Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to honor a member of my staff who is not retiring but as a result of his ailment can no longer come to work on the Hill. This gentleman's name is Michael Schwartz. He has been my chief of staff for almost 15 years, beginning while I was in the House and here in the Senate as well. A lot of people on the Hill know Michael. What they know is that he is one of the kindest, gentlest people anyone has ever met. He has been a light focused on how we do things to honor other people. Michael has been the kind of person who has always focused on others, especially those in need. He is the kind of person who doesn't pass up the homeless we all see around the Capitol but stops and tries to satisfy their need. He offers them money and food, but he also offers them friendship and his time. He offers them the love and dignity that comes from being reminded that we are all children of the Creator. Mike has also been an unapologetic defender of the family and of those who cannot defend themselves, whether that be the disability community, the unborn, the infirm, or the elderly. He has reminded me and my staff and all of us that a society is truly measured in how it treats and cares for those less fortunate. Mike is also a voracious reader and gifted leader. In a city where people stop learning when they gain power, Mike has shown that the closer one gets to power, the more one needs to humble oneself and learn new things. He has been mentoring staff and others for years on the Hill in both reading groups and Bible studies, where he has shared his wisdom, his faith, and his heart. As many in the Senate know, Mike has ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. For weeks, he has been battling--actually months--to continue to fulfill his responsibilities here when most of us would have said: It is too difficult, I can't do it. He has overcome challenges that most of us can scarcely imagine. He has done so with grace, humility, and an unbelievable level of courage. Through all this, we have watched him inspire everybody on my team with both his spirit and his tenacity. In these difficult circumstances, Mike has been an extraordinary servant and faithful leader. He is still the guy who cares more about other people than himself. The kindness he has shown to everyone he has encountered, whether to a homeless person on the street or a leading Senator in the halls, he has reminded our team and me that we are all equal regardless of position in the eyes of God. Let me close with a passage from 2 Corinthians that reminds me so very much of Mike. It is written: ``I believed; therefore I have spoken.'' Since we have that same spirit of faith, we also believe and therefore speak because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you to himself. All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people-- That wonderful word ``grace,'' too often a shortage in Washington, that Mike so well displays-- may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God. Therefore, we do not lose heart. Mike, don't lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. In a place preoccupied by titles and position and power, Mike has shown everyone by his life and his deeds and his words that things that are unseen are the things that matter. He has shown us what it means to run the race and finish it strongly. Well done, good and faithful servant. My hope is that God will bless Mike and Roseanne, their children and grandchildren, as he closes this chapter of his life on the Hill. He will still be doing projects for us because his intellect, his insight, and his knowledge are what we cannot bear to do without. So it has been my privilege over the last 15 years to be modeled and mentored by my chief of staff. Mike, we love you. God bless you. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I think we ought to have a recorded vote on this since we are not paying for it and we are taking $1.9 billion out of the O&M budget of the Defense Department. I ask we have a recorded vote.

Mr. COBURN. I think my colleague from New York would like to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COBURN. It is outlining NIH's and specifically the National Cancer Institute's concerns with this type of directive from us. I think they care about whether we solve these problems associated with these recalcitrant cancers. I think people who want to get it solved are true in their motives to try to solve it. But there are some significant things in his letter that I would like to quote for my colleagues because I think it might just change your mind about us micromanaging what they are doing. First, he says: We have all the authorities to do whatever we need to do with the money that you have given us. We can do all these things you want us to do. If you tell us to do them, we will do them. But we already have the authority to go where we think we are going to get the best results in the quickest way. NIH constantly examines scientific opportunities and conducts research evaluation and planning opportunities within its current statutory In other words they are looking, trying to figure out how they change, where they go now The national cancer institute recently organized a group to provide a ``horizon scan'' of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma ad carcinoma, building on previous planning They just did all this. They have just been through a total review of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and they have just shifted where they are spending funds to address this issue. Basic research that may lack any overt connection to specific diseases is the foundation for disease-specific translational and clinical research. We must preserve this translational research if in fact we will want to eventually apply it to specific diseases. So I would say this bill, ``pre'' the genomic age, would be a right thing for us to do. It is the wrong thing for us to do because what we are actually going to do is we are going to force the NIH to do things that are not going to benefit the results--the outcome of these diseases and waste money on what is being directed. Do we have a time limit?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we have made remarkable progress in this country in terms of research into diseases. Since Francis Collins and his great work on the genome complex became successful, the way we research disease has totally changed. I have my favorite aunt who died of pancreatic cancer. I diagnosed it hundreds of times in my own practice of patients who were dear to me and whom I love. The problem with pancreatic cancer is it is diagnosed late. It is an adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, much like an adenocarcinoma of the colon. The reason we do so well on colon cancer is we do colonoscopies and we can treat the disease early. What is well-intended by this recalcitrant cancer bill will actually delay the cure for pancreatic cancer and other recalcitrant diseases. Let me take a few minutes to explain why I am saying that. We no longer look at diseases to cure them by looking at the base disease. There is translational and neurocommunicative and peptide and small markers of communication on an intracellular basis. Now, when we do research and we find that, what we find is we find cures for multiple diseases. The other thing is we can take 100 people with a recalcitrant cancer, and every one of them, when we look at the genetics of cancer, will have to be treated differently. In other words, it is going to take a different approach, even though we might classify it as a neuroblastoma of the kidney or a pancreatic cancer--but looking at the genetics of the cancer, which is what we are doing now, is going to require totally different treatments. This is very well intended. I understand. This is a big disease, and it is terrible that we diagnose it at a time where we cannot end up-- less than 10 percent, around 5 percent survival rates, 5-year survival rates on this disease. I would like to have printed in the Record a letter I received from Dr. Francis Collins. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed.

Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object, this bill came out of the Veterans' Committee 14 to 0. They had hearings on it. We have done the work. It has been done. It came unanimously out of the Veterans' Committee. There is no question about what is right to do in terms of protecting--this is not about allowing anybody with any mental disease to have a gun. This is about taking the rights of those who do not have a mental disease to have their rights restored.

Mr. COBURN. ``Advances in the biological sciences have changed the way we view disease. We now recognize the dysfunction of specific biochemical pathways''--not disease-specific pathways--``biochemical pathways that govern cell behavior that may be similar in superficially disparate diseases or quite different in patients with the same disease. What they are saying to us, through this letter, is that, of course, they are going to do what we tell them to do. But the very intent of what we are wanting to accomplish is we are going to delay the outcome because we have not significantly, in the last 3 years, significantly increased NIH's budget. So limited dollars are going to be spent as directed through this recalcitrant bill that are not going to direct the translational research and biochemical pathway research they are in. I would just tell my colleagues in the next 10 years we are going to see such phenomenal changes in our approach to disease, and the treatments for that, and the reason we are going to see it is because we stop looking at diseases and started looking at translational genomics and biochemical pathways. I will be one of the few who vote against this. I am fine with a voice vote if no other colleagues object. I have no problems with that. But in the name of doing good I suggest that we are actually going to limit our ability to achieve, at a sooner time, the cures that everybody who is supporting this bill would like to see. I yield.

Mr. COBURN. I wanted to finish my remarks.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I find it highly ironic that we just passed an amendment to protect the constitutional rights of Americans, and we have an objection to protecting the second amendment rights of the veterans of this country. How in the world can we say to people who fight and defend for us through a social worker deemed incompetent to carry a gun, that ought to be on the basis of a danger to themselves or to someone else, and it ought to be adjudicated, and we have Senators objecting to protecting the rights of the people who defend us? On that basis, the contrary nature of that basis of what we just did, I will object to any further unanimous consents on this bill until we have a vote to protect the rights of the people who defend this country.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to continue until I finish my remarks.

Mr. COBURN. It will not be much longer than that. I am certainly not

Mr. COBURN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. COBURN. All we are asking for the veterans of this country is that if their rights are taken away that it be adjudicated by a judge or magistrate. That is all we are asking. Rather than a social worker at the VA--which is what happens today to veterans. We are not asking for anything big. We are just saying if you are going to take away the second amendment rights, which means all those who truly should lose their rights will lose them, but they ought to have it adjudicated rather than mandated by somebody who is unqualified to state that they should lose their rights. I will announce today right now that I will not object if Senator Levin again offers the request that will put four amendments on the floor. I will not object to that. I want to cooperate in this body. But I think you ought to think about what we just voted on--which I voted for--which is to protect the Bill of Rights for people of this country. To protect the Bill of Rights for people of this country. There could be no one for whom we should want to protect the Bill of Rights more than somebody who served our country. We can object. All I am saying is, let them at least have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution. I will say today, if the Senator from Michigan offers his unanimous consent again I will not object and we will move forward because I want us to move forward. I want us to finish this bill. I want the Defense Department to be able to have something they can count on for the next year. But ask yourself in your heart, how fair is it? We are worried about terrorists and their Bill of Rights but we are not worried about the people who defend our country and their Bill of Rights? Tell me how we got to that point. I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, might I ask through the Chair the Senator from New York if she would consider for a short period of time withdrawing her amendment and allowing me to develop a second-degree amendment that would actually pay for this so that we would accomplish her goal--and I think all of our goals--of making sure the proper treatment is there but won't handicap the armed services in terms of delayed training, less training, less flying time? Because it is going to come out of the operations and maintenance funds. I wonder if she would do that with the assurance of the chair and the assurance of the ranking member and chairman of the committee that the amendment would still be considered.

Mr. COBURN. I do not.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, first, I wish to announce that I agree with the assessment of the Senator from New York in terms of the treatment that should be offered. I have no problems with that. I think she is right. There are a lot of other things in TRICARE that aren't right. And what the Senator from New York is doing is admirable, but there is a portion of it that is not. With the modification to her amendment, she has now raised the total cost of this amendment over the next 10 years to $1.9 billion. And it is true that she has managed to insert with some excess funds that will be spent before the end of the year that won't be there by the time the money for this is used to pay for it. So she does meet that standard, but she doesn't meet the standard for the next 10 years. So we are in the midst of this large discussion about how we are going to get out of this fiscal mess. I take her at her word that she really does want to reform TRICARE and fix it. But realize that TRICARE hasn't had a premium increase since 1995, and all it would take to pay for this is a $2-per-month increase in premiums for those on TRICARE. And it is just TRICARE Prime; it is not TRICARE Standard and TRICARE For Life. It is just $2. Madam President, $550 per year covers your whole family, with no deductibles and no copays right now. It hasn't been increased since 1995. So one of the things we ought to do is we ought to work to bring TRICARE standards up to make sure they meet the needs of everybody. I don't disagree with that. But the other thing we ought to do is we ought to pay for it. Now, where is the money going to come from to pay for this, this very well-intentioned and proper thing? The way it is written now by the Senator from New York, this will come out of the operations and maintenance fund. So the very father of an autistic child will have less flight time, less drill time, less shooting time, less preparation time to go out and be a warfighter. And as we think about the 10-percent across-the-board cut that is coming or the $500 billion that is proposed to come out of the Defense Department, none of it is going to come out of TRICARE. So what we ought to do is we ought to fix these things, but we ought to fix them without digging our hole deeper. Before Secretary Gates left, he said the biggest thing that is eating the lunch in the Defense Department is the department of health within it that manages the health care because we have not done an appropriate job of having a slight rise in premiums to cover some of the tremendous benefits. Nobody else in the country gets the benefits we give with TRICARE--nobody--$550 a year per family, $275 if you are single, and no copay and no deductible. All it would take is $24 a year by our TRICARE Prime to pay to make sure that the people with disabilities and the people with autism have the appropriate therapies and they are covered under TRICARE. So I would ask my colleague from New York if she would mind withdrawing her amendment, to be voted on later, that I might be able to offer a second-degree amendment and maybe in that way or another way pay for this out of things that we know are going on, that we could find $1.9 billion over the next 10 years to actually pay for the cost of this over the next 10 years. We didn't have time to do that beforehand. I don't know if she would be willing to do that. But there is no way you should justify taking another $1.9 billion out of the operation and maintenance program for our troops to health care. We ought to eliminate something that doesn't take away from their training time, flying time, shooting time, or sailing time. We ought to be taking it from somewhere else, but that is where this is going to come from. I applaud what she is doing. She is right about fixing the problem. She is totally opposite of what we should be doing in terms of paying for it, and I would offer to work in good faith in the next hour to try to come up with a second-degree amendment that would be acceptable to my colleague and to the chairman and ranking member of this committee that would actually pay for it. Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. COBURN. I yield the remaining portion of my time.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes noting why I am against the expansion of the Dale Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvements Act. And it is a great example of where we find ourselves in the country. If you read the Constitution and look at the enumerated powers, we have a Federal program to benefit what is really the responsibility of States. Now, nobody is going to say this isn't a beneficial program to those poor families who might need this. And the chairman of the Judiciary Committee has done a wonderful job in terms of offsetting this so that there is no additional cost, and for that I congratulate him. But this is a great example of why we have $88 trillion in unfunded liabilities and are $16 trillion in debt--because we are doing a function that is truly the responsibility of the States. The PSOB Program was originally designed, in its original design, to be a model so that the States would set up and demonstrate to them how they could structurally set up their own programs. Over the last 30 years, Congress has continued to expand this program, and now we spend about $81 million to $85 million a year on this program. I am not saying it is not needed money for the families, but we are going to expand a program that is truly not a Federal responsibility. I have no hopes this will be defeated. I know it won't. But I wanted to raise this question: Given what is in front of us, it is one thing to meet the needs under our Federal requirements for Medicare and Medicaid, but when are we going to stop expanding programs that aren't truly our responsibility? The cause is great. It is appropriate for a government agency to help in times for the people who actually put their lives on the line for us. But is it a Federal responsibility? The answer is no, it is not. It is a State responsibility. As we assume more and more responsibilities for the States, with budget deficits in excess of $1 trillion, what we are going to do is find ourselves at a point where we are going to have to make cuts in programs that are our responsibility. All I ask you to do is think about whether this is truly a responsibility of the Federal Government and whether we ought to be expanding the program. It is well-intentioned and does great work, I don't discount that. It is well-deserved, I don't discount that. But is it a responsibility of the Federal Government? I would state to the chairman that I would be happy to have a voice vote on this and not force a vote because I know the outcome and we shouldn't waste everybody's time to do that. So I ask for a voice vote and to vitiate the vote that is scheduled for 6 o'clock.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask consent that the following letter be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the problems in front of our country are not unsolvable. As a matter of fact, every one of them is solvable. Our country has a history of doing hard things. What we lack is leadership to call us to do those hard things. We find ourselves at a point in time when the greatest threat to our Nation is our debt and our economy. We are risking our future, not only our future economically, but our future of liberty. What we have had, I would remind my colleagues, is a history in the Senate of doing hard things. Under the leadership of Senator Reid, the Senate has not attempted to do hard things. What it has attempted to do is abandon the tasks that should be in front of us. America deserves better. It deserves better leadership. It deserves leadership based on bringing this country together rather than dividing this country. Not having a fiscal plan to solve the greatest issues in front of our country is an absolute failure of leadership. Where is the Senate majority leader's, where is the President's plan to solve our problems?

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. If I could finish. Since the other side has the last 7 minutes, I will be finished well before then. We are going to say the financial condition of the country does not matter. We are going to say it does not matter the $1 billion a year we are spending already on veterans job training programs. It does not matter. We are going to say here is a year's program for jobs for 20,000 veterans and that is going to trump everything else. You would not have any objection from this Senator if you actually really paid for this, No. 1, if you did not violate pay-go and you truly did it in a way that oversighted the present job training programs we have and you truly did it in a way that matches the integrity and honor of our veterans. But we did not do that. No. We played games. We played games with budget rules. We played games with pay-go. We did not do any oversight. We did not even have a hearing. There was no hearing on this bill. You took Senator Burr's suggestions, which were common sense, and applied it broadly across the government. But we did not match the honor and integrity and valor and purpose. When I meet with veterans in townhall meetings, I ask them why they serve. Do you know what they tell me? Because this is the greatest country the world has ever known and they want to keep it that way. What we are doing today does not keep it that way. It perpetuates the same problems that created the very dangerous situation this country is in. So when we make a claim about that everybody agrees with this bill, I just wish to say I do not agree with the bill. There are a whole lot of ways to help veterans that are better than this, that give them a permanent job. We passed the post-9/11 GI bill; right? They can get paid a stipend while they go to college to learn a new skill, the same as a noncom officer. They get paid for the books and tuition and everything else so they can become whole as they learn a skill. We have the capability for studies while we are in the military. We have six separate job training programs that we are spending $1 billion a year on. The best way to help veterans is to fix this country's economic situation to create opportunity, and they will fly because they have already proven they have the initiative, the strength, the moral courage, the integrity, and the valor to accomplish anything they want to accomplish. So I am in disagreement with my friend. I think we have a political device in front of us, and I am going to be very interested to see the character of the Senate on whether it succumbs to the parochial and political over the best long-term interests of the country. If it does, it just proves that the Senate needs to be changed to truly address the real problems in front of our country. That is what it is going to prove, regardless of the outcome: Do we have the character? Do we match the valor, honor, and integrity of the people who serve this Nation in the Armed Forces with our willingness to sacrifice our political careers to do what is in the best long-term interest of the country? They set the example for us. The question is whether we will follow their example. I yield to my friend from Florida.

Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. COBURN. Through the Chair, I would ask the Senator, how did he vote on the tax extender package coming out of the Senate Finance Committee? Because that is the real test of whether the Senator wants to reform the Tax Code. As I recall, the Senator voted for it and I voted against it. There is a very big difference.