Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Or associated with Food and Nutrition Services.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, so I understand what the gentlewoman has said, last year for these programs there was no money for ERS under Food and Nutrition, and all of the increase, this $4,509,000, all of that increase is only for this area?

Mr. COBURN. But they will still have the money that they were using to do that, and those structures will be in place.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, again this is an increase of $4,509,000 on a budget. Last year was at $65,000. What we are seeing is a 6.8 percent increase, and the question that I would ask again is if we are going to increase this $4,509,000, and ultimately when it is all said and done the money is going to come out of the Social Security surplus, that we ought to have a great explanation. If my colleagues read the committee print on this, and I will take the time to read it, there is not a valid explanation of what we are doing here, and again I would query the members of the committee. Maybe we are supposed to be doing this just to give us a good answer, and I will try to withdraw this amendment. But the fact is that we have silence on the issue. Let me read what the committee print says. ``For the Economic Research Service the committee provides an appropriation of $70 million, an increase of $4,509,000 above 1999 and an increase of $14 million above the budget we have. The committee has provided $17,495,000, an increase of 300 above the budget request, for studies and evaluations of work under the Food and Nutrition Service.'' Now I am for our elderly food nutrition programs, I am for our WIC programs, but I want to know how we are going to spend this money, and I want to know why we are spending it in the direction and the increase, if, in fact, the committee expects ERS to consult and work with the staff of the Food and Nutrition Service as well as other agencies to assure that all the studies and evaluations are meeting the needs of the department. Is there an area where we are not supplying that need with the $65 million that we had last year? Is there money that could go to our farmers that are out there starving? Could some of this $4,509,000 go directly to farmers? As my colleagues know, we say we want to help farmers, and some gentlemen have said today that some of our amendments have hurt farmers. Well, if they have, help us take this and change this and move it to the farmers instead of spending it on bureaucracies. Again, we are going to have a process by which at the end of the appropriation day this $4,509,000, whether we want to hear it or not, is going to be taken from the Social Security surplus. Most people in this room know that. It is apparent that that is what is going to happen, regardless of whether we have another omni-terrible bill or not. The money on increased spending is going to be taken from the Social Security surplus, and I believe that it is the honorable thing for us to do to stand up and admit that, and then say I believe we ought to take from the Social Security surplus an additional $4,509,000 to run this branch of the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this again is an area that has a 75 percent increase, and the first thing I would like to do with my time, if I may, is inquire of the committee the thinking behind this increase of 75 percent in this account so that we can have an understanding of it, and actually I would, if the gentleman from Texas knows the reason for that, I would even respond if he could give us the answer for that. The fact is, this is a significant increase for just the Office of the Under Secretary. We are not talking about research, we are talking about the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, by increasing it by $400,000, and I just would like an explanation. Mr. Chairman, it was $140,000, and it is going to be $540,000, and I believe that people would like to know why we are increasing that spending, and we ought to have a good explanation of why we are expending. If there is a great one and we should not be trimming this money out, then I will be happy to defer to the chairman, but to me it seems this 75 percent increase, from $400,000 to $540,000, is a significant increase.

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

Mr. COBURN. I am a Member of Congress. I can make no money as a doctor.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, ``filibuster'' is not my word. My word is let us bring it back to the freeze level of where we were last year and ask for efficiency, and I am willing to do that. And I have said here on this floor, as soon as we are back to the level in terms of cuts, I am through. I am looking for dollars. The term to ``filibuster,'' it is a filibuster in terms of taking time, but that is not my intention. My intention is to get us back down to where we were last year. My colleagues will see me walk right out of here as soon as we have done it. But to resist calls for efficiency, to resist debate on issues is not fair to the American public. And to impugn my motivations. I want to tell my colleagues something. My motivations are pure. I think about my grandkids and I think about the grandkids of all of those patients that I take care of. Every baby, three babies this weekend, I spank the bottom of. I delivered three new babies into this world. Every one of them owes $21,000, and it is growing at $500 a year, what they owe. They will never see the first penny of Social Security unless we have the courage to step up to the plate and demand change in Washington and demand it of ourselves. I am not talking about not having the right priorities. I do not want to punish our farmers. But I want us to create an environment of change that says we are not going to spend more, we can do better, we can spend less.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. To take the 302(b) allocations that we all know on the four big bills are not an accurate reflection of what is going to happen, and their claim to use that as a designation for why we should not trim this bill additionally is not fair to the American people. I have no fight to pick with the appropriators on this committee, and I have no desire to harm farmers. I say that they can do it better. What we hear in this body all the time is it cannot be done, we cannot do it. Well, I come from a group of people that says we can do it. We can do better. We cannot spend all the money allocated to us. We can get efficiencies without adding money to the Department of Agriculture. We can demand innovation, insight, and new ideas. We can promote efficiency. The VA Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma, is a great example of that where they cut their costs like crazy and they did not spend any additional money. So if they can do it, why cannot the Department of Agriculture do it? Why cannot the administration and the Department of Agriculture do it? They can do it, but they are never going to do it until we make them do it. We have to demand that they do it.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Arkansas be given 3 additional minutes.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I have no intentions to do it on anything other than what I think will not lead us to the commitment that we have made to the American people. The minority offered a budget and it had some good things in there, but the one common thing it had is they were going to take some of the money and make sure we did not spend any money of Social Security on anything except Social Security and Medicare. The Blue Dogs had a budget. Same thing. The Republicans had a budget that ultimately passed the House. Everybody agrees, with the exception of two Members of this House who voted for President Clinton's budget which said I am going to spend 38 percent of Social Security money. At least he admitted it. We either need to say we do not have the courage to trim the spending in the Federal Government and that we are going to take 38 percent, the seniors' money, or we need to say, the President was wrong, we do have the courage to spend less money up here. I want to make the point again. The 302(b) allocations that my colleagues all have met, they have met the requirement of the budget numbers and the number that was given to them. I am not objecting to that. What I am objecting to is, number one, the 302(b)'s this year are not an adequate representation of what is going to happen. And there is not a person in this body that does not know that. And that is a sham to the American public to say this is one 302(b) but the rest of them are not.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to talk about the 12 percent increase in the Department of Agriculture administration budget. The increase is from the fiscal 1999 level of $32 million, increasing it by $3,949,000. According to the committee print, departmental administration is comprised of activities that provide staff support to top policy officials and overall direction and coordination within the Department. These activities include department-wide programs for human resource management, I believe we have talked about that in a couple of the amendments; management improvement, we have talked about that; occupational safety and health management, we have talked about that; real and personal property management, we just talked about that in the previous amendment; procurement, contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft management, supply management, civil rights, equal opportunity and ethics, participation of small and disadvantaged businesses and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in the departmental programs activities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Again, I would raise the point, I do not have an objection with any member of this committee. I know that they have done good work. I do not disagree that they have met the targeted caps. What I am saying is, when was the last time an appropriation bill came to the floor that was below the caps? What a novel idea, if we are, in fact, going to not spend money that does not belong to us. Now, I understand why other Members do not want to talk about the Social Security issue, and I agree with the members of the committee who say we have met our 302(b) allocation. I agree with that. They have. My purpose in offering the amendments is to drive efficiency in the Federal Government, to ask the question, why, when we spend a 12 percent increase in administrative overhead within a department. I would say that if this is truly the people's House, a debate on those issues ought to be heard by one and all. The other thing that I would object to is the reference to this bill being the committee's bill. This bill is all of ours. It is not just the committee's bill, it is the House's bill. And to say that one of us has more priority over this bill than any others is wrong. The other thing I want to do is to take a minute and perhaps defend my motives. And I am somewhat discouraged that the gentlewoman from Ohio has not recognized my persistence in the past 5 years. Because three times today she said that my motivation is based on the fact that I am not running for reelection. I never was running for reelection when I came up here on this this year. And I would ask, if the gentlewoman were to look at my voting record and at my challenges in terms of the appropriations process, she would see that I did this same thing last year and the year before and the year before. So this does not have anything to do with running for reelection, this has to do with questioning why we would have a 12 percent increase in administrative overhead. And if we have to do that, and that is the only way we can do it, and there is no waste in the other $32 million and it cannot be done better and it cannot be done more efficiently and the American people can be convinced of that and I can be convinced of that, I will be happy to withdraw this amendment. But as I look at what I read in the committee print, and having been through five of these appropriation bills in the past, I do not believe that that is true. I think they can do better. And I believe that it is wrong for us not to ask the administration within the Department of Agriculture to do better. Most of the Members of this body would like to see a 12 percent increase in their staff and their capability of running their offices, but the fact is, we are not going to pass that for ourselves, are we? But we are going to say that the Department of Agriculture is underfunded in terms of its administrative capability, does not have the dollars to do what it needs to do and must have a 12 percent increase, when the true cost of living associated with government-run programs in this area, and the area where the vast concentration of these employees are, rose by less than 1.7 percent last year. So what we did in terms of the computers in the Office of Information was true, and we cannot take it out of this money, or not because it is not that there is not enough money. There is money running all over this bill. And I again would say, ask the farmers. A $3,949,000 increase from $32 million; that is 12 percent. How many of them are going to see 12 percent handed to them? They are not. And how many of them want to see this money spent up here? They want to see it spent on them, not up here. And they want to make sure that we are supporting them with their ability to continue to feed us and that we give them a constant program. So I do not object to what the committee has done. I said when we talked about the rule that this was a good bill and that it was probably going to pass. What I said was that I did not think it was good enough and it needed to get better.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I take the gentleman's admonition. But I also would point out that in the last supplemental we gave $47 million to the Department of Agriculture for Y2K, if I would be allowed to continue, for Y2K just upgrades, just for that one segment. I would point out that, in fact, by taking the whole assumption of the gentleman's argument is that this is the only way we can get there. My objection to being above what we spent last year is that it is not the only way. I am not saying my way is the best way, but I am wanting the people of this country to hear the debate on all of the areas.

Mr. COBURN. We are on the same side, we are just maybe talking past each other. Mr. Chairman, $500,000 in Florida, in South Carolina, and Oklahoma is substantial money. This last amendment was $15 million difference, bringing it back down. That is substantial money. If we do that at $15 million a clip, it is not going to be long until we have the $250-some million that we are trying to get to get back down to last year's level.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention, as I stated during the general debate and during the rule, to do everything I can to bring this bill back in line with last year's spending and do it in such a way that will not affect farmers, but will affect the overhead costs that are oftentimes markedly inefficient.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Sanford amendment be changed from page 4, line 25, to page 5, line 11.

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