Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that both sides yield back their time and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I note that the Senator from Michigan noted everyone who won. Let me tell you who did not win and that is our kids and grandkids. Americans are not stupid. If you give them 4,500 bucks, they are going to find any old car they have that is running and they have held for a long time. All our farmers are going to the barns. That is why you are getting pickups. They haven't been driving the pickups for years. But they are cranking them up to make them run and trading them in so they can get 4,500 bucks. The people who lose are our kids. It is $3 billion we are talking about to go to help people buy cars. But where are we going to get the $3 billion? We are going to steal it from our children. What other part of the economy should we not be incentivizing? How about the appliance makers? How about the television makers? I also ask unanimous consent--actually, I have discussed this with the chairman. Rather than ask for a recorded vote, we will have a voice vote on amendment No. 2245.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to talk about an amendment I offered that has been ruled nongermane by the Parliamentarian. I flatly disagree with that ruling, and I want the American people to understand what we have ruled nongermane. We offered an amendment that said grants and contracts under this bill should be competitively bid. Think about that. When we go out to spend money--with the six or seven exemptions in the contracting clause, and the fact that maybe for some things only one person can apply to it, which have been accepted in that--we said for American taxpayers to get value, we ought to ask and mandate that competitive bidding take place on grants and contracts in this bill. Not one of these has ever passed the Senate, and I want to tell you why. It is because we do not want things to be competitively bid. We do not want your dollars to be spent wisely, efficiently, and effectively because when we do that we take away our political power to say somebody is going to get a contract or somebody is going to get a grant. So this amendment, which was offered, specifically excluded earmarks because the complaint last week, when I offered the same amendment on the previous bill, was that if they are authorized--and remember, an earmark goes to a specific person, a specific company, those well connected in Washington--I specifically eliminated earmarks from this amendment so we would not have the excuse to say we do not want things competitively bid. But what we were going to find, had this amendment gone to a vote, is that it would have been voted down, too, because the problem is not in America, the problem is right here. We view political power and incumbency more precious than we view the economic realities and sustenance of this country and the true freedom of the people in this country. We diminish that because we think our positions ought to be enhanced, and we ought to secure our next election by making sure we are the dolers of everything good, and that we can actually connect those who give big campaign contributions to great rewards from the Congress when it comes to appropriations bills. What this amendment would do is require that the contract be competitively bid according to the law. We actually have a law that says contracts have to be competitively bid, except Congress routinely excuses that on appropriations bills. Just so the American people get this, we don't competitively bid contracts on these appropriations bills. We don't competitively bid the grants. We don't mandate that they are competitively bid, although some grants are competition-based but not based on dollars, based on performance. So Congress wins and the American people lose. Every time one of these bills goes through here without competitive bidding, our children are the real losers. The President of the United States has said it is his policy that anything over $25,000 the government buys in this country ought to be competitively bid. Yet routinely it is his supporters who vote against that. President Obama means it, but we can't get it through here. We have $350 billion a year of documented waste, fraud, and duplication in the discretionary budget, plus Medicare fraud every year. There has been no attempt to accept amendments to eliminate that, to lessen that. The fact is, we are on idle pilot to grow this government 8 percent this year in spite of the $787 billion stimulus. If you are sitting at home thinking about that, not very many people have 8 percent more income this year. So one of two things is going to happen in the next 18 months in this country. Here is what is going to happen. Either we are going to default on our debt because people are going to quit loaning us money or the average middle-income taxpayer is going to see a tax hike because, if we take all the income of the top 5 percent of people in this country, we cut our deficit only in half. If we take all the income--I am talking about a 100-percent tax rate of the top 5 percent earners in this country--we will cut our deficit in half. So if you are a middle-class American, no matter whether you think some people should pay more than they do--5 percent pays 80 percent of the taxes in this country--you can bet that in the next 18 months, you are going to see a middle-class tax increase go through this body. The reason it is going to go through is because we will not apply any common sense to the appropriations bills. Most American families are cutting back on their spending; some because they have lost their jobs, others because they are worried and they are fearful. What is the Federal Government doing? I am not talking about the stimulus bill. We are actually increasing spending. We are not making the hard choices about what is a priority and what is not; what is a necessity and what is not. We are not eliminating anything. We are building up everything, just like the last amendment we talked about. There is absolutely zero need for that program in the Department of Agriculture, but next year we will have the same debate again. I have an amendment on cheeses. I am not going to do it because there is no reason to waste the Senate's time. But we created a demonstration project back in the early 1990s with Wisconsin and Vermont and we have been funding it ever since. They have this outstanding large specialty cheese production in Wisconsin and Vermont. They don't need any money, but we are going to send them more money this year because we did last year. The fact is, the specialty cheeses they make cost two and three times what regular cheese costs and they are luxury items, but we are going to fund that not because they need it, not because they are not competitive, not because they haven't grown their industry, but because we have funded it before. Now ask yourself, if you read the Constitution, where is it in the Constitution that we are supposed to give two States millions and millions of dollars for an agricultural program that should be funded by the State if they want to do it or funded by the individuals who actually produce the cheese and are making good money. But we are going to continue to do it. So I am not going to offer that amendment. I am not going to waste the time of the Senate on it. But there is a real question of why we are in the trouble we are in as a nation today. It is because we ignore what the Constitution tells us to do. We ignore what our oath tells us to do, what we swear to do, which is uphold the Constitution. And within that is the enumerated powers, as well as the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment says whatever is not specifically spelled out--specific--and if you read what Jefferson and Madison had to say about what that meant, you will find that all of those responsibilities are left to the States and to the people. That is what they said. We have this ``cash for clunkers'' going on right now, and the Senate is going to vote for an increase in that program. But the reason we are having to do that is because we can't manage it. We have proven--the Department of Transportation--they don't even know how many applications they have from people. They don't even know if they have over the number. What they know is they have approved $760 million of the money so far, but that doesn't count all of the applications that have come in from the dealers. Here we are incentivizing the purchase of cars, taking money from our grandkids, and Americans are smart enough to know if they can get 4,500 bucks back from the Federal Government, they will take advantage of that. So we have created this wonderful increase in demand for automobiles. But why not an increase in demand for boats or how about RVs or how about refrigerators? They are more efficient. Why not give somebody a $500 credit on their refrigerator? Why are we limiting this to the automobile industry that we now as taxpayers have the responsibility of bailing out of debt? The fact is, we are clueless. We are not plugged in to what the average American family is going through in terms of a budget. We will not apply that same standard to their money up here, and their kids, our kids, and our grandkids are the ones who are going to suffer. So ask yourself a question: Why would the Senate not allow an amendment on competitively bidding the contracts and grants in this bill? Hundreds of millions of dollars that we are going to pay much too much for, an area where we could save a tremendous amount of money, and if it is grant programs that truly do a great job, we could get more of that great job done if we got it done more efficiently. It is pretty disturbing that we are so far off course with what we are doing and, more importantly, how we are doing it. With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am constantly amazed. We have three separate programs, of which this administration says we don't need one penny from the Department of Agriculture for this. That is what they say. They say we have plenty of money in CPB to do everything that is needed with the translator stations this year. We are 92 percent complete on everything that has been translated. This is similar to every government program. They never die. Not only do we have the Department of Commerce that is going to have additional funding this year for that very same thing, we have the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The fact is, they want it to go through the Agriculture Department because there is more control. We can direct it. We can have more control. We are in a crisis. We will have close to a $2 trillion deficit this year. Here we have $4.9 million that the administration says isn't needed. They want to get rid of it. They are right. What do we do? Every time we come to approach a program, we decide we can't eliminate it. Every family in America today is eliminating a lot of programs for themselves. This appropriations bill is an atrocity. I will go through it so everybody can see what it is. In fiscal 2009, the grand total for this was $128 billion. It is now $123 billion. Do you know why it is there? They got $20 billion from mandatory in the stimulus and another $6 billion in the stimulus. So this isn't a decrease. It is outrageous the amount of money we are spending. We will go through it line by line. Agriculture programs in 2009, discretionary were $6.85 billion. They are $7.22 billion. That is a 6-percent increase. The mandatory spending was $18 billion. It is now $22 billion. That is a 21-percent increase. Plus they got $1 billion in the stimulus. So if you add that to the $30 billion, we actually have $31 billion compared to $24 billion this year. Think about what kind of increase that is. Title II conservation programs was $969 million in 2009. We gave $340 million, which hasn't been spent yet; it will be spent this year. Yet we increase it another 4.5 percent to $1.015 billion. Rural development, they got $3 billion this year. In this bill they get 2.7. That is an 11-percent increase. That doesn't count the $4.36 billion that was given in the stimulus. Domestic food programs went from $76 million to $86 million. We need that now, no complaint there. We have a lot of people requiring our help right now, but they also got $20 billion which hasn't been spent yet in the stimulus. So we have gone from $76 million to $106 million, a 45-percent increase. Foreign assistance, we spent $1.5 billion on foreign assistance in agricultural programs in 2009. This is at $2 billion, a 33-percent increase. Plus they got $700 million in the stimulus that has not been spent. So add that together and you have $2.1 billion versus 1.5. It is ridiculous the amount of money that is in this appropriations bill. All these ought to be trimmed back based on what the stimulus was doing rather than growing them at four times the rate of inflation. We are growing government in this bill four times the rate of inflation. We are going to have a $2 trillion deficit and we are proud of this bill? This bill is a stinker. FDA Commodities Futures Trading, $2.1 billion to $2.527 billion, a 20-percent increase in one year. Let's talk about some of the separate programs. Agricultural research got increased $200 million. By the time you add in what we did in the stimulus, it goes from $1.18 to $1.23 billion. That is where most of the earmarks are stolen from, agricultural research, and most of that money isn't applied to research. It gets directed through an earmark. National Institute of Food and Agriculture Research went from 1.22 billion to 1.3, an $80 million increase, a 6.76-percent increase; Economic research, up $3 million, just a 4-percent increase; Statistical service, up 7 percent; Animal health inspection, up 4 percent; Agricultural marketing services, up 5 percent; Grain inspection packers, up about 4 percent; Food safety, where we should be increasing funding because of the problems we have had, is up only 2 percent. Where we have the problems, we are not increasing the appropriations. We are actually barely keeping even with inflation. But on food safety, we don't increase it. Farm service salaries, they increase $90 million, a 6.5-percent increase, plus we gave $50 million in the stimulus; Farm service agency loans, if you add in the stimulus, which has not been spent, we get to $195 million from $147 million. That is a 33.3-percent increase. Federal crop insurance: Up $1 billion, from $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion. That is a 12-percent increase. Conservation programs. Mr. President, $340 million NRCS was given in the stimulus. It has not been spent yet. And $962 million is what we had last year. Mr. President, $1.015 billion, plus the $340 million, and what you get is a 33-percent increase. Conservation operations: No money in the stimulus. We go from $853 million to $949 million. That is an 8-percent increase. Watershed and flood prevention is flat. It is flat. We have all these water conservation dams that are falling apart. Kind of like in our highway bill, we fix the earmarks, but we do not take care of the bridges. That is what we are doing on the watershed. RC&D, the President terminated it. Finally we got one that is going under. Rural development: Salaries up 8 percent. Rural housing: Counting the $330 million we did in the stimulus that has not been spent, you have a $430 million increase--$130 million increase over it, about a 7-percent increase. You can keep going. I will not continue to bore my colleagues. But the fact is, overall in this bill, we have a tremendous increase in spending when you consider what we did in the stimulus--not a decrease--taking into account for that. Now back to this amendment. All this amendment does is cut $4.9 million--$4.9 million--out of a $124 billion bill. The reason this amendment is offered is because the administration is doing the right thing. They are eliminating a program that is not needed now. We can say anything we want, but we have three agencies doing the same thing, and what the administration recognized, to their credit, is we do not need three agencies doing the same thing. What we need is one agency accountable. We are 92 percent complete, and let them be responsible for finishing it and save the American taxpayer some money. That is what the Obama administration wanted to do with this elimination. But, no, it comes right back. Each of the three programs that presently do this work--the USDA, the Commerce Department's PTFP, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--is a part of their respective agency's budget. Unless we eliminate it, we are going to spend that money, and it will not be well spent, it will not be wisely spent, it will not be efficiently spent. It will just be spent, and they will ask for more next year. Even when we are at 97 percent or 98 percent complete, we will see the same request to come. The logic was because they asked for three times as much; therefore, $4.9 million ought to be OK. Well, $4.9 million is not OK when we need zero out of the Department of Agriculture to begin with. One of the things the Obama administration wants to do is to streamline this process, not have three agencies going through this. They want to consolidate the current three-pronged effort into one efficient program that is already in existence. And nobody denies that CPB has done a pretty good job with the public television stations and the translator stations through their money. The USDA received $14 million in 2004, $10 million in 2005, $5 million in each of the years 2006 through 2008. PTFP--which is the Department of Commerce--has gone all the way from 1998, when they got $12.5 million--and every year, all the way up--to 2002, when they got $36 million; and then they went back down to $15 million in 2007. They did not get any money in 2008 because they did not need it. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, however, has gotten, on average, over $35 million a year, and they got $29 million last year. Plus we spent $650 million in the stimulus on this program. It has not all been spent. So we are lining up. We have plenty of money in the stimulus package, and then we are going to ask for another $4.9 million. This is exactly the reason the American people are disgusted with Congress. This is a bill that is out of its bounds in terms of its spending. It has not recognized what is in the stimulus that has not been spent. So what we are doing is we are actually going to increase the debt through this bill that is going to be spent. To put that in personal terms, what does that mean? A $2 trillion deficit is $6,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. That is what we are going to do this year: We are going to spend $6,000 per man, woman, and child more than we take in for every man, woman, and child in this country. And do you know what. We are on course to do exactly the same thing next year with this kind of appropriations bill. There is no check with reality in the Senate as far as when it comes to spending money, and I refuse to apologize for looking out for the next two generations when we do not have the courage to say no to anybody. What we say is: Yes, I will get this bill for you so you can look good at home. Well, who is looking out for the 2- and 3- and 4- and 5-year-olds in this country who, when they were born, took on almost $500,000 worth of unfunded liabilities? Our debt is going to double in the next 5 years. It is going to triple in the next 10 years. There is no effort in this bill to make that less burdensome on those children. With that, I yield the floor on this amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is a motion to commit. The discretionary portion of this appropriations bill grows 15 times faster than the rate of inflation. This is a motion that says it ought to come back to us growing two times the rate of inflation. There is no excuse for us to pass this kind of spending in this type of climate. I would ask for the support of this motion.

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

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I will change the drafting. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. COBURN. I call for the regular order on amendment No. 2226, and I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COBURN. I now call for the regular order on amendment No. 2226 and send a second-degree amendment to the desk, ask for its immediate consideration, and ask any consideration be delayed until after the cloture vote and that the second-degree amendment is my amendment No. 2246.

Mr. COBURN. Yes, unanimous consent is requested for that.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2246 be called up.

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

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2245 be called up.

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

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2248 be called up.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2243 be called up.

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

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 2244 be called up.

Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object, I was asked to come down and get my amendments pending. I checked with the staff. All I would like to do is get several amendments up, have them pending, and then we will have the debate after the cloture vote. Is that agreeable?

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Let me add, also, that if you go to USAspending.gov and to recovery.gov, you will find that as of last week--I don't know what it is this week--only $78 billion of the whole stimulus package has actually been spent. More of it has been obligated but not actually spent. I think there is another $150 billion obligated out of that. That is one of the reasons we are not seeing the effect of the stimulus. One, it is not going to stimulate things, and it is not getting to where we need it.