Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just want to raise a couple of new points and reiterate several that I have already made. First of all, on the sovereignty issue, the courts have ruled on this issue and determined that the Congress has the authority to delegate the decision-making on this issue to the States, and that is exactly what we did in IGRA. My amendment does not amend IGRA. It does not change IGRA at all. It does not affect the existing tribal State compacts. There are 200 compacts right now involving 200 different tribes and 25 different States, and it does not limit the ability of tribes to obtain Class III gaming as long as a valid compact exists between the tribe and the States where they want to establish gaming. What does my amendment do? It is worth repeating because there has been a lot of discussion and I think we need to get back to that issue. It ensures that tribes can still use the current IGRA process if they want to engage in Class III gaming. It maintains the status quo of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It preserves the right of Congress to pass laws and make majority policies. But what my amendment does say is that the Secretary cannot do an end run around IGRA. Now, if my colleagues want to know what happened in Florida, we had a referendum, and it was overwhelming. Four out of five people said they do not want casino gambling in the State of Florida. And what the Secretary is proposing in this regulatory approach that he is taking is to do an end run around the will of the people in the State of Florida. And I think that is obviously wrong but, moreover, regardless of the right or the wrong of it, it violates the very intent of the law that this body passed. And all my amendment says is we are going to stick to the intent of the law as it was originally proposed. Now, if my colleagues do not like IGRA and they think we should cede all authority on this issue to the Secretary to allow gambling to come into anyplace that he sees in his decision-making authority to be appropriate, then I guess Members should vote against my amendment. And watch out, because they may be buying land in other congressional districts. Who knows? They might be buying land in my colleagues' neighborhoods. And, yes, they have to get, as was pointed out by the gentleman from California, they have to get approval from the governor before that can be taken in as part of the reservation. I understand that. And that is a regulatory hoop that they would have to go through. But, clearly, my amendment simply states that we should stick with IGRA.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I do not doubt the chairman and the ranking member's words that this is an important part of our forest research and a tremendous natural resource, but I think the point that needs to be made is that if there are so many Federal dollars in this program that they can spend research as outlined by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) that there is obviously way too much money there. He did not outline all of the what I would consider programs which are just a drop in the bucket that have been research that have nothing to do with rangeland or our forests. Let me give my colleagues another one. Since I am from the South, I kind of like this one. Here is one study that they did, Voices From Southern Forests, ``Examines the changing social, economic, attitudinal, and other voices of southerners and speculates about the meaning these changing voices might have on the future of forest wildlife management in the South.'' I know that is important to the researcher who did that, but I do not think that does anything to enhance the quality of our forests, to enhance the productivity of our forests or enhance our ability to direct money to be spent in a proper way. I am not critical of the committee as they look at this. I know they cannot be on top of everything. But I would doubt that the chairman and ranking member, if they knew these were the studies that this committee paid for last year, would be happy to give this agency a $7 million increase.

Mr. COBURN. I agree. I thank the gentleman. I would just note, this one program spends a dollar per acre for every acre of land that we own, of our forestland. I am not saying that is too much, but it is too much when it is spent this way. I appreciate the gentleman's time and the hard work that he does.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, just to enlighten the Members of the House, we went on their web site this morning, and in 30 minutes these are a list of some of the programs we found. If we went through the whole web site, which would take about 2 days, I think you can find the depth of the problem. I appreciate the gentleman allowing me the time to explain that.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. COBURN. To the chairman, I would agree. I have no criticism of the basic program. We spent $197 million on this last year. You have brought it to almost $204 million. To me, what it says is we are rewarding this kind of incompetence. Every dollar that this program does not spend to help forests get better is a dollar that our grandchildren are going to pay back in terms of the Social Security obligation that we have. I would appreciate it if the chairman and ranking member would at least consider this reduction, not because maybe it is necessary in their judgment but it might send a message to the people that are authorizing this kind of garbage with our children and grandchildren's money that maybe they should not do it next year and when they come to you next year, they can have this increase that you have outlined for them and they will have learned that you mean business about the money that they spend for our future generations.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would take that correction.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, would the gentleman agree with me that at the end of this bill we would have a conforming amendment to do that?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman explain why our large increase in the international affairs is a $2 million increase in the budget for the administration of that one program and that is all here in Washington?

Mr. COBURN. If we are going to enhance the ability of the Fish and Wildlife to do their job, the best way we enhance it is at the regional offices and not in Washington, D.C. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes my point. Why do we fund at a very small increase the district regional offices and we are doubling that amount for the bureaucracy here in Washington? The point is there is no question they have a workload, and there is no question we have good employees in this agency. The question is can we afford at this day and time to grow the Federal bureaucracy here in Washington at a rate twice at which we are growing the regional bureaucracy.

Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time once again, the gentleman's position is whether we are taking it out of there or not, he favors a 6.6 percent increase for the bureaucracy here in Washington at the same time he is limiting the regional increase to 3.5 percent?

Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to support the gentleman if he would offer an amendment that would move the differences in the increase from Washington to the regional offices. I would support that. I plan on withdrawing this amendment because I have another amendment to follow it that is much less severe and brings us back in line with the Senate.

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I will not go through the details of the last amendment, but I would make a pleading to the chairman of this committee and the ranking member that the amount of increases that we have put in administration of the Fish and Wildlife far exceeds that which the Senate committee have put in and far exceeds that which is necessary on a routine basis for all of the bureaucracies within this government. I know that we can probably come up with a justification for why we need to increase this 6.6 percent. But I would ask the ranking member and the chairman for us to really consider where this difference between the 4.9 percent increase that the Senate has and the 6.6 percent, where is the money going to come from? We all know where it is going to come from. The money is going to come out of the Social Security trust fund in the year 2000. And if in fact we will pare back this $2 million, this $2 million is enough for 2,000 seniors to get Medicare for a year. I am not saying the Senate is better at these than we are. What I am saying is, if we went out and asked the American public what kind of increase did they get in their operating budget to administer programs, whether it is State, local, municipal or if it is Federal, to see a 6.6 percent increase in a time when we are bound by the 1997 budget agreement, I know many of us do not feel bound by it, but I believe we should honor our commitments on this and live within the budget agreement that we voted for and passed and is a matter of law with the President, that increasing it 4.9 percent is a large increase in terms of administrative overhead and costs. So my plea to my colleague is to at least consider this very small reduction in costs from 6.6 to 4.9 percent, saying, you know what, we really can be more efficient in the Federal government. We really do not have to spend this $2 million. We really can get by.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the costs for these services last year in 1999, according to the committee print, was $109,363,000. The recommendation of my colleagues is to increase that to $116,680,000, or an increase of $7,000,317. I do not know about California, but I know about Oklahoma, and that is a big increase. My question is, I am not saying that my colleagues could not come up with a justification. They could probably come up with a justification for raising it 10 percent or 15 percent. I will give my colleagues that, that they can come up with that. What I am saying is, realistically, they are going to go to conference with the Senate level that is well below them. So my point is, will my colleagues consider trimming this $2 million to put it in line with the Senate, to put it in line with the realistic growth in it, and also to recognize that the $2 million is going to come out of the Social Security surplus? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. So, therefore, for the record, the position of the committee is that we will increase the bureaucracy in Washington at twice the rate we increase the bureaucracy in the private sector.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I would just note from the committee print that the committee cuts ESA $5 million over last year, the Endangered Species Act in terms of the funding for it. So what they have done is cut the money for the Endangered Species Act but grow the bureaucracy. And to me I find that fairly contrary in terms of the idea. Regardless of what the other body has done, my contention is I think that we can lead in the House over the other body and set an example. I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, he might not have heard the first portion of my statement. I did thank him and the chairman for the work they did and recognizing that this is a good bill. I am not saying this is not a good bill.