Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we are $500,000 closer to that after the last amendment that the House agreed to in terms of trimming. That means we only have $249,500,000 to go. Some of those amendments are $60 and $70 million, some of them are $200,000. When we achieve last year's freeze level, then I will stop offering amendments.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the important things, and I have discovered, thanks to the chairman and his committee staff, that we do in fact have a drafting error on this amendment; and I am going to in a minute ask for unanimous consent for that drafting error to be changed. If it is not agreed to, then I will withdraw the amendment. But I think the real question is, if we took a poll of farmers out there on whether or not we ought to have a 420 percent increase in this area, what would they say right now? They would not just say no; they would be screaming up and down, saying no, because they know not one penny of this money are they ever going to see, and they know it is going to be spent in Washington. I mean, that is what the committee print talks about, about space needs and organizing the space for the bureaucracy that is in the Department of Agriculture. So I think it would be an interesting question as to what farmers who are actually out there struggling, what cattlemen would say about a 420 percent increase for this area in the Department of Agriculture. It would be my hope that we would agree with what the farmers would say. I know what the farmers from my district would say and I know what the ranchers would say.

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might inquire of the gentleman? My understanding of this is that last year we spent $5 million in this area and that we are increasing it to 21 million 600 and some odd thousand dollars, and I profess to not understand the rationale behind that, and I would like to know where this $16 million, how it is actually going to be spent. Is that a contract with some outside firm to help the Department of Agriculture better utilize its space or to give them a strategic plan? Where is the $16 million going to be spent over this next year, and how is it that we have a 420 percent increase?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for that explanation. I would like to read from the committee print. The Department's headquarters staff is presently housed in a four- building, government-owned complex in downtown Washington and in leased buildings in the metropolitan Washington area. In 1995, the USDA initiated a plan to improve the delivery of USDA programs to American people, including streamlining the USDA organization. A high priority goal in the Secretary's plan is to improve the operation and effectiveness of the USDA headquarters in Washington. To implement this goal, a strategy for efficient reallocation of space to house the restructured headquarters agencies in modern and safe facilities has been proposed. This USDA strategic plan will correct serious problems which USDA has faced in its facility program, including inefficiencies of operating out of scattered lease facilities and serious safety hazards which exist in the huge Agriculture South Building. During Fiscal 1998, the Beltsville office facility was completed. This facility was constructed with funds appropriated to the departments located on government-owned land in Beltsville, Maryland. Occupancy by USDA agencies began in 1998 and will be completed in 1999. I guess my point is the same point that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) had, is we are going to be trading classrooms for children, we are going to be using Social Security money to facilitate new buildings, new headquarters and new facilities for the USDA, and that does not help farmers one bit that I can figure out. It does help the people who work for the Department of Agriculture, but it does not help the farmers, and it is my hope with this kind of increase that we could take a look at that and perhaps trim that down or eliminate it, or bring it down to something realistic because, in fact, we do have a war that is costing $15 billion thus far, and we are going to have to make some choices. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman like to respond to that?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas talked about this office and this amendment. I want to get back to it for a minute. I just want the American people to know, in 1964 there were 3.2 million farms in this country and there were 108,000 agricultural employees working for the U.S. Government. In 1997 there were 40 percent fewer farms, 1.9 million, and there were 107,000 Department of Agriculture employees plus 82,000 contract employees that did not exist in 1964. So the question that I am wanting to raise, the philosophical question is why can we not get the government smaller if we have fewer farmers, they are more efficient, they are doing better, and send more of the money that we have for agriculture to the farmers? How is it that we cannot do that? We can do that. It is that we choose not to do it.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to go back and make a couple of points. This amendment is about cutting a 9 percent increase in an office that is full of computers for an Office of Public Information for the Department of Agriculture. And here we have people saying that we have to have 9 percent when every other aspect of our economy is not seeing any kind of increases near that. It is sacrosanct because of what has to continue; the way we used to do it, we always have to do it that way in the future. It is a process that needs to be shaken up. I would love to have been in a room with our Founding Fathers, because while we talk about majority-minority parties, I am sure they did not talk about majority-minority parties. They talked about doing what was best for this country regardless of what an individual's party says. It should be what is best for our districts, not what is good for our party. The Founding Fathers never once rationalized getting in power and having control so they could stay in power. What they said was, we are going to put this Union together and we are going to make it work because the people are going to have the integrity to do what is best for their constituents and they are going to have the vision to make sure that they do not make a short-run choice that sacrifices the long- run choice. These amendments are about sacrificing the short run so we secure a future for our children in the long run. It is not about which party controls. It is a matter of living up to our responsibility to secure a future for our children. And, quite frankly, I am not sure this body is up to it, because I think the body is more interested in power politics than principle. I find that evident as we have had the debate today. So I would yield back to the gentleman and thank him for the additional time, and I would reemphasize that this is a debate about cutting a 9 percent increase out of the Office of Information for the Department of Agriculture, and that will not impact one farmer. I would rather see this same money moved and go to our farmers. It is not about not having enough money for our farmers; it is about having way too much bureaucracy and not having the guts to change it.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding to me. Everybody said what my intention was, but they never asked me exactly what my intention was. The reason for the number of amendments that have been offered is because the real debate is about what we are going to do with all this money that we are spending. As a Member of this body, I think, and I think the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) will agree, that I was just as obstructive in my desire to not spend wasteful money last year and the year before and the year before and the year before. I have not changed at all. I have been this independent ever since I have been up here, because I believe that we have an obligation to not spend one additional dollar that we do not have to. What I hear throughout the whole body is that we cannot. We cannot be better. We cannot get better. We cannot be more efficient. That the product of the appropriation process is the best that it can be. We all have an equal vote in here in terms of what we think and how we get a vote on certain issues. I, quite frankly, think that there are a lot of areas in this appropriation bill that we can trim spending, that will help us have money for Labor-HHS, Commerce, Justice and State, that will not have one effect on our farmers. Do my colleagues know what? Most of my farmers think so, too. So it is not a matter of just obstructing the process, it is a matter of reestablishing confidence within this body with the American people that we said we were going to hold spending down, that we were not going to waste money, and that in fact it is really true that, if we spend $1 that we do not need to, we are stealing the future from our children. So the debate is about Social Security because the money that we are going to end up spending is going to come from the Social Security surplus that, guess what, our children are going to have to pay back.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we just heard the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations say that if we come through with last year's spending, just if we came through with last year's spending, we would bust the caps from 1997 by $17 billion.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman. I believe his heart is right. As my colleagues know, when 1997 was agreed to, we did not have a war in Bosnia, we did not have $13 billion that we are going to spend on an action over there. Where are we going to get the money to pay for that? Where did that money come from? That money comes from Social Security. So the debate really is, is the climate in Washington going to change? Are we going to talk to the President? Are we going to bring things down and say: We are spending this $13 billion because we got to fight a war, and there is probably going to be more where that comes from. We want to plus up defense. I agree with that, but are we going to live within those budget caps as we do that?

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I guess if we were to ask the seniors who are on Social Security in Oklahoma and those from your State if they believe it is appropriate that this office get a 9 percent increase this year and what did they get in terms of their Social Security increase, I think most of them would object to the fact that we cannot be more efficient. That is the point I am making.

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

Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman would agree to vote for this bill under its 302(b) and agree to vote for the Labor HHS bill under its 302(b), I will be happy to buy his discussion of this argument. But I would portray that I will not vote for a Labor HHS bill that is cut by $4.9 billion and I would surmise that he probably would not do that under the same argument. The fact is that the 302(b)s are not an accurate reflection of where we are going with the budget process this year. They are in terms of total dollars, and I would agree with the gentleman in terms of total dollars, but what they are is front-end-loaded and at the tail end is the very things that most people are going to need besides our farmers, those that are most dependent on us, the veterans, those that do not have housing, those that are needy in terms of Medicaid, Medicare and the supplemental things that we do to help those people, those dollars are not going to be available. So what we are going to do is we are either going to pass a bill that cuts those severely, which neither of us I would surmise would vote for, or we are going to go into a negotiation again with the President and bust the budget caps and in fact spend Social Security money. So I will stick with my argument that this bill, because it is above last year and is not below last year, will in the end ultimately spend seniors' money.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is a literal statement that in fact at the end of the day will not be true. Because by saying that this is within the 302(b) means that you also would agree that Labor HHS could be cut $4.9 billion which is also in the 302(b) for Labor HHS. I assure you that neither you nor I would vote for an appropriation bill at that level. So what I would tell the gentleman is that the 302(b)s really are not applicable to the process that we are seeing going on right now because the end game is we are going to spend Social Security money and we are not going to be below the $10 billion. I understand how that works, you understand how that works, and although technically this committee is within the 302(b) allocation, the 302(b) allocations are designed so that in the long run we will spend Social Security money.

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to address the increase that was given to the Office of the Chief Information Officer. What we have heard through the general debate on this bill is that this is a fairly tight bill, and I agree that it is a fairly tight bill. I also agree that there is also an area where if we spend a certain amount, $61 billion, that we ought to make sure that that money that is allocated, that belongs to the taxpayers, actually gets to the end people that we want it to get to, i.e., the farmers, i.e., the people that are going to be dependent on it. The Office of the Chief Information Officer under this appropriation request received a 9 percent increase. Now, of that $500,000 increase, what we will see, if we are honest about where the money is going to come, is it is all going to come from Social Security. We are going to take surplus Social Security money and we are going to spend it to give a 9 percent increase. For us to keep the agreement not to spend Social Security money, to keep the agreement that the President and the Congress signed off on in 1997, that we have to cut spending $10 billion, not increase it a quarter of a billion as this bill does, we have to make some trims back in these appropriation bills.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I disagree that that is what the issue is. I believe the issue is, did the Congress speak and say something, and are they willing to have the American people believe that they are going to do what they told them they would do.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the House did not concur with the last amendment to hold the Office of Budget and Program Analysis at last year's level. The above-intended amendment is designed to cut the increase in that office in half. Instead of having an almost 8 percent increase, this will offer the employees and administrators in that office a 4 percent increase. Parliamentary Inquiry

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