Arizona for facilities construction of a YMCA; $250,000 to the City of Banning, CA for city pool improvements; $350,000 to the City of Beaumont, CA for the construction of the Beaumont Sports Park; $350,000 to the City of E1 Monte, California for construction of a community gymnasium; $250,000 to the City of Lancaster, California for installations related to the baseball complex; $150,000 to the City of Long Beach, California to develop an exhibit to educate the public on the importance of ports; $200,000 to the City of Placerville, California for Gold Bug Park renovations; $100,000 to the City of San Bernardino, California for Renovations to National Orange Show stadium; $125,000 to the City of Tehachapi, California for design and construction of a performing arts center; $350,000 to the City of Yucaipa, California for development of the Yucaipa Valley Regional Sports Complex; $250,000 to the Lake County Arts Council in Lakeport, California for renovation of the Lakeport Cinema to a Performing Arts Center; $175,000 for the San Francisco Fine Arts Museums, CAY for M.H. de Young Memorial Museum construction; $350,000 to the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut for relocation of the Music and Arts Center for the Humanities to a now-vacant department store; $300,000 to the University of Hartford in Hartford, Connecticut for facilities construction and renovation of the Hartt Performing Arts Center; $250,000 for the Town of Southbury, CT, for renovations to the Bent of the River Audubon Center; $200,000 to Lake County, FL for construction of a library; $96,300 to the City of Coral Gables, Florida for the renovation of historic Biltmore Hotel; $200,000 to the City of Ft. Myers, Florida for the redevelopment of Edson & Ford Estates; $200,000 to the City of Hollywood, Florida for the construction and development of the Young Circle Arts Park project; $100,000 to the City of Pensacola, Florida for construction of the YMCA of Greater Pensacola; $125,000 to the City of Treasure Island, Florida for construction of beach walkovers; $250,000 for Miami Dade County, Florida for the Miami Performing Arts Center; $75,000 to the City of Tybee Island, Georgia for a new facility for the Georgia 4-H Foundation; $300,000 for the Kauai YMCA to construct facilities; $150,000 to Seguin Services in Cicero, Illinois for construction of a garden center; $80,000 to the City of Beardstown, Illinois for construction of the Grand Opera House Beardstown Historical Society; $250,000 to the City of Joliet, Illinois for repairs to Rialto Square Theater; $250,000 to the City of Peoria, Illinois for design and construction of Africa exhibit at Glen Oak Zoo; $500,000 for the City of Muncie, Indiana to revitalize the downtown urban park; $250,000 for the Learning Collaborative to implement the Web Portal Technology Development Initiative in Daviess County, IN; $150,000 to Hardin County, Kentucky for renovation of an historic state theater; $150,000 to Powell County Fiscal Court in Powell County, Kentucky for the construction and development of a park; $100,000 to the City of Louisville, Kentucky for construction of a playground in Shawnee Park; $600,000 for the Kentucky Commerce Cabinet to develop a visitor center at the Big Bone Lick State Park; $500,000 for the Audubon Nature Institute for the Audubon Living Science Museum and Wetlands Center in New Orleans, Louisiana; $100,000 to Greenfield Community College in Greenfield, Massachusetts for a feasibility study; $280,000 for the City of North Adams, MA for the renovation of the historic Mohawk Theater; $260,000 for the City of Lawrence, MA for the redevelopment of the Lawrence In-Town Mall site; $200,000 for the American Visionary Arts Museum, Maryland $350,000 to the City of Saginaw, Michigan for renovation of the YMCA of Saginaw; $250,000 to Walsh College in the City of Troy, Michigan for a library expansion; $500,000 to the City of Cape Girardeau, Missouri for the construction of a new school for visual and performing arts at Southeast Missouri State University; $200,000 to the City of Meridian, Mississippi for the construction of the Mississippi Arts and Entertainment Center; and $750,000 to the City of Pontotoc, Mississippi for construction of the Pontotoc County Sportsplex.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I have no objection to that whatsoever.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will consume what time I may and then ask for the remaining time when I finish. The first thing I would like to say is I hold no ill will toward anybody who opposed me on this whatsoever. The Members here understand what their role is, and I understand what mine is. But I also understand that one of the things our country needs is citizen-based legislators. That is what I was in the House. During my time in the House of Representatives, nobody ever accused me of being anything other than the most hard-working there. I delivered 400 babies in 6 years while I was in the House. I never missed a vote during those times. I might have missed votes associated with the airlines or committee meetings, but I never missed a vote. I campaigned on the fact that I was going to be term limited. I am a term-limited Senator. The most I will be here is 12 years, and maybe not more than 6. But the point is: Why would I want to practice medicine? I want to practice medicine so I can be involved in what real people experience every day in this country. We don't get to see that enough. We don't get to see that at townhall meetings when we give speeches. But I will tell you that sitting in the middle of a patient's room when there is conflict in a family or death and dying or a new complication associated with an old disease and lives get impacted, I get to measure and I get to see what none of you get to see--what we do and how it affects people. I want to practice medicine to be the best Senator I can be. I want to maintain my skills so I can go back and deliver babies. There is nothing better in the world than delivering a baby. It is a reaffirmation of why we are all here. It is a reaffirmation of life. I will tell you that we need to think long and hard about our ethics rules. We have shot ourselves in the foot. Every Member in the Senate is ethical and wants the same thing for our country as I do--a bright and golden future, security and opportunity for our kids. But our ethics rules lack common sense. I will address one particular statement. This word is all about compensation. Arbitrarily, the decision was made by the Ethics Committee to define ``compensation'' as any compensation. I will read what 5 CFR 26236-303(b)6 of the U.S. Government Office of Ethics for the rest of the Government says. Compensation in this aspect is net compensation. This could have very well been solved by the Ethics Committee in a broad and consistent and commonsense interpretation of the word ``compensation,'' but they chose not to do that. I don't know why. I am disappointed and hurt. I was not allowed to come before the Ethics Committee. I was not allowed to present my case. I was not allowed to discuss with any Ethics member my issue, to explain the basis of why I wanted to do it, and where I thought their interpretation was wrong. I had to secure legal counsel to have any communication with the Ethics Committee. I was notified by the Ethics Committee before I was ever sworn in that they had made this decision even though they lacked or asked for no input from me on my situation. If that is the pattern under which we operate the Ethics Committee, we have real problems. I don't blame that on the chairman of the Ethics Committee or the ranking member. It is a problem we see in lots of other areas of Government, that staff tend to drive things. People who do not have the ultimate responsibility take the ultimate responsibility. What I want to do is very simple: I want to be a great Senator. I want to contribute. I know I can contribute in ways that I would not be able to contribute by being a doctor and continuing the practice. The question of Senator Frist: Senator Frist has a wonderful arrangement. It is not available to me. He has a limited number of days that he has a malpractice firm, insurance firm, that will insure him. That is not available in the practice of obstetrics in Oklahoma. It is not available to me, period. If I could do that, I would practice just as Senator Frist. But I don't have that available to me, so I have expenses four to five times what Senator Frist would pay for the same type of insurance. Could I secure that, I would be happy to do it. The other thing we ought to talk about is the history of the Senate. We had reference to the rule change in 1977. There were no doctors in the Senate then. Senator Strom Thurmond's words, in adding physicians, was because he was trying to kill it. He was not trying to put physicians on there--and it backfired on him. That was his own rules. If you read his history of what happened in 1977, his attempt was to exclude many of us by adding doctors in the hopes that the Senate would turn that around. Some history on the Senate: There have been 37 doctors who have been in the Senate. Senator Frist and myself are the last two. Every doctor who was a practicing doctor who came to the Senate prior to Dr. Frist practiced, received payment and acted in an ethical fashion while they were here. It is not about money. It is about the ability to practice. I know not all Senators share my zeal for citizen-based legislators. There is a real difference. To the people of Oklahoma, when I campaigned, I made three promises to them: One, I would guarantee I would not be here for a long time; No. 2, I would continue to practice; and No. 3 is that I would work hard to solve the problems of the country before I tried to solve the problems of Oklahoma. I put the priorities out there. Oklahomans believe in that. Not necessarily all the editorial writers, not the talking heads, but the people who voted for me, every one of them knew I planned on continuing to practice medicine. It is also important to look at the confluence of the rules we have, the rules that say I could own a business and not directly direct it but indirectly direct it and have no limitation on my income whatever. I can farm, own a farm, collect government subsidies, with no limit whatever. I can write books. I can write music. I can counsel. I can advise. There is no limitation on us, except if you are a professional that has a fiduciary responsibility. The question ought to be what was behind the meaning of the rules. Do you think the intention was not to have a doctor practice medicine? That wasn't their intention. The fact that the malpractice crisis has created such a situation where you cannot practice for under $100,000 a year in terms of your expenses and overhead associated with that was never thought about in 1977. I understand there is going to be a motion, a point of order raised against this. I understand that. That is a high bar for any Member to change anything around here with 60 votes. I understand the feelings and the reasoning behind the Ethics Committee on why they want to do that. And I understand their motivation and their thinking. But I make one point to my Senate colleagues: There has not been one subcommittee that has had more subcommittee hearings than I have. As a matter of fact, there is not one subcommittee that has had half as many subcommittee hearings as I have. I have missed one vote in the entire year. I practice medicine on Saturdays, on the weekends, and from 6 to 9 a.m. on Mondays. I catch my flight, and I am here for votes. My practicing of medicine does not interfere with my Senate duties. It enhances my Senate duties. If we don't change our rules, I will live with whatever the Senate says. I will figure out a way to practice medicine in some way that accords me to try to keep my skill and try to do that within the ethical guidelines of the Senate. But I believe we are discouraging anybody else who is a physician to run for the Senate, No. 1. No. 2, we discourage other professionals to run for the Senate. And it would be my hope that you would think about the long-term consequences of what we are doing. This does no damage to the Senate. In fact, it will enhance the Senate. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. COBURN. And a motion to waive, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COBURN. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I take whatever time I might consume. The real difference for my colleagues to know is the definition of the word ``compensation.'' The same lawyer that is on the Senate Ethics Committee today worked for the Senate Ethics Committee in the House when the determination was made for the practice of medicine that compensation was net compensation. There is no damage done to the House or the institution of the House. As a matter of fact, because that rule was changed, there are now, I believe, 11 doctors in the House. I reject the idea that this would do damage to the Ethics Committee. This is a simple definition. It is one that the Ethics Committee could have chosen to use but chose not to. I don't know the motivation behind that. I know they could have solved the problem, and we wouldn't be where we are today. I reserve the remainder of my time. Amendment No. 2647

Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I probably don't have a problem with that. I do not want to make a time agreement----

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COBURN. It is my hope that we could finish this in 1 hour, and I will do everything I can to do that. I do not want to limit my ability to answer questions in this case. The Senator has my word that I will limit the amount of debate so that we can try to finish in an hour. But I would object to limiting it formally, and I will do everything I can to finish it in an hour.

Mr. COBURN. I yield back all time.