Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, America has to ask itself a question right now. This bill costs $2.8 billion, and 95 percent of the people will not feel anything if we don't do this. But 5 percent will, and I readily admit that. We are going to take $2.8 billion from our kids or from future Medicare payments--one way or the other, we are going to steal it from our kids--to fix a problem for 5 percent of the people who are on Medicare or will be on Medicare. This is exactly the kind of problem that the Congress ducks. We are ducking it. We are kicking the can down the road because we are afraid to do the right best thing for America. Let me give a breakdown. First, I will just say I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Montana on the Finance Committee. The Social Security Act holds three-quarters of the beneficiaries harmless for increases in the Medicare Part B premium during the years in which there is no COLA, as the chairman just stated. But for the other one-fourth of the beneficiaries not held harmless, little impact will be felt. According to the Congressional Research Service, the majority of this group is comprised of Medicaid, as the chairman just stated, the vast majority of them, which covers their premiums anyway. So if there is a cost transfer, it will be cost-transferred back to the Federal Government anyway because we pay 67 percent of all the Medicaid costs anyway. Finally, the remainder of those not held harmless--high- income individuals making over $85,000 a year as an individual or $170,000 as a couple and new beneficiaries during their first year, for which they will receive Medicare, Social Security, or Medicare Part B benefits--the vast majority of all these people have a supplemental policy, so they won't feel anything. So what are we doing? We are taking $2.8 billion--and we may be taking it from the Medicare Improvement Fund, which ultimately takes it out of Medicare, or we are going to take it from our grandkids, and we are not going to say that we can't do this. There was no inflation except in health care. And when you look at it, there is actually a negative number, negative inflation. There was actually deflation. Things roughly cost six-tenths of 1 percent less this year than last, and those are the basic necessities of life. And because we don't have the courage to face the situations in front of us, we are just going to kick it down the road. That is what is wrong. That is why we find ourselves with $12 trillion worth of debt, almost now $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. That is why we find that a child born today has $400,000 in unfunded liabilities, and by the time they are 20 years of age they will be responsible for $800,000 worth of debt on them that they incurred for us. So I will make two final points. The heritage of this country is for one generation to sacrifice for the next. This generation in this body has turned that upside down, and we are saying to the next two generations: You sacrifice for us because we don't have the courage to make the hard choices. And the hard choices have to be made. We are on an absolutely unsustainable course in this country financially. Read the papers. The dollar is under assault. We are dependent on foreign countries to finance our debt. Our debt will double in the next 5 years and triple in the next 10. And now we are playing the political game of not having a small percentage of seniors having an increase in cost, and mainly those who can afford it. So the question is, take $2.8 billion from our grandkids, one way or the other, and protect that 5 percent of the seniors, including Bill Gates and every other very rich person in this country, or do as the Honorable Steny Hoyer said, the majority leader for the Democrats in the House: I don't know how many of you can go to sleep at night worried about whether Ross Perot can pay his premium, but this will freeze Ross Perot's basic premium from going up. I think that as well meaning as this legislation is, it's not about poor seniors, it's about politics. I recognize this can come back and we will do it, but at this time, for the good of our country, to restore the heritage of our country, Madam President, I have to object.

Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I just walked out of a hearing on the census, and the Vitter amendment applies to that. It is interesting. We send a million forms out a year called the American Community Survey, and in that survey we ask people whether they are citizens of the United States. And you know what, they answer it. They give an answer to that. And that is a million of those we send out every year. We are about to conduct a census that ignores the Constitution and will, in fact, disrupt the true allocation of apportionment in this country because the census we are getting ready to ask will ignore whether you are a true citizen of this country. Legal or otherwise, it will ignore that. It will ignore whether you have voting rights, whether you are here properly, whether you have broken our laws and are here improperly, and we will see a maldistribution to the tune of 10 seats in States that shouldn't have them and States that should have 10 more seats won't have them. And that is based on the Census data this year. So what Senator Vitter is offering is a response to following the Constitution and also recognizing that we are getting ready to do a census next year that is going to get it wrong. My hope is that my colleagues will consider very carefully that they took an oath to defend the Constitution, and that Constitution speaks very clearly--in this little book--about what the enumeration is supposed to be. It is about citizens of the United States, not residents of the United States. If, in fact, we do this the way it looks like we are going to, what we will be doing is changing our Constitution. What we are actually going to do is we are just going to throw our Constitution down and step on it. So he is not asking anything from a racial standpoint or anything other than for a fair enumeration by which the Census agrees that if they were to do it properly, they would need to ask that question. They have printed 100 million forms already, and the question is, Do we want to waste that money and throw those forms out? Well, there is an answer to that. All you have to do is put in an insert, and here is question No. 11. That will cost very little money and then we will actually have a true census based on what the Constitution says, not on what we think might politically benefit one State over another. Madam President, I know the chairman of the Finance Committee is here and would like to make a unanimous consent request, and I will yield to him at this time.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, may I ask the Chair what is the pending amendment?

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

Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 3 or 4 minutes as I respond to this, if the Senator from Montana does not have any objection.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, later we are going to vote on an amendment I have that is a prohibition on taking earmarked money from the operation and maintenance account of our armed services. Operation and maintenance--not procurement, not research, but operation and maintenance. The very key thing that funds the ability of our warfighters and our Defense Department to do what they do is being used to pay for some very good projects, some not very good projects, most of which all are parochial; in other words, directed toward State benefit, through the operation and maintenance account. Last year, I would remind my colleagues, the Navy ran out of operation and maintenance money. We had to supplement it. Why did we supplement it? Because we took their money last year and put it into earmarks instead of giving the Navy what it needed. I would remind the people listening to these words that when we do a supplemental, we charge the money to our kids and our grandkids. We don't have to live within the budget parameters. So as we vote for this, earmark is another question. The question is: Where do you take the money when you go to earmark? When we take it from the very things that support, equip, and protect the people who are defending this country, and we put them at risk by not having the amount of dollars that are necessary for that, I think we are sending a terrible signal not just to the American people but to our troops that our parochial desires are more important than their well-being. When the amendment comes up, I will defer saying anything else so we can move on. But the American people need to know. This is a couple hundred million bucks that is going to be taken away from the very necessary things they need. There are a couple of other gimmicks in here that actually lessen that account that allow for other things to be done in terms of not looking into inflation correctly, but we will pass on those amendments. But the fact is we ought not be playing games with the money that goes to protect our troops. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN. This is a simple amendment. I am appreciative of the fact that the National Guard and Army Reserve will get additional funds. All the amendment says is, run that by the Defense Department. They don't get to approve it or disapprove it, but they ought to get to see it. And so should we. Every one of us has National Guard units. Many of us have Army Reserve units. Why should we not have access to information as to how they will spend the money? It is about transparency. The American people ought to see how they will spend the money. I want to see how it will be spent in Oklahoma. All Senators should be able to see how it is spent. The Secretary of Defense will not be able to stop it. It only says he is knowledgeable and responsible, when utilizing those forces overseas, for their deployment and equipment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I spoke earlier on this amendment and will yield my time to the Senator from Arizona.

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

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I rise today to express my serious concerns about the nomination of Mr. Tom Perez to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. First, given his affiliation with CASA de Maryland, an extreme immigrant advocacy organization for which he served as president of the board, I am concerned that he will utilize the Civil Rights Division to undermine immigration enforcement. Second, Mr. Perez has made statements indicating that he believes health care is a civil right and he has a disturbing view of the responsibilities of health care providers. Third, his views on a Clinton-era executive order requiring health care providers to provide services and documents in languages other than English infringes on the right of States to declare English as the official State language. Finally, though not directly related to Mr. Perez's qualifications, I am deeply troubled by the Department of Justice's failure to respond to legitimate requests for information by the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights regarding the Department's decision earlier this year to dismiss the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case. I know some of my colleagues have more thoroughly discussed Mr. Perez's positions on immigration issues, but I want to briefly mention some of my concerns. Mr. Perez served on the board of CASA Maryland from 1995-2002 and as president of the board from 2001-2002. CASA provides assistance to Latinos and immigrants in Maryland; it also promotes day labor sites, opposes restrictions on immigrants receiving driver's licenses, and supports in-State tuition for immigrants. More concerning, CASA has been criticized for issuing a pamphlet that instructed immigrants targeted by Federal authorities on what to do if they are arrested or detained. The Washington Times ran an article on the brochure, noting that it ``features cartoonlike drawings of armed black and white police officers escorting Hispanic men in handcuffs and shows babies crying because their fathers are behind bars.'' I have concerns about Mr. Perez's lengthy association with an organization that advocates these extreme positions. I also believe Mr. Perez has a disturbing view of the health care system and particularly of the responsibilities of health care providers. Mr. Perez has made statements indicating that he believes health care is a civil right. He also has said that health care providers receiving Federal funds must provide services in languages other than English or risk forfeiture of those funds due to title VI of the Civil Rights Act and a Clinton-era executive order directing Federal departments and agencies to ensure that those with limited English proficiency, LEP, are given meaningful access to programs and activities conducted by the Federal Government or by recipients of Federal funds. I would note that this executive order was not enforced by the Bush administration. I disagree with Mr. Perez's interpretation of the Civil Rights Act, and in 2006, I offered an amendment to immigration legislation to repeal the executive order. After I offered that amendment, Mr. Perez wrote an article in which he stated that I had a ``distressing disregard for the doctor-patient relationship,'' and that I would ``undermine meaningful communication between doctors and patients--thus relegating those who do not speak English to a lower rung of our health care system.'' After all my years of practicing medicine, I take offense at someone stating that I have a ``distressing disregard'' for the doctor-patient relationship. I have treated numerous patients who do not speak English and found ways to communicate with them. Often these patients have family members who speak some English or they find other ways to communicate. There is no reason to burden health care providers with the expense of having to provide services in languages other than English. Following the Judiciary Committee vote on his nomination, Senators Sessions, Cardin, and I met privately with Mr. Perez to discuss my concerns about his positions on health care issues, and not only did he not alleviate my concerns, but he also made no effort to apologize for his incendiary comments. I believe Mr. Perez fails to understand how the executive order undermines patient care, and I fear this lack of understanding will affect similar policies he will implement if he is confirmed to head the Civil Rights Division. Although Mr. Perez clearly has a passion for limited English-- proficiency individuals, I am afraid this passion clouds his judgment as it pertains to health care treatment and costs and will affect his judgment as the head of the Civil Rights Division. As proof, I offer the following example. In 2002, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, issued a study which stated, ``we anticipate that the cost of LEP assistance, both to government and to the United States economy, could be substantial, particularly if the Executive Order is implemented in a way that does not provide uniform, consistent guidance to the entities it covers . . . provision of language services could be most costly for the healthcare sector.'' In contrast, Mr. Perez has stated that he does ``not believe that Executive Order 13166 has a fiscal impact on State or Federal Governments because it imposes no new requirements on them.'' This lack of judgment is concerning to me. In addition to my disagreement with Mr. Perez on the treatment of health care as a civil right, his views on the Clinton-era executive order requiring health care providers to provide services and documents in languages other than English infringes on the right of States to declare English as the official State language. Specifically, the current acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Civil Rights sent a preemptive letter to Oklahoma's attorney general, threatening prosecution and retraction of Federal funds if Oklahoma enacted a constitutional amendment pending before the State legislature at that time, which would declare English as the official State language. It is unprecedented for DOJ to send such a preemptive letter. Approximately 30 other States have English-only policies, and, to my knowledge, none of these States has received such a letter. Three of those States have laws similar to the Oklahoma proposal. Thus, this letter to Oklahoma was not directed against its current law, but aimed at preventing such a law from being enacted because DOJ views it as possibly violating civil rights laws. Subsequently, the Oklahoma Legislature passed the amendment, and it will be presented to the people for approval in 2010. I am disturbed that in written questions for the record, Mr. Perez affirmed the Department's position. I asked Mr. Perez if it would be appropriate for the Office of Civil Rights to send such a preemptive letter, and he stated ``if the Civil Rights Division believes that a state's `English Only' provisions do not comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it would be appropriate for it to issue that sort of letter.'' He also stated that the Clinton-era executive order does not undermine ``the rights of states to declare English as their official language.'' Furthermore, Mr. Perez believes that the executive order ``does not create new obligations for states.'' As a result of the Office of Civil Rights' letter to Oklahoma, all members of the Oklahoma delegation have sent a response letter to Attorney General Holder. The letter asks him to explain why the Office of Civil Rights sent the letter to Oklahoma, whether similar letters have been sent to other States or cities with English-only policies, outline what type of funding would be denied to Oklahoma if the law was enacted, and whether this preemptive letter-writing process is DOJ's policy. To date, the State of Oklahoma has not received a response. Without such explanation, it appears that Oklahoma was specifically targeted in a political maneuver by DOJ since there was no Oklahoma law enacted that violated civil rights laws at the time it sent the letter. In his writings, Mr. Perez also has advocated for affirmative action in admissions to health care schools because he believes minority applicants are more likely to work in underserved populations. On March 30, 2009, Linda Chavez--former Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1983-1985, and Secretary of Labor nominee--wrote an article critical of Mr. Perez's arguments for race-conscious admissions policies for health professions schools. She notes that in one article, Mr. Perez ``cited a handful of studies that purport to show that minority doctors are more likely to provide medical care to underserved poor minority populations than white physicians are. He then leapt to the conclusion that the best way to improve access to medical care for underserved populations was to insist that medical schools use race or ethnicity in choosing which students to admit.'' She claims that this appears to be an argument in support of ``a form of medical apartheid in which minority patients should be served by minority doctors under the presumption that both groups benefit from this practice.'' She calls this argument ``insulting and dangerous'' and notes that ``doctors who primarily treat patients enrolled in government programs are less likely than those with private insurance to have passed demanding board certification in their specialties and to have access to high-quality specialists in other fields. Under Perez's rationale, it shouldn't matter whether the doctors who serve poor people are less likely to be board-certified so long as they are black or brown.'' She further notes, ``Perez's solution to the problem is to lower standards even further so that more under-qualified minority physicians are admitted to practice medicine. Medical schools already admit black and, to a lesser degree, Hispanic students with lower qualifications than whites or Asians.'' Finally, I am deeply troubled by the Justice Department's failure to respond to legitimate requests for information regarding its decision not to pursue the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party voter case. Earlier this year, House Judiciary Committee Members exchanged a series of letters with the Justice Department requesting an explanation for why the Department decided not to pursue the case against the New Black Panther Party for alleged voter intimidation that occurred in the November 2008 elections in Philadelphia. These Members sought an explanation for the dismissal of the case, which the Bush Justice Department had filed in early January 2009. The Justice Department did not respond to these inquiries until mid-July, and even then they were vague and indicated possible political interference with this case. Following the denial of this request for information, the House Members asked members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold Mr. Perez's nomination until the Department provided a more thorough response. Senator Sessions also sent a letter to the Justice Department and did not receive an acceptable response. The independent U.S. Commission on Civil Rights also has demanded that the Justice Department explain its dismissal of the lawsuit against members of the Black Panther Party and have not received a satisfactory response from DOJ. Voter intimidation is unacceptable, and Congress deserves an explanation of the Justice Department's actions. Oversight of the Department is a legitimate function of Congress, and Members deserve an explanation rather than stonewalling. For this reason, I will vote against cloture on Mr. Perez's nomination--as a protest to this lack of cooperation. I will vote against Mr. Perez's nomination based on the aforementioned concerns about his policy positions. Madam President, I thank Senator Cardin because he graciously arranged a meeting between myself and Senator Sessions and, I believe, Senator Kyl several months ago. There is no question that Mr. Perez is a very bright, engaging, and competent individual. Regretfully, my concerns with his nomination were not allayed by that meeting. I think Senator Cardin has done a great job shepherding this, and I know the outcome. I still think the American people ought to hear about the concerns I have. We are in the midst of a lot of difficulty in our country. We are struggling somewhat with our mojo, our confidence, with where we are going and how we are going to get there. A lot of it comes back to how did we ever get to the depth of problems we are having today? I think about this a lot, because I think the answer to it is the solution for how we get out of the problems we are in. Where do we go? How is it that we have an almost $12 trillion debt right now, $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and a budget deficit this year that, by the time you count what we stole from Social Security and all the other trust funds, is about $1.8 trillion, and debt that will double in 5 years and triple in 10--how did we get there? I think this nomination is a key answer for us. How we got there was building a Federal Government that has forgotten several things, but, most importantly, what the Constitution said about its real role. No. 2, it has allayed the concerns and the benefits of personal responsibility in this country. I think Mr. Perez is a fine man, but I think his viewpoint is a disaster for the future of this country in terms of what is a civil right and what isn't. It is a civil right, according to Mr. Perez, that I have to, as a physician or a hospital or a grocery store, interpret language for anybody who would come to this country and cannot speak the language. Our history is that people who have come to our country learned the language so they can succeed. One of the things that has made us great has been the commonality of English. The very statements Mr. Perez would make--that doctors who don't agree and health care providers who don't agree with his perception of a civil right of having somebody speak your language, no matter what it is, that they don't care about their patients and don't care about healing--is a step too far. But those are his statements. If we are to get out of the problems we are in as a nation, it is going to take us time to relook at what made us successful. I mentioned all these other problems before, because in the Constitution--I read a letter from a constituent this morning about how my obligation for Oklahoma is to represent only Oklahoma's interests. I said, you know, that isn't the oath I took. The oath I took was to uphold the Constitution. So now we have this expansive Federal Government we are choking on, not just in terms of its costs but also in terms of how its tentacles reach into people's lives. We are getting ready to have a health care debate to enhance that by another 25 percent in terms of the reach of the Federal Government into your individual lives, and we have a nominee for the Justice Department who believes that individual responsibility and personal accountability don't fall equally across this country, it falls only on those providing services. The other issue is the fact that 30 States have English-only language. The Justice Department this past spring and summer sent notification to the State of Oklahoma on a bill that was in the legislature, threatening the State of Oklahoma if they passed that bill. Well, 13 other States have identical bills, or laws, on what was being passed in the legislature in Oklahoma, and it will come to a vote of the people. So the legislature passed it, and it will come to the vote of the people this November. But they sent a threatening letter. They won't answer our letter asking how many other States have you sent that letter to. They didn't. It was about discussing whether an individual has any personal responsibility to be able to communicate. Finally, we have the Justice Department refusing to answer questions about true voter intimidation and the dropping of a case where that occurred. You cannot be on both sides of the civil rights issue. You can't say it is good over here but not over there. Denying people or manipulating voters has as great an impact on individual civil rights as any other thing. I come to the floor not to say Mr. Perez is not a fine man. But it is his kind of thinking that expands well beyond what our Founders ever thought was a guaranteed civil right. I readily admit that our Founders were wrong on several of those issues. But when we expand it beyond the case, that goes away from personal responsibility and accountability. There is a balance, and we need to protect everybody's civil rights in this country. We are having a human rights hearing in the Judiciary Committee right now on some of these very issues. Mr. Perez's extreme views, in fact, are that if States have English- only laws, he will go after that, and if we don't have the same viewpoint he has, rather than what the Constitution says and what the precedent from court hearings says, I think that will not lead to an outcome that will be favorable for our country. I will finish up by saying our problems are gigantic. They are not simple. There are not simple answers. The condition in which we find ourselves is from excess--whether it is excess earmarking, excess program, lack of oversight, or the excess of one hardened position over a balanced system that protects human rights but also does not destroy our system. I believe although Mr. Perez is qualified, his foundational biases should eliminate him from this position. I again thank my colleague from Maryland. He has been very accommodating during this course. I had lifted previously my hold on Mr. Perez, and I think he knows that. But I am concerned with the direction of his leadership and what it will mean in terms of where we go as a country. I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. Through the Chair, I ask the Senator, my problem is not with that; I agree with the Senator on that. My question is as we carry out expansion beyond that in terms of Executive orders that are not in the law but are Executive orders that we have never ruled on, and then we are going to consider that. Specifically I ask him, does he recognize the estimated $6 billion cost in the health care system if, in fact, Mr. Perez's interpretation of that Executive order was carried to its fullest extent by making translation services available to anybody of any language at any time throughout the whole country? That would be my question. I appreciate his thought.

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I think the leadership has been working on some amendments and agreements. I don't think any of our amendments are going to come up for votes tonight, but I did want to take a couple of moments talking about several of them. Amendment No. 2560 One is a McCain amendment I am a cosponsor on, amendment No. 2560, on competitive bidding. Every time we bring this amendment to the floor we get a side-by-side amendment so everybody on the other side who does not want us to competitively bid earmarks can have cover to say they voted for competitive bidding. The fact is, in this bill are directed earmarks that are not competitively bid to individuals and companies out there, for specialization of what one Senator may want in their home State. There is nothing wrong with wanting to help your home State. What is wrong is to not competitively bid. If it is something we need, why shouldn't we use a competitive bidding process to get the best quality and the best value for all this money we are going to spend? We are going to see again on the McCain amendment the competitive bidding amendment--I have offered this on many of the appropriations bills we have--a side by side. America should not be fooled. If you do not vote for the McCain amendment and you vote for the side by side, what you are saying is you still want your earmarks protected and not competitively bid. That is what it says. I have another amendment that addresses earmarks. The problem with earmarks is it takes our eye off the ball. It is not they are not good ideas, but we vote on bills on the basis of having an earmark in the bill rather than on the total bill and what is in the best interest of the country, not our particular parochial State. The competitive bidding amendment, when it has the side by side, what you are going to see is you are going to see the true competitive bidding amendment defeated and the false competitive bidding amendment win. That is because if you count the number of Senators who actually have earmarks that are not competitively bid, you get the majority of the Chamber. That is true on every appropriations bill. So we will not ever pass it until the Members start thinking about the long term and what is best for the country, rather than what is best for them. I thought that explanation needed to be made. Amendment No. 2565 I also want to discuss for a moment an amendment, Amendment No. 2565, a very simple amendment. We know the National Guard has gotten shortchanged a lot of times in terms of equipment. I don't think there is anything wrong with setting aside money for the National Guard. But the way the bill is written is the chain of command in the U.S. Government, in terms of our military, will be excluded from the decisions made on how to spend this $1.5 billion. The Secretary of Defense, who is ultimately responsible for the defense of the Nation--even though we use National Guard, and part of this money is going to be used for our Army Reserve, a very small amount--is not going to be able to have any input. The only people who are going to have input is the Appropriations Committee. What that says is the American people are not going to get to know, we are not going to have the judgment of the people with the best experience to comment on it. I am not even saying they have to veto it. What we are saying is they have to be aware of it, they have to be part of the process. Yet they are not. So the more concern I have with our amendment the more concern I have about what is happening with this $1.5 billion. My hope is we will eventually find out. We may not find out until after the $1.5 billion will have been spent. But the problem is will it be spent efficiently and properly for the National Guard and the Reserve? The secrecy that shrouds this process is somewhat concerning, and also the reaction that we would offer an amendment that says we want somebody in the chain of command to be involved in this, outside just the Appropriations Committee and the individual guard units. Amendment No. 2562 On another amendment, amendment No. 2562, other than national security issues, why should not every report in this bill be made available to every American? It is a real straightforward amendment. If we want transparency in our Government, then the reports that do not have anything to do with anything that would be a national security risk, for example, ought to be made available to the other Senators in the Chamber and the body as well as the American people. That is a pretty hard amendment to say ``No, you don't,'' because there is not a good defense to that if it is not related to a national security concern, and, Americans--43 cents out of every dollar we are spending we are borrowing from our grandkids. We ought to be proud to let them see what we are doing with the money. Amendment No. 2569 Finally, I have an amendment that is a prohibition. We have this operation and maintenance account that has been robbed heartily for earmarks. I know I will never win the battle on earmarks. But should not we say it comes from somewhere else, other than to fund the actual day-to-day operation and maintenance of our military? We have already cut into the amount of money that is in the O&M account because we are using a false inflation number, to the tune of about $300 some odd million--$294 million. Shouldn't we say, if we are going to take that, let's take it from somewhere else in the military rather than operations and maintenance? What is a greater priority than making sure the troops on the ground have what they need on a timely basis? It was just last year that the Navy ran out of O&M money. They restricted flight training. They restricted training on the ships. We had to pass an emergency supplemental because we did not authorize them enough, we didn't appropriate them enough money to adequately operate and maintain their force structure. Yet we have all this money, including other money that is related to other amendments, that comes out of their operation and maintenance account. If we want to do something that is outside the scope and outside what the military wants to have done, let's not make two wrongs. Let's not take the money from O&M. What this amendment would do is simply prohibit any directed earmark from coming from O&M funds. Our military needs us to be efficient. I think overall on this bill the appropriators have done a good job. I think there is tons of waste we could get out of the Defense Department. I think it is about $50 billion a year that we could actually squeeze, which would make plenty of money for earmarks, it wouldn't hurt operation and maintenance, yet we will not have the oversight, we will not do the things that are necessary to lessen the waste that is in the military. My hope is, as we come back next week--I notice we are going to have a couple of votes here in a little while; not on these amendments. No. 1, my hope is the American people will let us know about priorities and what we ought to be doing. I think these are straightforward amendments. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN. Absolutely. I am happy to do that. I ask unanimous consent to set this amendment aside.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, in this bill we are attempting to address what I agree is a very serious problem, the funding of our National Guard and Reserve. I do have some concerns, though, about how we are going about doing that. I would love to be corrected by either the chairman or the ranking member. As I understand the bill, the $1.5 billion in upgrades for the National Guard and Reserve actually bypasses the Department of Defense, bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and goes directly to the committee in terms of the approval of how they do that. I would inquire of the chairman if that is accurate.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2565 be called up.

Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object, I have no objection to the Senator from Minnesota offering his amendment. I wanted to get two other amendments pending. I ask that I be included in the request.

Mr. COBURN. I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have several amendments that go along this line, but my question to the Appropriations Committee is one of trying to clarify for the American people the numbers that were used to downsize the operation and maintenance account based on what the expected inflation rate was. It is important to know. The O&M account is what runs everything. What came out of the bill was $294 million because you chose to use an inflation rate that was less than what CBO and OMB had stated it would be. You did use the one that was the one prior. But the one presently would, in fact, add another $294 million to the operation and maintenance account. I would be glad to hear the reasoning why we chose to use it. I think I know why the reasoning--because it allows more ability to do other things Members would like to do. What this amendment is trying to do is to restore that money to truly reflect the inflation rate that OMB and CBO have said it would be. Three-tenths of 1 percent makes a big difference when you are talking about taking something from our military. I would remind my colleagues that last year the Navy ran out of O&M money and we needed an emergency supplemental to supply it. So by undershooting what the real inflation factor is for their costs, both in fuel and maintenance and operations, if we undervalue that account, what it means is we are going to take away from readiness. I know that is not the intent of this committee. The intent of this committee is to make sure our military has the needs and the means with which to carry out their requirements. Let me get a little more detailed on it. When the committee set the O&M number, they used a GDP index inflation rate from the Congressional Budget Office that was 3 months old, and they ignored the updated one for August, which was three-tenths of a percent higher. That means that if--and I agree, they are estimates; they may not be correct. What I would like to know is, what if you are wrong with the lower number you put in? Are we going to be coming back with a supplemental to be able to drive the O&M? For the American people what that means is, when we do a supplemental, it is outside the budget rules, which means we borrow it. We borrow the money. This amendment says let's realistically predict what the inflation rate is going to be in the operation and maintenance account. Let's truly put the money there that should be there. What this amendment does is simply restore it. We know, by history, that O&M has been rising faster than inflation for the past 9 years. We have not gotten it right once, in terms of the actual amounts. How this amendment technically works is it restores $294 million by striking part of section 8091 of the bill that reduces that funding. I will not spend any more time on it. I will discuss it again later. Amendment No. 2563 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2563 be called up.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2569 be called up.

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