Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Yes. If you took the whole cost of the war today, it is less than half of this. The whole cost of the war is less than half of this, thus far. The fact is, tax policy aside, we could even agree on it--there is no question that $1 out of every $3 is either wasted, inefficient, or defrauded in the Federal Government. That has been said by the Grace Commission and the Comptroller General of the country, in terms of us failing to do the oversight. So we can raise taxes, I believe, as a consequence of that. Would the Senator agree that if in fact we held the spending level--no increase in spending--and worked toward efficiency in the Federal agencies, could we not accomplish a great deal and still stimulate the economy?

Mr. COBURN. First of all, the $81-billion supplemental that this body passed, I had an amendment to cut $19 billion out of that because it is not going to be spent for the next 3 years. So there is no way you can call that an emergency. One amendment on limiting the expenditures on the embassy, we got 44 votes. Fifty-five people thought it was OK. The fact is, we are at war. We seem to forget that. In every war this country has ever had, the Congress trimmed discretionary spending massively to fund the war. We have decided we will not do that. We have decided we can continue. There is no question good work was done to cut a half-billion dollars out of this bill. The question the American people ought to be asking is, is everything that is in this bill necessary now in light of the fact that any money we spend we are going to charge to our grandchildren? We are going to charge the unpaid interest over the next 30 years because we have no history of paying back our debts. So by the time you compound the interest costs of this $540 billion, now with some $40 billion on top of it $588 billion is the number it will become--what is the real cost? The real cost is no college education for the generation 2 years from now, no homeownership 2 years from now, decreased investment in capital goods for productivity and scientific advancement, decreased investment in education and competition in the world. That is the cost. That is what will be the cost of our inaction to protect the future for our children by not trimming every absolute penny we need to spend from this bill. The question should be: Can we cut more? Is it wrong for us not to cut more, in light of the fact that we are having to borrow? Whether we borrow it for this or for the war or we borrow it for interest, the fact is, we are borrowing it. And 18 cents out of every dollar we are going to spend this year in discretionary is going to pay interest on our lack of fiscal discipline from the past. We ought to be about raising the level--we ought to be honest with the American people. They have no idea. They hear $350 billion, but it is not $350 billion; it is almost double that. Let's be honest about the real cost. Let's be honest about what the real problems are that will come, and they are going to come to our children and our grandchildren. This body has a history, since it was first formed, of thinking in the long term, thinking about the next generation. Unfortunately, Congress as a whole has changed its direction of thinking too often to think about the next election, rather than the next generation. In every appropriations bill that comes before this body, I am going to be down here talking about the lack of our foresight in thinking about our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. COBURN. Therefore, it comes to the floor, does it not, with the recommendation of the Appropriations Committee? So we are equal partners in asking for that money. It is not just the administration.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the question I have for the Senator is, does that request not come from the Appropriations Committee?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we did pay off some Treasury bills. But the way you know when we pay down our debt is to look at our total debt and whether it declined at the time we did that. It did not. The total debt of the country rose every year we were paying that off. We still had a deficit. We were stealing from trust funds such as the inland waterway trust funds--that is publicly held debt. We transferred that. So the true debt of the country has not declined since 1972. Even though we were in a period of great times, we spent it all; we didn't pay it down. We actually spent it, and the actual debt of the country rose during the time when everybody in Washington said we were in surplus.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am trying to think of how to phrase this as a question. First, I think my statement was on discretionary spending, not mandatory spending in terms of my relationship to an increase in spending. I would think the Senator would agree that if, in fact, we froze discretionary spending, we would drive efficiency, innovation, and productivity among all those agencies. I hope that he would agree with that.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about what we have heard on the Senate floor today. The Presiding Officer and I are new Members to the Senate. We were not here as this struggle began. I must say, I am pretty deeply saddened by the misstatements of fact, the innuendo, the half-truths we have heard on the Senate floor today. I also am somewhat saddened by the fact that the Constitution is spoken about in such light terms. Because what the Constitution says is that, in fact, the Senate sets its own rules and the Senate can change its own rules. The first 100 years in this body, there was not a filibuster, and that filibuster has gone through multiple changes during the course of Senate history. I pride myself on not being partisan on either the Democratic or the Republican side. I am a partisan for ideas, for freedom, for liberty. I am also a partisan for truth. I believe, as we shave that truth, we do a disservice not only to this body, but we also do a disservice to the country. Another principle I am trying to live by is the principle of reconciliation. As we go forward in this debate, it is important for the American people to truly understand what the history is in this debate. At the beginning of the Congress, the majority, whether it be Democrat or Republican in any Congress, whoever is in control, has a right to set up the rules. Those rules were set up in this Congress with one provision--that an exception be made on the very issue we are talking about today. Why was that exception put there? That exception was put there in an attempt to work out the differences over the things that have happened in the past so we would not come to this point in time. I believe the majority leader, although maligned today on the floor, has made a great and honest effort to work a compromise in the matter before us. I also believe what has happened in the past in terms of judges not coming out of committee probably has been inappropriate. That is not a partisan issue either. It has happened on both sides. As a matter of fact, there are appellate judges now being held up by Democratic Senators because they disagree on their nomination to come through the Judiciary Committee. As a member of the committee and a nonlawyer on the Judiciary Committee, it is becoming plain to me to see the importance of the procedure within the committee. Having said that, the Constitution gives the right to the President to appoint, under the advice and consent of the Senate. The debate is about whether we will take a vote. President Bush's appellate court nominees have the lowest acceptance rate of any of the last four Presidents. Is that because the nominees are extreme? Or is there some other reason why we are in this mess that we find ourselves in? I really believe it is about the question: where do Supreme Court judges come from? They come from the appellate courts most often. And whether or not we allow people--good, honest people--to put their names forward and come before this body and have true advice and consent is a question we are going to have to solve in the next couple of weeks. There are lots of ways of solving it. One is doing what Senator Byrd did four times in his history as leader of this body--a change in the rules by majority vote because the majority has the majority. That is not a constitutional option; that is a Byrd option. That is an option vested in the power of the Senate under the Constitution to control the rules of the Senate. Another little bit of history. Twenty-five years ago, the filibuster was eliminated on the Budget and Reconciliation Act. The Congress didn't fall apart. Under Senator Byrd's changes of the rules, the Senate did not fall apart. So the issue really is about whether or not the majority has the power to control the rules in the Senate. And the debate also is about whether or not we are going to have an up or down, a fair vote on judges--just like we should have a debate on whether we should have a process change in the Judiciary Committee for those judges who are appointed by any President to come through. I said in my campaign for this office that conservative and liberal wasn't a test for me for judges. The foundation and principles of our country, and proof of excellence in the study of and acting on the law should be the requirements. We had the unfortunate example today--this week--of a Federal judge in Nebraska negating a marriage law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman--an appointed judge deciding for the rest of us--it could very well decide for all 50 States--whether or not we are going to recognize marriage as between a man and a woman. We have heard Priscilla Owen's name linked several times because of her decisions--there were 13 or 14 decisions that came before the Texas Supreme Court on judicial review of a minor's access to an abortion without parental notification--not consent, but notification. In the one case that they bring up and misquote Attorney General Gonzales on, she in fact did what the law said to do. The federal appellate court is not entitled, nor is the Supreme Court of Texas, to review the findings of fact. The finder of fact is the original court. They cannot make decisions on that. So she dissented on that basis. Judge Gonzales' statement was about whether or not he could go along with that in terms of what would be applied to him in terms of judicial activism. He has since said under oath that in no way, or at any time, did he accuse Priscilla Owen of being a judicial activist. Let's talk about activism. I want to relate a story that happened to me about 6 years ago. I was in Stigler, OK, having a townhall meeting. A father walked in, 35 years of age, with tears running down his cheek. In his hand, he had a brown paper sack, and he interrupted this meeting between me and about 60 people. His question to me was: ``Dr. Coburn, how is it that this sack could be given to my 12-year old daughter?'' Of course, I didn't know what was in the sack. What was in the sack was birth control pills, condoms, and spermicide. The very fact that his daughter could be treated in a clinic without his permission for contraceptives came about through judicial activism. The fact is that 80 to 85 percent of the people in this country find that wrong. Yet, it cannot be turned around. The fact is that 80 percent of the people in this country believe that marriage is defined as that union between a man and a woman, and a Federal judge--not looking at the Constitution-- not looking at precedent, actually makes that change. So it is a battle about ideas. Priscilla Owen recognizes what the law is. She has stated uniformly that she will follow the precedents set before the court. But we have gotten to where we are in terms of the issues that inflame and insight so much polarization in this body and throughout the country because we have not had people following the law, but in fact we have had judicial activism. I congratulate President Bush for sending these nominees to the Senate floor. I have interviewed Priscilla Owen. Her history, her recommendations, her ratings are far in excess of superior. So why would this wonderful woman, who has dedicated her life to the less fortunate, to families, to reinstituting and strengthening marriage, to making sure people who didn't have legal aid had it, why is she being so lambasted, so maligned because of her beliefs? The beliefs she has are what 80 percent of the people in this country have, but she doesn't fit with the beliefs of the elite liberal sect in this country. So it is a battle of ideas. It is a battle that will shape the future of our courts. How is it that a woman of such stature will have the strength to withstand for 4 years--she has put everything about her, every aspect of her personal life, her public life, her judicial career out front and has stood strong to continue to take the abuse and maligning language that comes her way. Why would somebody do that? It is because she believes in this country. She believes in the foundational principles that our colleague from New York held up in the Constitution. She has sworn and believes in that Constitution. She has the courage to know that the fight for our children, for our parents to control the future for our children, is worth the fight. I would like to spend a minute going over some poll numbers with the American public on the very issue of whether or not a minor child ought to have parental involvement in a major procedure such as an abortion. Having delivered over 4,000 babies, having handled every complication of pregnancy that is known, I am very familiar with these issues. There are five polls I would like to put in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what is the matter pending before the Senate at this time?

Mr. COBURN. One is a March 2-7, 2005, poll from Quinnipiac University: Do you favor or oppose requiring parental notification before a minor could get an abortion? That is notification. Seventy-five percent of the people in this country agree with that. It is not an extreme position when 75 percent of our fellow Americans think that is right--think that in fact we don't give up rights to our children until they are emancipated and are adults. Next, do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals: A law requiring women under 18 to get parental consent for any abortion? That is not notification, that is consent. That is a CNN/USA Today/ Gallup poll, January 10, 2003. Seventy-three percent favor parents being involved in the health care of their children and major decisions that will affect their future. Do you favor or oppose requiring that one parent of a girl who is under 18 years of age be notified before an abortion is performed on the girl? Eighty-three percent favor the parent being notified. That is a Wirthlin Worldwide poll. Should girls under the age of 18 be required to get the consent of at least one parent before having an abortion? That is a Los Angeles Times poll. Eighty-two percent believe that. What is described as extreme is mainline to the American public. What we have is a battle for ideas, a battle under which the future of our country will follow. The word ``activist'' in reference to judges is a word that is wildly used. It is almost amusing that we hear it from one side of the Senate to the other side of the Senate. What is activism on one side is not activism on the other. What is activism to the minority is not activism to the majority. What is activism? Activism is reaching into the law and the precedents of law and creating something that was not there before. Activism is intentionally misinterpreting statutes to produce a political gain. I will go back to the child and the father, 35 years of age, screaming at the depths of his heartache as to how in our country we have gotten to the point where a judge can decide ahead of the Senate, ahead of the House, ahead of both bodies and the President, what will happen to our minor children. That is what this debate is about. Priscilla Owen exemplifies the values that the American people hold, but she also exemplifies the values of the greatest jurists of our time: a strict adherence to the law, a love of the law, and a willingness to sacrifice her life and her career and her personal reputation to go through this process. Senator Ensign, the Senator from Nevada, made a very good point a moment ago, and I think it bears repeating. How many people will not put their name up in the future who are eminently qualified, have great judicial history, will have great recommendations from the American Bar Association but do not want to have to go through the half-truths, the innuendos, and the slurring of character that occurs, to come before this body? My hope is that before we come to the Byrd option or a change in the rules, that cooler heads will decide that we will not filibuster judges in the future, and we will not block nominations at the committee. That is reasonable. We do not have to do that. A President should have his nominees voted on. If they come to the committee and they do not have a recommendation, they should still come to the floor, or if they have a recommendation they not be approved, they should still come to the floor, or if they have a recommendation they be approved, they should still come to the floor. But it is fair for a President to have a vote on their nominations. We have seen this President's numbers on appointments. That is right. Why has he had so many people appointed? Because he has nominated great jurists, and could they have filibustered others, they would have. The ironic part is that they say that Priscilla Owen is ``not qualified.'' However, in the negotiations leading up to the point we find ourselves, the offer has been made that we can pick two out of any four of the people who are on the queue to come before this body and let those two go through and two be thrown away. If that is the case, if any two will do, then they are obviously qualified. If they are acceptable under a deal, then they are obviously qualified. The argument against qualification, the activist charges do not hold water. What does hold water is the fact that these individuals who stand in the mainstream of American thought, values, and ideals will be appellate judges and that someday maybe have an appointment or a nomination for a Supreme Court judgeship. That holds water. We have to decide in the Senate whether or not we are going to allow the process of filibustering judicial nominations to continue. If it continues, then lots of good people will never put their name in the hat. Lots of good people will never be on the court. What will be on the court are people who are not proven, people who do not have a record, people who are not the best. That is what will be on the court. The country deserves better, the Senate can do a better job than we are doing today, and it is my hope that we can resolve this conflict in a way that will create in the Senate a reputation that says reconciliation over the issues that divide us is a principle that we can all work on, that we can solve, that we can do the work of the American people. But if that is not possible, then it is well within the constitutional powers of the leader of this body to change the rules so that we can carry out our constitutional responsibilities. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to yield.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN. I will call them up and we will see what happens. I want to set the field a little bit more. I think it is important that the American people understand what is in this bill, and there are legitimate things in this bill that we need to have to fund the war on terrorism. I don't want to debate this issue or delay it. I want us to pass it. I don't want us to have to vote on every amendment I put up. I think it is incumbent upon us to be honest with the American people. When we call something an emergency, it ought to be an emergency. This bill has $21 billion in it that is going to eventually cost our children $100 billion in the next 30 years, and it is not an emergency. It should go through the regular appropriations process. It is important for the American people to also understand if it is regular stuff that is in the emergency, the budget rules don't count. So we are going to spend $20 billion that should be taken out of next year's budget requirement, and we are going to sneak it in now so we can spend $20 billion more next year. That is what it is about. We need to be honest. We are never going to solve our budgetary problems or spending problems, or we are never going to have the process work in this country where the pressure comes on this body to not spend our children's future, unless we are honest about what is in the budget and how the appropriations process works. Let's take, for example, the embassy in Iraq. This is a $500 million embassy--$500 million, a half-billion dollars. It is not just an embassy. It is the whole thing there, to give credit. It is going to have greater requirements than any other embassy we have, but it is a half-billion dollars. In this appropriation bill, only $106 million of it is going to be spent over the next 2 years; $385 million is going to be spent from 2007 to 2012. That is not an emergency. What you will hear from the Appropriations Committee is they have to let the contracts. It is only 3 months between now and the time we start the regular appropriations process. We can let a contract and the conditional authority for a $500 million embassy. We should not move that up now. There are also some good questions about whether we ought to be spending $500 million on an embassy complex in Baghdad. That needs to be looked at. That needs to be talked about before we commit our children's future. That is one example of the areas in which we need to be making sure the American public knows what is going on. The purpose of an emergency wartime supplemental is to immediately fund ongoing emergency needs for our troops or for disaster--emergency needs. My objection to this bill is it has $19 billion to $20 billion in it that is not emergency. It does not have anything to do with an emergency, but it has to do with outyear spending we can now put into this bill which has to pass to fund our troops. Let me just give some history. Since September 11, 2001, Congress has passed four individual supplemental bills in ongoing efforts to fund the war against terror. In those bills was $56 billion that did not have anything to do with the war on terror or homeland security. Think about that, $56 billion. When we add this up, we are going to be at $72 billion over the last 4 years in money that is not emergency and money that is not about the war on terrorism and that is not money about homeland security. Why is that? It is because our process is broken. The only way it changes is for the American public to become informed about how the process works. This is not to question the motives of any of our Members. They want us to control spending as well, but they also want to satisfy the demands that are placed on them, the office, for all the demands that come in from across this country. The fact is, we are our own worst enemy because we have trouble saying no to those we care about, even though we do not have the money to do it or do not recognize we are really stealing a standard of living from our children and our grandchildren. There is $10 million, as Senator McCain mentioned, for a library. There is no question that the University of Hawaii has an emergency. By their own quoted statements, the president of the University of Hawaii said the damage is about $50 million. With this $10 million and what the State legislature has done there, they are going to collect over $100 million for a $50 million damage, and with the requirements under FEMA for having a 75-percent/25-percent grant, even though it was required, we are now going to supply that. It may not be a one on one, it may not be their intent, but the fact is $10 million is fungible, which is exactly their matching grant to get it repaired. Is it an emergency? Is it something that needs to be done or is it something that is going to be covered already? Is it something we, as Congress, should be supplying or is it something for which the people of Hawaii should be responsible? It is a legitimate question, and if it should be there, then it ought to go through the appropriations process where it can be looked at, not stuck in a bill that is a ``must pass'' bill. That is something about which we need to talk. Mr. President, 6 years ago, the Capitol Police were told they needed to move out of their storage and receipt building in southeast Washington, DC. We now have $23 million in this bill to move the Capitol Police receiving station out of the area so we can build a baseball stadium. I have a whole lot of trouble thinking that comes anywhere close to the emergency requirements of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is almost laughable that we would put that in as an emergency. I understand people have a very different opinion of that than I do, but I think a baseball stadium pales in comparison to what the need of an emergency appropriation is. I think it is wrong to have money in an emergency appropriation to do something such as that. It can come through the regular order, especially since they have had 6 years to have done it. I must say the chairman of this committee has been very kind to me in answering questions and working with me. I think he has brought what he thought the body could pass and get back to the President. I do not want to cast any direction against any individual, but I believe we have to have a challenge, and one of the reasons I came to the Senate is so I can look at what we are doing so I can help educate the American people on what is really happening. I call up my amendments Nos. 450, 467, 506, and 471, and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the first amendment deals with contracting in the Defense Department. There is no objection or intent to label anything other than the process under which we allow $40 million of expenditures to go out that does not go through a true competitive bidding process. There is no question it will benefit what we are doing. There is no question it is a need in terms of what we had. The question in bringing this amendment up is because of the process and the lack of open, competitive bidding associated with $40 million of the taxpayers' money. I have no question that possibly the person who has this contract or will get this contract under the present bill may be the best, but the American people and future generations of this country need to make sure that is what happens and it happens every time so that we do not spend any money unwisely. I believe it is tremendously prudent on our part, in reassessing where we are and the tremendous risks facing our economy from the valuation of the dollar, our deficit spending, and the difficulties we are going to be facing on Social Security and health care, that we pay attention to every detail. This was noted in the report language. There may be a much better explanation for it. Without losing control of the floor, I yield to my chairman, the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. COBURN. That is correct.

Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that I be allowed to call up three amendments.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendments Nos. 450, 467, and 471.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to discuss amendment No. 471.

Mr. COBURN. I will. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that I be allowed to call up four amendments.

Mr. COBURN. I would like to ask for a voice vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. COBURN. Yes.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I agree with everything the chairman said except he didn't talk about the issue I am raising. The issue I am raising is spending $400 million in the years 2007 through 2012 should go through the regular appropriations process. I want us to have an embassy over there. I want us to do the very things the chairman outlined. But, again, we are playing a game with the appropriations process. The administration is playing the same game by requesting it. We have $592 million, and only $106 million is going to be spent in the next 2 years to accomplish what the honorable chairman of the Appropriations Committee said. Why not run the rest through the regular order? Why put this to the bottom line and not make us do what we need to do in time of parity in how it is spent? Again, I think this extra money, this $486 million, ought to go through the regular order. We are going to go out and borrow and ask our kids and our grandchildren to pay it back. When you ask them to pay it back, it is going to be at a rate of about seven or eight times what we borrow. We are not paying back money, we are paying interest, and then we are paying interest on the interest. That very well equates to us abandoning the vision that we want to give the future of this country; that is, opportunity and freedom, and we can't do that if we continue. All of this money in this bill goes straight to debt. None of it goes through the budget process. There is no limit. We are going to go out and borrow the money tomorrow. It is going straight to debt. I don't disagree with the chairman at all. I appreciate his working with me on this committee in terms of learning, of teaching a new Senator the ropes. He has been wonderfully kind to me. But the fact is, only $106 million is going to be expended over the next 24 months after this is put out, and the rest of it ought to go through the regular order. That is all I am asking. I am saying it should come through the regular appropriations process. That is all I am asking. I am not saying don't do it. I am saying do it in a way in which we are held accountable, and we are going to hold our children accountable. It isn't just about numbers. It is about the future of our country and whether we are going to change the process in Washington that truly recognizes that we have to start being responsible. The South Korean Government, about a month ago, made one little, small comment about changing their mix on foreign holdings. The dollar fell 1.8 percent that day. We will not be able to hold the value of the dollar in the international financial community unless we are seen as being competent and secure about solving our problems and not spending money we don't have. This is a good first place to start. There is nothing wrong with sending it through the appropriations process on the regular order. It makes it a little harder for the appropriations team; I understand that. They have already done what they have been asked by the administration to do. But we need to send a signal to the administration to quit asking for money in outyears on the appropriations process so we don't look as bad when we count the so-called deficit. Remember, this is going against the deficit. It won't go against the published numbers. It is outside the rules of the game because we call it all an emergency. Money spent on an embassy in Iraq in 2011 is not an emergency to anybody in this country I know of. I think we would have trouble finding it. With that, I will cease discussion on that issue and discuss amendment No. 467.