Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Mr. COBURN. This is a straightforward amendment. We have had a lot of talk about millionaires in the country, but what most people don't realize is that there are a lot of farmers in this country whose adjusted gross income is well in excess of $1 million whom we are making direct payments to. What I would put forward is if you are making over $1 million, I don't think you need a lot of help from the Federal Government to be profitable. So what this amendment will do is it will put a limit of $1 million or greater from receiving direct payments from the Department of Agriculture. You could say somebody making $980,000, but we have chosen this. Right now it is supposedly $2.5 million adjusted gross income. What we have done is, of all the people who make more than $2.5 million, 75 percent of their income outside of the farming income comes from some other areas. In other words, this is not their main business. Their main business isn't farming. So if they make $2.5 million farming, and they make 75 percent more than that in other areas, again, I would say we should have trouble justifying to the American people that we are sending their tax dollars--actually, borrowed money that is going to be charged to their kids and grandkids--to those individuals. Of the 1.8 million people who received farm payments from 2003 to 2006, 2,702 of them exceeded the income limits that were established at that time, greater than $2.5 million. GAO reported that the USDA does not have management controls in place to verify that payments are not made to individuals who exceed the program's income eligibility limit. So we have a limit of $2.5 million, but they are not enforcing it. They don't know whether they are enforcing it. What this amendment will do is, first, we are going to cut it back to $1 million and say put it in action so you know who you are paying and how much they are making. GAO found that participants in the program in 2006 were three times as likely to have an adjusted gross income in excess of $500,000 as individuals who did not participate at all in the direct payment program. In other words, 21 of every 1,000 farm program participants reported in excess adjusted gross income of $500,000 or more, compared with 7 of every 1,000 tax filers in the general public. Instead of taking more of what wealthy individuals have earned, Congress would be wise to first end unsolicited subsidies in the farm program to those individuals. Studies show that direct payments went to wealthy individuals who live in urban areas but own or have partial interest in their farms. In other words, they are absentee landlords who live in U.S. cities with populations 100,000 or more, but they were paid $394 million in farm payments in terms of the direct payment in 2010 alone. So that is $\1/ 2\ billion. The top 10 percent of direct payments in 2010 received 59 percent of the money under the program. In other words, the top 10 percent got 59 percent of the direct payment money. These 88,000 people got an average of $30,000. But if you look at those with adjusted gross income, they got far in excess of that. Some examples include 23 Members of Congress in the 112th Congress; 109 individuals living inside Washington, DC; 203 individuals in Miami; 179 individuals inside the city limits of San Francisco received over $1 million in payments; 290 New York City residents received $800,000 on average in payments. President Obama's fiscal 2012 budget proposes to reduce the per- person cap on direct payments to wealthy farmers by 25 percent or more and reduce the adjusted gross income eligibility limit by $250,000 over 3 years. Well, what this amendment does is in the spirit of what the administration wants to do, but it goes further. It says if you are making over $1 million in adjusted gross income, you should not be eligible for direct payments through the farm program. It is straightforward. It is a way for us to change what we are doing. It is a way for us to save a significant amount of money, almost $\1/2\ billion. I dare say that if you poll the average American and you said we are paying out hundreds of millions of dollars every year to people making more than $1 million who are farming, they would say, We don't agree with that. That can't be the original intent of that program. That program is designed to help those people who are truly undercapitalized, who truly are having a difficult time even when we have great markets. And I am not opposed to the payment program. But the fact is, to have a significant percentage of that go to individuals who are making far in excess--33 times what the average individual in this country makes--I think is something we ought to end, and we ought to end right now. Amendment No. 792 to Amendment No. 738 Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 792 be called up.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 791 be called up.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as if read.

Mr. COBURN. This is another fairly straightforward amendment. We have significant housing for people who have a need in our country. But inside that program, in HUD, there are payments being made for housing complexes with life-threatening conditions or in absolute poor physical condition. Yet people are trapped there. We keep sending the money. The money doesn't go to improve the housing; it goes into the pockets of those who own the housing through this subsidized housing. Thousands of needy families have turned to the government for stable housing. They have been placed in properties with health and safety deficiencies, including some that are life-threatening. There are 3,847 properties with life-threatening deficiencies as determined by HUD-- life-threatening--that are currently or previously designated as ``troubled'' by HUD during the past 5 years. Of those, 2,297 are in poor physical condition and were designated as ``troubled'' by HUD. Some of these are for the same properties that appear year after year on HUD's registration list of troubled properties. These numbers will not reflect all the deficient housing provided by HUD and other Federal departments and agencies. This is just a taste of a portion of what is out there. What this amendment would do is cut off aid to the greedy slumlords, while protecting needy families by prohibiting HUD from making any payment to any person or entity with respect to a property assisted or insured by HUD, currently designated as ``troubled'' on the Online Property Integrated Information Suite for ``life-threatening deficiencies'' or ``poor'' physical condition and that has been on the Online Property Integrated Information Suite's troubled property list at least one time during the past 5 years. What we are saying is, if someone has been taking advantage of this program as the owner of the property and not making it a safe property, not making it inhabitable, yet people have no choice but to live there, what we are saying is HUD should not be giving them any money. HUD should not be giving them any money. Over the past several years, there have been far too many examples of slumlords receiving hundreds of millions of Federal tax dollars. In many cases, those without stable housing sought help but were put at health and safety risk by those entrusted to care for them with taxpayer funds. A recent ABC News ``Nightline'' reported that the Federal Government's low-income housing programs are plagued by theft, mismanagement, and corruption at local levels, including millions spent on housing for sex offenders and dead people, and all too often fail the 3 million families who rely on them for a clean, safe place to live. Specifically, the report found the Philadelphia Housing Authority spent housing funds on lavish gifts for its executives, $500,000 to settle sexual harassment claims, $17,000 of housing funds to throw an extravagant party for the executives. The same month at a belly-dancer party, a 12-year-old girl living in Federally subsidized housing suffered a near-fatal asthma attack that left her unable to speak or walk, secondary to dangerous mold in that apartment complex because it was not taken care of with the dollars that were paid by American taxpayers to help those who are dependent on us. The New York Daily News recently found some of the city's landlords received $81 million in Federal housing funds, even though their buildings were riddled with housing code violations. The report stated millions of dollars have been doled out to buildings where tenants have repeatedly complained about rats, roaches, nonworking elevators, lack of heat and flaky lead paint. The Federal Government provided $350 million to more than 60 housing authorities that have been repeatedly faulted by auditors for mishandling government aid. In Indiana, investigators found the poor forced to live in substandard housing that local authorities knew was unsafe, yet did not fix. In Indianapolis alone, more than $5.2 million a year has been spent on housing residents in unsafe conditions, according to the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. About $2.2 million of the Federal funds intended to support low- income housing on the Navajo Nation Indian lands in New Mexico was spent on gaming, furs, jewelry, racehorse training, according to the Las Vegas Sun. There is no oversight at HUD to make sure the landlords will meet the eligibility requirements for receiving these funds. What we are actually doing is we are saying, if they do not meet the criteria, they should not get the money. That is hardly a novel idea. Yet we continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars supposedly to help those who are neediest among us. Yet it does not help them at all because the money is misdirected and not reinvested in the housing. HUD continues to subsidize repeat offenders with a history of placing families in unsafe living conditions. There were 6,100 properties designated as ``troubled'' during the past 5 years. Some of these properties appear year after year on the same list. There is no change. They are still getting the money. These include properties in my own State of Oklahoma. Needy families should not be put in dangerous conditions as a result of neglect by the slumlords but, more importantly, as a result of neglect in our oversight of HUD. What we would propose to do is to ensure the Federal housing benefits for the needy, rather than the greedy, and to prevent slumlords from abusing taxpayers and the disadvantaged and the aged. This amendment would bar HUD from paying landlords whose properties are in poor physical condition or have life-threatening deficiencies, according to their own analysis. In other words, they already know it, but they are still paying it. What this amendment would say is: They are on the list; they do not qualify. It will send a great signal. Not only will we not pay as much money to properties and put people in better properties, but we will change the expectation of the people who are making all the money off the HUD moneys for the properties. We will make a big difference. There may not be many who actually lose the money, but there will be many people who are depending on it, living in far better conditions, far safer conditions, if we pass this amendment. I wish to take just a moment, if my colleague does not mind, to talk about where we are. I have a total of 12 amendments. I was allowed to bring up two. I understand they do not want to get in a hurry, but the fact is, these are all good-government amendments, every amendment I brought up. They may not pass, but that is our fault. But the fact is, we should not be limiting amendments. Let's get them out there. Let's do them. There are money savings, there are quality savings, there are ways to make the agencies work better, and we should not be afraid of that. We stand right now as a nation in the worst shape we have ever been. The risks to our country are great. We need to quit thinking about partisanship. We need to quit thinking about advantage in the political arena and start doing what is necessary to fix our country. We passed a budget bill that allowed a debt increase that the average American does not realize actually did not save any money. Over the next 10 years, we are actually going to spend $800-some-odd billion more than what we spent last year on discretionary programs. It is time we start being honest with the American public. These 12 amendments are simple and straightforward. One of them copies the amendment of Senator Mikulski for CJS, that ties down and makes more responsible the agencies on their conference spending. Conference spending is out of control. The Department of Agriculture is absolutely out of control on the money it spends. So we ought to be about moving things through that make a real difference so we can start rebuilding the confidence. Fifteen percent of the people have confidence in us, and I understand why. It is because we spend most of our time around here in quorum calls. I was prepared tonight to put up all these amendments, see which ones could be taken, not necessarily have a vote on every one, but we are not going to allow that to happen. We are not going to allow that to happen not for any good reason; we are not going to allow it to happen for political reasons, and that is killing our country. Whether Republicans do it or Democrats, none of it is any good. The country is on to us. Eighty-five percent think we are doing a lousy job. I wonder why it is that low. I cannot find anybody in the State of Oklahoma who thinks we are doing a good job. I can't find anybody around the country who thinks we are doing a good job. But I say to my colleagues, let's start moving stuff through that actually changes things, that is actually going to make a difference. One does not have to agree. Vote it down. None of these are trick amendments. None of these are meant to be political amendments. They are just straightforward, good-government amendments we ought to consider. If one disagrees, disagree. Fine. But let's not not vote on them and let's not quit making attempts to try to fix what is wrong in our government. HUD's oversight of housing is a disaster. When we have this many properties year after year on this list, why would we not want to fix that? It is not that we don't want to fix it. It is we do not want to give somebody an opportunity to put out the real reason our country is in trouble. The real reason is us. We have not done our jobs. We have not done the oversight. We have not cleaned up things. We can have great arguments and great discussions and great debates but to not have the debate at all means we deserve every bit of that 85-percent lack of confidence in what we are doing. Tomorrow, I hope I will be able to offer the rest of these amendments. I will work. I have talked with almost every one of the managers on the amendments. None of them are controversial. Some they may disagree with and want votes on, others can be accepted. But to not move forward and then say it is taking too long to get the bill, when we are here ready to work, is not an excuse the American people are going to buy anymore.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend Rule XXII, Paragraph 2, including germaneness requirements, for the purpose of proposing and considering amendment No. 670 to S. 1619.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I understand that. My commitment is to work with the Senator from New Jersey to try to solve this problem before any funding would change, and I don't think it is going to change. I would also note for my colleagues that last year we had over $450 billion appropriated by the appropriators that was not authorized for anything. There were no authorizations at all. So this money isn't going to go away. There is no hurry. There is no tragedy. We can continue, and we can work as colleagues to try to solve our problems as well as meet the demands the Senator from New Jersey thinks must be met. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the recognition, and I wish to recognize the good work my colleague, the Senator from New Jersey, has done on this issue. I have been in the Senate a little over 6 years and I was cajoled into allowing this to pass the last time it passed. I have blocked every other disease-specific piece of legislation, and there is a reason for that. Both the last Director of the NIH and the current one caution against us being specific in what we demand them to do. There is a reason for that. Our science is changing enormously--enormously. We are now at the molecular level, at the genetic level, and at the immune level of thousands of diseases. What we research in diabetes now has prevalence for neurosciences. What we research in neurosciences now has prevalence for tons of other diseases. Dr. Zerhouni has said: Please don't do this. I am known in this body to be a stickler on spending, but if there were two areas I would increase spending in our budget it would be to the NIH and to the National Science Foundation--both of them--and I recently reported out a report that was somewhat critical of some of the spending on the National Science Foundation. We can do everything better. But the important aspect is no one who is opposing the reauthorization of this bill right now is opposed to autism research or the ideas behind it. What we are opposed to is tying the hands of the researchers and the Directors at NIH and telling them what they should do and how they should do it. I would also dispute the fact the money will go away. The CR we are going to consider this week will continue this funding at the level it is until November 18, which gives us plenty of time to work with Senator Menendez to work out some of our problems with this piece of legislation. So we come to this debate in good faith. We recognize the emotional ties associated with such a devastating disease. As an obstetrician and pediatrician, I have diagnosed it. I have treated it. I have sat with the families as they have suffered through the consequences of this disease. I don't take it lightly. But I also don't take lightly our inability to make the clear choices and ratchet around the moneys for the NIH. What we should do is say: NIH, here is your money. Go where the science helps the most people in the quickest way and where the science leads us. At a time when our country is desperate to get our fiscal house in order, what we want is the most efficient NIH. What we want is nonduplicative grants at the NIH. What we want is no fraud in the grants associated with autism, which have been published and which people are now in jail for. We want that eliminated. We want the oversight on the NIH to be across the board in every area. Are they doing what we are asking them to do to spend the money wisely and what the science would tell them to do, not what any one particular interest group would tell them to do? So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1094, the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act, and that my amendment at the desk related to requiring the Secretary of HHS to identify and consolidate duplicative and overlapping autism funding throughout the Federal Government be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I object.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to say Senator Reid and I have had several discussions today and we are working to try to resolve an impasse we have, but we are not there yet. I wanted to be clear with my colleagues what my intent was, and if we can work the problems out, I am happy to try to do that. I have three separate unanimous consent requests I am going to be asking for. One will separate the FAA bill, pass it, and send it to the House. Another will separate the Transportation bill, eliminating the transportation enhancement component of it and send it to the House, and another one eliminates the transportation component of the combined bill and sends it back to the House. I understand the leader is concerned with those but felt I would exercise my right to offer those unanimous consent requests. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2887, the House-passed FAA surface transportation reauthorization bill, and my amendment at the desk related to a 4-month extension shall be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2887, the House-passed FAA surface transportation reauthorization bill, that the Coburn amendment at the desk related to repealing the 10-percent transportation enhancement mandate be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. COBURN. I ask that amendment No. 610 be considered as pending, brought up, and read.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the bill we have before us today is a bill to fund emergency relief through FEMA for a lot of the emergency disasters our country has experienced over the past 6 months. I don't think there is a large disagreement that we ought to take care of the areas that are the Federal responsibility in the respective States for the extreme weather as well as fire-related tragedies that have been experienced by a multitude of States. However, the question is, given where we stand as a country, do we just borrow the money to do that and add it to the debt or is the government running so efficiently that we can't cut something else and make a choice about how we pay for it? The bill as brought forward has no pay-for at all. In other words, the assumption is that if we pass this bill, we will go and borrow approximately $7 billion more in the international markets. What I would put forward is that we know we have plenty of areas we can cut now that are not effective, not efficient, that are wasteful, that are duplicative, and we would not have to borrow that additional money. The easiest thing in the world is to spend somebody else's money. And what we are doing with this bill by not paying for it is actually asking our grandchildren to pay for an obligation we have today. The amendment I have asked to be called up is nearly identical to an amendment this body passed by a vote of 64 to 36 in April of this year. The Government Accountability Office brought forth a report on duplication that showed hundreds of millions of dollars in wasteful duplication. This is not the only area we could go, but this is an area we have already agreed as a body is an effective way to pay and save money. We could easily find $7 billion by eliminating multiple programs that accomplish the same thing. Let me give some examples of what the GAO showed. The Department of Defense and the VA are both creating new medical record systems as we speak, both paying for independent contractors doing the same thing. They are going to have intertwined medical records ultimately. We do not need to set up two different programs. By doing that, we could save a couple of billion dollars, just by having one program for both VA and DOD. We have multiple contracts, according to the GAO, in terms of interagency and areawide contracts that actually increase our procurement costs, where we could consolidate those and have one contract and actually save money. But we have not done that. That is something that can be done by the OMB at our direction. The other area which is extremely interesting--and the President has already agreed to this. They are already starting to do it. But we could do it much faster and save a significant amount of money. We could save $150 billion to $200 billion over the next 10 years just by consolidating data centers. We initially had some 500 of those. I think we are up to around 2,000. We had 434 in 1998 and 2,000 Federal data centers in 2010. What everybody knows is we could cut that by about half, not have any change in the effectiveness, and save about $150 billion over the next 10 years. This amendment identifies the areas listed in the GAO report and instructs the OMB to find those that are most likely to be achievable to come to $7 billion. We have agreed to do this in the past on a previous bill when Senator Warner and I offered this amendment jointly to pay for the spending. I can go on with a lot of other areas in terms of wasteful spending. I will not. But I make this one plea: In August we left after passing a debt limit increase, the largest debt limit increase we have ever incurred in segments, and said we were going to start living within our means. We have created a supercommittee to find $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years in savings. While they are doing that, if we decide to pass an emergency supplemental bill for FEMA and do not pay for it, we are going to be working in exactly the opposite direction of what we said we needed to do. The facts are, we are almost schizophrenic. We say we need to cut spending. Yet we are going to spend $7 billion more. Yet we do not want to find some spending to cut to pay for it; we just want to borrow it. You can understand why very few Americans have confidence in us. On the one hand we are addressing the problem, and on the other hand we are ignoring the problem. I think it would behoove the confidence level in this institution if, in fact, we tried to pay and found the courage and the willpower to say if we are going to spend additional money, we are going to create priorities, and we are actually going to eliminate spending somewhere else to be able to pay for this, to be able to do this more important thing. I have trouble understanding, even when I talk to our colleagues privately, why we would not do this; why we would not pay for this $7 billion by reducing wasteful spending elsewhere. As we go to the vote at 4 o'clock, the question that people ask is, Why was it OK to cut the spending from these departments back in April, but it is not OK to cut the spending now? Sixty-four of our colleagues voted to cut this spending in April. I know several are opposed to paying for this, but we are in a new day. We live in a new world. The Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce was here this week. The title of their meeting was ``New Realities.'' The new reality is that we are going to run to the end of the time at which we can borrow money or afford to pay the interest rate on the money that we can borrow, and the discipline we need is to live within our means. This is one step that will be the right thing to do for future generations. It is the right thing to do to build confidence in our institution, and it is the right thing to do to eliminate waste and duplication in the Federal Government. I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and make a point I will talk again on this prior to the vote.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2887, the House-passed FAA surface transportation reauthorization bill, that my amendment at the desk related to a 6-month surface transportation extension that repeals the 10-percent transportation enhancement mandate be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. We are not pouring asphalt, we are not laying concrete, we are not decreasing congestion, and we are not increasing safety. What we are doing is we are following the rules of Washington when we have greater needs. We are in trouble as a nation because Congress does not set priorities, and when they do set priorities, there is no connection to the reality of our financial situation. We have some options on how to go forward. One of the options would be to take the FAA bill, split it out, approve it, send it back to the House, and FAA is taken care of. The second option would be to pass the highway extension for 6 months with the elimination of enhancements and send it back to the House. But I will not give a unanimous consent, as is my right as a Senator of the United States, for us to continue to spend billions of dollars on things that are not a priority when the country is struggling to survive. Its very survival depends on us changing the way we do business. If that means the highway transportation bill does not get approved, so be it. But there has to be a point in time in this country when we change direction and we start meeting the obligations that are put before us. The No. 1 obligation is to start spending money where it does the most good and quit spending money we do not have on things we do not absolutely need. With a 35-percent deficit--and we are going to run another $1.3 trillion deficit next year, which will cost a significant amount of funds for our kids and our grandkids just to repay what we are going to waste next year--there ought to be a time at which we say enough is enough. I know there will be several, including my own senior Senator, who will be unhappy with my position, but I believe it is time to draw a line in the sand for the American people, for our future. It is not popular. It is certainly not expedient. But it is absolutely the right thing to do. If the Senate wants to solve the problem of these two bills, we can split them or we can keep them together, but we need to end the enhancements right now until we get the highway trust fund healthy again, No. 1, and, No. 2, until we get our country healthy again. When we do, I will be happy to defer. Remember, we are not saying you cannot do it. We are just saying you ought to have the option to not do it. Exhibit 1 Kalanianaole Highway, Ka'lwi Scenic Shoreline Trail-- Federal Transportation enhancement funds were used to intervene in a local land use dispute in Hawaii. A decades long dispute over the preservation of Hawaiian shoreline versus local developmental interests was assisted by the Department of Transportation, which used $11 million in enhancement funds to acquire land for conservation purposes, effectively meddling in the local land use. In the mean time, 45 percent of Hawaii's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Antique bike collections--The University of California Davis received a transportation enhancement grant of $440,000 to purchase 60 unique antique bikes for its Bicycle Museum Collection. Shrine to Tennessee state history costs federal government $23 million-- Nashville, Tennessee received $23 million in federal enhancement funding to construct its bicentennial ode to Tennessee state history. The project included the building of ``a 1,400-foot Wall of History etched with historic events from the state's first two centuries, 31 fountains that each represent one of the state's rivers, and a 200-foot granite state map.'' The only thing more egregious than federal funds used for a clearly state interest, is that 20 percent of Tennessee Bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. ARTwalk--ARTwalk is tagged as a unique outdoor experience that constructs pathways between shopping areas, galleries, and museums in Rochester, Vermont. The project used $234,000 in federal enhancement dollars to build the artsy outdoor museum, while 861 of Vermont's bridges remain either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Old Roman Bath House Renovation--$160,000 worth of enhancement funding was used in Berkeley, West Virginia for the renovation of the oldest building in town, an Old Roman Bath House. While local residents may be interested in visiting a bath house where George Washington used to frequent, federal taxpayers may find the connection to critical infrastructure more puzzling. Moreover, 36 percent of West Virginia's bridges remain structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Saddletree Factory Renovation--The Ben Schroeder Saddle Tree Factory, a historical factory in Madison, Indiana, received transportation enhancement funding for historical preservation purposes because the factory used to make Saddletrees, the foundation of a saddle. 21.5 percent of Indiana's bridges are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Toledo Harbor Lighthouse--The Toledo Harbor Lighthouse in Toledo, Ohio, protected by the ``phantom'' officer Frank, will receive a $500,000 enhancement grant to restore windows, doors, bricks, and shutters. This grant will not only help to restore the facade of the historical lighthouse, but also carry on the legendary ghosts of the haunted lighthouse. Unfortunately, ``phantom'' officer Frank will not be able to protect Ohio drivers from the 6,598 bridges that are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Critter Crossing--The Monkton, Vermont Conservation Commission received $150,000 in federal grant money to build a--critter crossing, to save the lives of thousands of migrating salamanders and other amphibians that would otherwise be slaughtered by vehicle traffic on a major roadway. Thousands of blue- and yellow-spotted salamanders, frogs, and other amphibians spend the winter months in the rocky uplands near Monkton, but must return to low-lying wetlands in order to reproduce. To travel between these two areas, the salamanders must cross the heavily-traveled Monkton-Vergennes Road. While some conservationists have celebrated the project, others remain skeptical. ``I certainly respect all species. However, I don't see the need to pay $150,000 for a salamander crossing'', read one email reportedly sent to the Burlington [Vermont] Free Press newspaper. ``I realize there are a lot of other stupid things my tax dollars go toward, but this one is near the top of the list.'' Maybe the local communities will prevent the critters from crossing one of the 861 bridges that are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. North Carolina Transportation Museum Spencer, North Carolina--The North Carolina Transportation Museum has received over 11 million to renovate and showcase steam locomotive artifacts. As of 2010, North Carolina has nearly 5000 bridges that are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Massachusetts bike and pedestrian allotted millions, but remain unspent--Massachusetts has received $135 million in federal funds for bike and pedestrian projects since 1991, of which it has spent little more than $51 million, according to The Boston Globe. That means nearly two-thirds of the funds provided in the last two decades by Congress to the state for such projects remain unspent. Perhaps Massachusetts would like to use their unspent funds to work on their 2,548 bridges that are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Nevada spending millions of federal transportation dollars to make Vegas highways beautiful--In 2008, Nevada received its transportation enhancement allotment of $6,287,466. They decided to spend it in a variety of ways, a few million went to biking facilities and trails, a few million went to welcome centers and interpretive centers. $498,750 even went for ``decorative rocks, native plants, some pavement graphics, a few walls, and some great big granite boulders'' to beautify an interchange to Las Vegas' 215 Beltway. A couple miles down the highway, N-DOT beautified another interchange with ``striping in the rocks and some native plants.'' That project has cost $319,163 so far this year. The people of Nevada might have been able to think of some better things to spend that money on. One local who uses the interchange frequently was not impressed by the expensive beautification project. ``I'm busy watching where I'm going. I'm not looking at landscape improvements and stamped concrete.'' Unfortunately, there is little that local officials can do to re-direct the money to better uses. ``We applied for the federal enhancement dollars and those federal enhancement dollars can only be used for landscaping and pedestrian type improvements,'' explains the top civil engineer at the Clark County Public Works Traffic Management Division. The N-DOT deputy director for southern Nevada is just as frustrated as many citizens that federal restrictions prohibit states from directing money where it is really needed. ``It's really getting out of hand to where these pots of money have these constraints associated with them and you can't spend money where you want to.'' These restrictions sometimes leave states no choice but to spend money on frivolous projects or lose it entirely. The deputy director notes, ``if N-DOT doesn't spend that money and employ workers in Nevada, another state is gonna have that money up for grabs.'' Washington, DC receives Transportation Enhancement grants for murals and valet bikes--Washington, DC received nearly $2 million in transportation enhancement grants in Fiscal Year 2010, ranging from $50,000 to $579,000. These grants include items such as the stabilization of historic murals and a grant for bicycle parking and valet services, along with the creation of a ``Room to Breathe'' poster. The $2 million allotment would be much better used for bridge repair, as 158 of the 244 bridges in the District are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Railroad Caboose Relocation and Renovation--The Princeton Railroad Museum received a $78,280 transportation enhancement grant to help pay for the relocation of a historic train caboose to be displayed and restored. Texas Highway Rest Stops--The Texas Department of Transportation uses a substantial amount of their required transportation enhancement spending to build highway rest areas. Texas plans to spend $262 million to build or overhaul roadside stops along its highways, with a majority of the funds coming from enhancement grants. However, some residents question the construction of rest stops in such close proximity to other commercial areas, leading one local resident to surmise about the $10 million Salado rest area, ``I think $10 million would have made a nice third lane in a lot of spots . . . It's pretty spectacular for a rest area, for, I guess, $2 million worth . . . $10 million? That's a lot of money.'' Additionally, the Texas Department of Transportation spent $16.2 million in enhancement funding on a Battleship Texas restoration project. California Sculpture Competition--Federal transportation enhancement dollars were used as prize money for an art competition to find a sculpture fitting to place in a parking lot for a Laguna Beach, California Friday Film Series event. Merchant and Drovers Tavern Museum--The Merchants and Drovers Tavern Museum in Union County, New Jersey received a $210,790 transportation enhancement grant to create a museum on the second floor of the recently renovated building. The Merchants and Drovers Tavern Museum touts its amenities by letting visitors ``experience the hospitality of the 1820s'' and ``quench his thirst in the taproom, sit for a while in the parlor or, perhaps, try a bed for size at this `hands-on' museum.'' Meanwhile, visitors should also be wary of driving over any New Jersey bridges on the way to the museum, as 35 percent of them are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Museum uses transportation funds for its Heating and Air Conditioning system--The Sayre Historical Society Museum in Bradford County, Pennsylvania received a transportation enhancement grant of $74,704 for the ``Sayre Historical Society RR Museum Heating and AC project.'' You read that correctly, American gas taxes are being directed towards heating and air installation. War of 1812, Bladensburg, Maryland excavation--Enhancement funding was used to excavate several historical buildings in Bladensburg, Maryland to study the ``transportation history'' of the area. Bladensburg was used for troop movements during the War of 1812, as well as being a transportation hub during early America. Funding for a Transportation Exhibit--$300,000 in federal money will pay for a new exhibit on the history of transportation at a local museum in Missouri. The fresh display at the St. Charles County Heritage museum will explain the influence of rivers, railroads, roads, and trails in the region over the years. The grant application highlights how ``The County and its residents have had to rely on multiple forms of transportation and as technology changed, the area had to adapt to the changing transportation methods/patterns.'' Not everyone in the community agrees the federal government should fund this type of project. A county executive said, ``It's the kind of thing the federal government can't afford to do.'' Other officials however have a different perspective on the federal funding. The county parks director explained how ``the $300,000 grant is `a pretty insignificant amount of money compared to that total pool' of federal transportation spending.'' Maybe a more significant number should be 7,021, the number of Missouri bridges that are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Iowa town receives new entrance sign--Fairfield, Iowa used $40,800 in transportation enhancement funds to upgrade its ``Welcome to Fairfield'' sign. It is likely that Iowans would welcome their transportation funds upgrading their bridges, as Iowa ranks 3rd in bridge deficiency rates in America. Michigan Receives Transportation funds to plant flowers and rehabilitate an engine house--In 2010, the Michigan awarded $5 million in federal transportation enhancement grants to various projects including reconstructing cobblestone roads, purchasing and installing bicycle racks, and ``streetscaping'' a downtown street in Bridgetown, Michigan with ``decorative sidewalk treatments, street trees, perennial flowers and other decorative plantings, planters, and ornamental street lighting.'' One grant awarded $336,490 to rehabilitate the historic Quincy and Torch Lake Railroad Engine House while another grant awarded $1,490,280 to the Detroit Science Center to construct an exhibit depicting ``how roads, tunnels and bridges are constructed.'' Transportation Funding used to replace unaesthetic fencing around Oklahoma Capitol Oil Derricks--The Oklahoma Department of Central Services, the controller of Capitol Grounds, received $216,000 in transportation enhancement funding to replace fencing around active oil wells on Lincoln Boulevard with a more aesthetically pleasing form of fencing. Unfortunately while Capitol Complex may look better, Oklahoma bridge deficiency rates remain 2nd in the United States. Over $150,000 in Gasoline Taxes directed towards making brochures--Over the last 10 years, federal transportation enhancement grants have been used to produce brochures for various purposes including monuments paths, scenic trails, and bicycle safety. The State of Kansas even received a federal grant to install and replace their brochure display cases at SRA. Enhancement funds used to help construct replica of historical schooner--In 2001, Burlington, Vermont received a $20,000 grant to subsidize the building a full scale replica of the 1862-class sailing canal boat, the Louis McClure. Crandall Farm Restoration project--Washington County, Rhode Island received a $120,000 transportation enhancement grant for renovation of Crandall Farm. The project consisted of renovating the 1870 house on the farm into a welcome center and educational tool for the traveling public. South Carolina uses gas taxes to purchase $15,000 ``Welcome Signs''--Orangeburg County, South Carolina received a $34,965 transportation enhancement grant o help purchase three signs at a cost of $44,500, or $14,833 per sign. Unfortunately, South Carolina bridges are not as welcoming, as 22 percent of them are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The State of Michigan receives nearly $100,000 to celebrate mysterious centennial--In 2004, Michigan received a $99,540 transportation enhancement grant for publications, historical commemorative items, and displays for a ``centennial celebration.'' The only thing more puzzling than how these activities are related to transportation is that the centennial for Michigan Statehood occurred in 1937.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I would like to spend a few minutes discussing some things in general. In making a couple points today, I was referred to by one of our colleagues as a dictator. I am not offended at that; I understand the frustration of what is going on. But I think there are some significant points that the American people ought to hear about where we are and what we are doing. Quite frankly, if we look at our financial situation and we look at the history of the world, no country has ever recovered from the situation in which we find ourselves in terms of our debt-to-GDP ratio and our debt-to-export ratio. In August, before we left, we passed a piece of legislation that goes--a small amount--toward fixing the very real problems that are in front of our country in terms of spending money we don't have on things we don't absolutely need. But we have before us, and coming before us, two different pieces of legislation: One is a shell piece of legislation, and the assumption is the majority leader will utilize it to fund supplementation for disaster relief for the many areas in our country that need that funding. There is not a dispute that we should be doing that. There is a dispute about how much that should be. But the greatest dispute is, when we are running $1.3 trillion and $1.4 trillion deficits, and we know we have significant waste, duplication, and fraud in the Federal Government, whether we ought to spend another $6 billion or $7 billion by borrowing or we ought to actually reduce spending somewhere else to pay for a much more important and proper need in which the Federal Government has a role. That is the real debate. I think we have worked a way to have appropriate amendments to try to pay for that, and we should probably go forward. There are, however, two other programs that are precarious in their funding: One is FAA-- and we have coming to us the 22nd temporary reauthorization--and the Transportation bill, which is, I believe, its sixth temporary reauthorization. Now, there are some real questions the American people ought to be asking about why 22 times we have temporarily reauthorized the FAA for a short period of time, and why now we are on our sixth temporary--or fifth; I may be wrong on one of those numbers but close--temporary reauthorization. That is because we are not prioritizing what is important for the country in terms of our legislative agenda. We don't control that, but there are some things that the American people are interested in that we do control. The highway trust fund has received a supplementation over the last 4 years of $35 billion from the American taxpayer outside of the taxes they collect for that trust fund. Out of that amount of money billions of dollars have been spent on things other than highways and bridges. We now have 146,000 deficient bridges in our country, some in every State in the country. We have more now after the floods in the Northeast. We have significant problems and we have a limited amount of money, and what is in front of us is another short-term extension of 6 months for the transportation funding which continues to spend money on items that are a low priority. I am not saying we couldn't spend the money on it. But when we are short of money, and we are borrowing money to put money into the trust fund, and our No. 1 priority ought to be safety and quality roads and bridges, to spend significant funds on things that are not a priority now--not when we are head over heels in debt, not when the trust fund is precarious--then we ought to not force States to spend money they don't want to spend. Yet in this bill 10 percent of the surface transportation moneys have to be spent on enhancement. So that tells Oklahoma, or any other State: If you have an excess number of bridges, it doesn't matter that that is a safety problem for your citizens; we are still going to make you spend this 10 percent money over here that doesn't have anything to do with safety or true transportation, but we are going to require it because we can--except, the problem is, the people in your State pay the taxes in the first place for their highways and their bridges, not for the museums, not for all the hundreds of other things that are spent that are low priority. So I thought I might give us a little flavor of what some of those things are. If we were at a different time where we had an excess of funds, I am not saying they are necessarily bad. But when we have bridges falling down in this country, and concrete--like the summer before last in Oklahoma--falling out of an interstate highway bridge injuring somebody, falling onto their car as they drove under it, I would think that we would want to repair these 146,000 bridges rather than spend money redecorating a sign. So I will not go through all of them--I will put all of them into the Record--but let me go through a few of them just to see. If the American people actually believe we should not fix bridges or roads and we ought to spend money, I am fine. If the Senate believes we ought to not fix bridges, we ought not concentrate on safety, we ought not concentrate on the quality of our roads and bridges and they vote it down, I am fine too. But the fact is, we ought not to be spending money when we have the hundreds of thousands of bridges that are dangerous to people in this country. All we are saying is, if a State wants to continue to spend money on something other than safety and bridges and roads, fine, it can, but don't make those of us who already have a big problem with safety have to spend money on something that doesn't protect our citizens, doesn't enhance their highways by spending money on something that is called an enhancement but doesn't enhance their safety or their ability to commute. So what are some of them? Lincoln Highway 200-Mile Roadside Museum in Pennsylvania--it received $300,000 in enhancement funding to commemorate the historic highway along the 200-mile route. Interpretive signage, colorful, repainted vintage gas pumps, engaging murals, refurbishing a large coffee pot. Notably, Pennsylvania ranks No. 1 in the country in terms of bridge deficiency levels. Forty-six percent of the bridges in Pennsylvania are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Mr. President, $300,000 would have fixed two of them. So we chose to not fix two but spend the money elsewhere. At a different time, sure, or if Pennsylvania wants to spend it, let them. But don't force them to spend money on something that does not protect the quality of transportation for their citizens. How about Chinatown Gateway, a $250,000 enhancement to supplement the construction of the Twin Dragons Gateway to the Chinatown area? California has over 7,000 bridges that are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. One out of every three bridges in California is in trouble, and we are doing aesthetics instead of fixing bridges. How about the White Squirrel Sanctuary in Tennessee? Kenton, TN, located in Gibson County, calls itself ``the Home of the White Squirrel.'' They received $110,000 in transportation enhancement funding to construct a white squirrel sanctuary with walking trails, brick crosswalks, a footbridge, and a parking lot. There are 3,856 bridges that are structurally deficient in the State of Tennessee. They didn't necessarily want to do this. They did not have any choice. They had to spend 10 percent of their surface transportation money on things such as this. Tuscumbia Landing in Sheffield, AL--$104,000 to investigate Tuscumbia Landing's archaeological features. The only problem is, 23 percent of Alabama's bridges are structurally deficient. That could have fixed two of them. How about the National Corvette Museum Simulator Theater in Warren County, KY--$200,000 to build a grand simulator theater. Mr. President, 31 percent of the bridges they cross in Kentucky are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The Pennsylvania Trolley Museum--$400,000 to construct the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum. It is a great idea if we are in the black and have a good cashflow. But when Pennsylvania leads the Nation in deficient bridges and dangerous bridges, why would we spend that money? Why would we force them to spend that money? I can go on. I will add to the record many other examples, all the way up to 40 separate examples of where we are spending money but we are not fixing bridges. I ask unanimous consent that those examples be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is a straightforward amendment that says if you pay into the Patent Trademark Office to have a patent evaluated, that money ought to be spent on the process. We have now stolen almost $900 million from the Patent Office. We have almost a million patents in arrears. We have fantastic leadership in the Patent Office, and we will not send them the money to do their job. It is unconscionable that we will not do this. I understand the arguments against it, and I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, today, I rise to discuss section 18 of H.R. 1249, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Consistent with the statement in the Record by Chairman Lamar Smith on June 23, 2011, I understand that section 18 will not make all business method patents subject to review by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Rather, section 18 is designed to address the problem of low-quality business method patents that are commonly associated with the Federal circuit's 1998 State Street decision. I further understand that section 18 of the bill specifically exempts ``patents for technological inventions'' from this new review at USPTO. Patents for technological inventions are those patents whose novelty turns on a technological innovation over the prior art and are concerned with a technical problem which is solved with a technical solution. The technological innovation exception does not exclude a patent from section 18 simply because it recites technology. Inventions related to manufacturing and machines that do not simply use known technology to accomplish a novel business process would be excluded from review under section 18. For example, section 18 would not cover patents related to the manufacture and distribution of machinery to count, sort, and authenticate currency. It is the intention of section 18 to not review mechanical inventions related to the manufacture and distribution of machinery to count, sort, and authenticate currency like change sorters and machines that scan paper instruments, including currency, whose novelty turns on a technological innovation over the prior art. These types of patents would not be eligible for review under this program. American innovation is an important engine for job growth and our economic revitalization. To this end, the timely consideration of patent applications and the issuance of quality patents are critical components and should remain the primary goal of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Mr. COBURN. It is true that the House bill moves the money to where it cannot be spent elsewhere, but there is no requirement that the money be spent in the Patent Office. There is a written agreement between an appropriations chairman and the Speaker that is good as long as both of them are in their positions. This is a 7-year authorization. It will not guarantee that the money actually goes to the Patent Office. This bill, with this amendment in it, went out of the House Judiciary Committee 32 to 3 in a strong, bipartisan vote. It was never voted on in the Senate because the appropriators objected because of a technical error, which has been corrected in this amendment. So it violates no House rules, it violates no condition and, in fact, will guarantee that the Patent Office has the funds it needs to have to put us back in the place we need to be. This bill will not be killed because we are going to make sure the money for patents goes to the Patent Office. Anybody who wants to claim that, ask yourself what you are saying. We are not going to do the right thing because somebody says they will not do the right thing? We ought to do the right thing. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. COBURN. I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I noted earlier, before I came to the floor, he supported it in principle and we have a difference in principle about what would happen to the bill. This is a minimal technical correction that was recommended to us, and I appreciate the Senator for allowing that to be considered. Let me spend a moment talking about the chairman and his belief that this will not go anywhere. This is a critical juncture for our country, when we are going to make a decision to not do what is right because somebody is threatening that they do not agree with doing what is right and that they will not receive it. In my life of 63 years, that is how bullies operate, and the way you break a bully is you challenge a bully. The fact is, I have just recorded into the history of the House the statements by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the House in terms of his guarantee for protecting the funds for PTO, which he turned around and took $121 million out of the funds that very same year that he guaranteed on the floor that he wouldn't do. So what I would say is we ought not worry about idle threats. What we ought to be worried about is doing what is best and right for our country. What is best and right is to give the money to the Patent Office that people are paying for so the patents will get approved and our technological innovations will be protected. I don't buy the idea the House is not going to take this if we modify it. Actually, what 95 percent of the people in this country would agree to is that the Patent Office ought to get the money we are paying for patent fees, just as the FDA should get the money paid by drug companies for new applications, just as the Park Service should put the money for the camping sites--the paid-for camping sites--back into the camping sites. Why would we run away from doing the right thing? I find it very difficult when we rationalize down doing the correct thing that everybody agrees should be done but we will not do it for the right reasons. That is why we have a 12-percent approval rating. That is why people don't have confidence in Congress--because we walk away from the tough challenges of bullies who say they won't do something if we do what is right. I am not going to live that way. I am not going to be a Senator that way. I am going to stand on the position of principle. This is a principle with which 95 Senators in this body agree. We are going to have several of our leaders try to get them not to do that on the basis of rationalization to a bully system that says: We will not do the oversight, but we still want to be in control. In fact, in the process of that, America loses because we have 750,000 patents that are pending right now, and there should only be about 100,000. The bullies have won in the past, and I am not going to take it anymore. I am going to stand up and challenge it every time. I am going to make the argument that if a person pays a fee for something in this country for the government to do, that money ought to be spent doing what it was paid to the government to do. It is outside of a tax; it is a fee. It is immoral and close to being criminal to not correctly spend that money from that fee. If our body decides today we are going to table this amendment, the question the American people have to ask is, Where is the courage in the Senate to do what is best for our country? Why are the Senators here if they are not going to do what is best for the country? Why are they going to play the game of rationalization and extortion on principles that matter so much to our future? I will not do that anymore. Everybody knows this is the right thing to do. We are babysitting some spoiled Members of Congress who don't want to carry out their responsibilities in an honorable way and do the oversight that is necessary. What they want to do is complain that they do not have control. Well, this bill authorizes funds for 7 years. We can change that number of years. We can actually change the actual amount of fees if, in fact, they are not doing a good job. But right now, as already put in the Record, there is no history of significant oversight to the Patent Office, so they would not know in the first place. So what we are asking is to do what is right, what is transparent, what is morally correct and give the Patent Office the opportunity to do for America what it can do for them instead of handcuffing us and handicapping us where we cannot compete on intellectual property in our country. I have said enough. I will reserve the remainder of my time when I finish talking about one other item. There is an earmark in this patent bill for The Medicines Company. It ought not be there. This is something that is being adjudicated in the courts right now. Senator Sessions has an amendment that would change it. I believe it is inappropriate to specify one company, one situation on a drug that is significant to this country, and we are fixing the wrong problem. We probably would not win that amendment. I think it is something the American people ought to look at and say: Why is this here? Why is something in this big bill that is so important to our country? I agree with our chairman. He has worked months, if not years, over the last 6 years trying to get to this process, and now we have this put in. We did not have it in ours. The chairman did not have it in ours. It came from the House. We ought to ask the question Why is it there? Why are we interfering in something that is at the appellate court level right now? Why are we doing that? None of us can feel good about that. None of us can say it is the right thing to do. Why would we tolerate it? It is this lack of confidence in America; it is about a lack of confidence in us. When people know and find out what has happened here, they are going to ask the question. The powerful and the wealthy advantage themselves at the expense of everybody else. They have access. Those who are lowly, those who are minimal in terms of their material assets do not. It is the type of thing that undermines the confidence we need to have. I just wanted to say I am a cosponsor of Senator Sessions' amendment. I believe he is accurate. I think they have won this in court. It is on appeal. They will probably win it on appeal. This will end up being necessary, and there is a way for us to fix it if, in fact, they lose, if it is appropriate to do that. I believe it is inappropriate at this time. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I will make the following points, and I would ask for order before I do that.