News
Dec 08 2006
Coburn won’t back down on farm bill
U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn says he isn’t going to back down on his criticism that an agricultural appropriations bill is too large and covers farmers that it shouldn’t.
The Oklahoma Republican voiced his opinion Thursday during a conference call with the state’s media.
Earlier in the week, Coburn said he planned to block a $4.5 billion bill for agriculture disaster aid because it is too large, because supporters won’t show how they would pay for it, and because he believes relief should be targeted toward farmers who weren’t able to plant a crop, not those who could have purchased federally-subsidized insurance, but didn’t.
“It’s a shame for us to leave here, not having addressed that issue. I don’t think we should have an adjournment without it,” Coburn said Thursday, in the waning days of the 2006 session where he said the Senate was engaging in one of its worst habits: throwing everything members could into bills and expecting other senators to approve bills they’ve never read. “It’s a terrible way to govern, and I’m not going to participate in it.”
While Coburn was critical of the $4.5 billion amendment spearheaded by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., he said he supports a House proposal from Oklahoma Third District Congressman Frank Lucas that is $1.3 billion less than Conrad’s, while providing coverage for disasters in 2005 and 2006.
“It truly meets the needs of those suffering from drought,” Coburn said, noting Lucas’ bill addresses drought, fuel prices and “everything that has killed farmers.”
Coburn said there are at least three legitimate ways to pay for the agriculture bill, “but there is no courage in the Senate to do the right thing.” He also said he wasn’t willing to include people who failed to buy crop insurance.
“I think we’ll do it in January, help those who help themselves,” he said.
Coburn also noted the nation’s farm bill is slated for reauthorization in 2007. He said the bill is important, because of its effects on other legislation.
“Farm policy has a lot to do with global trade,” he said, noting the farm bill will affect the nation’s other trade agreements.
Among his criticisms: too many of the nation’s farms are under-capitalized. Coburn said he would rather see Congress pay $25 billion directly to farmers, so they could avoid future dependence on the federal government. While Coburn doesn’t want to eliminate all subsidies, he said he wants an assets-based limit because too often the people who collect the money are those who need it least.
“I want to help the guy on the margin stay in business and be successful,” he said. “Most farmers would rather not be dependent on the government for anything.”
Coburn also said he appreciated the report on the war in Iraq, a critical report released mid-week.
“If, in fact, the goal is to get the troops out of Iraq, we’ve lost the war on terror already,” he said, noting it is vital that citizens understand the long-term implications of the war.
He said the nation also should take a lesson from history: leaders didn’t believe Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s and consequently, the country wasn’t ready for war. Coburn said, today, the U.S. has people telling it they want to destroy it.
“We should believe them,” he said, adding while there is no question the Iraq war is not going well and mistakes have been made, citizens must make up their minds about the goal of having American troops there.
He said if the answer is to get out, “I want our troops out tomorrow.” But, if the goal is to win, “then we have to rethink this easy tendency to run away.” The result could be a nation putting itself at tremendous future risk, he said.
Other comments:
n The Hunger-Free Communities Act: Coburn said critics were successful in forcing supporters to remove funding for infrastructure, an important concession and one that should help passage.
n His goals for the 2007 session, he said, remain the same as always: being aggressive in federal financial management; uncovering waste, fraud and abuse, while reaching “across the aisle” to gain consensus. Coburn said he isn’t bothered by the thought of being a member of the minority party: “I’ve been a minority in the majority party for two years.”
The Oklahoma Republican voiced his opinion Thursday during a conference call with the state’s media.
Earlier in the week, Coburn said he planned to block a $4.5 billion bill for agriculture disaster aid because it is too large, because supporters won’t show how they would pay for it, and because he believes relief should be targeted toward farmers who weren’t able to plant a crop, not those who could have purchased federally-subsidized insurance, but didn’t.
“It’s a shame for us to leave here, not having addressed that issue. I don’t think we should have an adjournment without it,” Coburn said Thursday, in the waning days of the 2006 session where he said the Senate was engaging in one of its worst habits: throwing everything members could into bills and expecting other senators to approve bills they’ve never read. “It’s a terrible way to govern, and I’m not going to participate in it.”
While Coburn was critical of the $4.5 billion amendment spearheaded by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., he said he supports a House proposal from Oklahoma Third District Congressman Frank Lucas that is $1.3 billion less than Conrad’s, while providing coverage for disasters in 2005 and 2006.
“It truly meets the needs of those suffering from drought,” Coburn said, noting Lucas’ bill addresses drought, fuel prices and “everything that has killed farmers.”
Coburn said there are at least three legitimate ways to pay for the agriculture bill, “but there is no courage in the Senate to do the right thing.” He also said he wasn’t willing to include people who failed to buy crop insurance.
“I think we’ll do it in January, help those who help themselves,” he said.
Coburn also noted the nation’s farm bill is slated for reauthorization in 2007. He said the bill is important, because of its effects on other legislation.
“Farm policy has a lot to do with global trade,” he said, noting the farm bill will affect the nation’s other trade agreements.
Among his criticisms: too many of the nation’s farms are under-capitalized. Coburn said he would rather see Congress pay $25 billion directly to farmers, so they could avoid future dependence on the federal government. While Coburn doesn’t want to eliminate all subsidies, he said he wants an assets-based limit because too often the people who collect the money are those who need it least.
“I want to help the guy on the margin stay in business and be successful,” he said. “Most farmers would rather not be dependent on the government for anything.”
Coburn also said he appreciated the report on the war in Iraq, a critical report released mid-week.
“If, in fact, the goal is to get the troops out of Iraq, we’ve lost the war on terror already,” he said, noting it is vital that citizens understand the long-term implications of the war.
He said the nation also should take a lesson from history: leaders didn’t believe Hitler and Mussolini in the 1930s and consequently, the country wasn’t ready for war. Coburn said, today, the U.S. has people telling it they want to destroy it.
“We should believe them,” he said, adding while there is no question the Iraq war is not going well and mistakes have been made, citizens must make up their minds about the goal of having American troops there.
He said if the answer is to get out, “I want our troops out tomorrow.” But, if the goal is to win, “then we have to rethink this easy tendency to run away.” The result could be a nation putting itself at tremendous future risk, he said.
Other comments:
n The Hunger-Free Communities Act: Coburn said critics were successful in forcing supporters to remove funding for infrastructure, an important concession and one that should help passage.
n His goals for the 2007 session, he said, remain the same as always: being aggressive in federal financial management; uncovering waste, fraud and abuse, while reaching “across the aisle” to gain consensus. Coburn said he isn’t bothered by the thought of being a member of the minority party: “I’ve been a minority in the majority party for two years.”
