The Wonk Room

Oprah Clashes With Coburn On Protect Our Children Act»

Yesterday, Oprah Winfrey urged her viewers to contact their senators and ask them to support the Protect Our Children Act (HR 3845/S 1738), which authorizes over $320 million over the next five years for law enforcement to investigate child exploitation:

This is what we want to do. Want to get these guys and put them in jail. So, tell us about the Protect Our Children Act. It’s going before the U.S. Senate this month. We only have a few days.

Watch it:

The bill is being blocked by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who, in July, successfully derailed the legislation when it was included in the “the so-called Coburn omnibus,” a package of nearly 40 uncontroversial bills that extended funding for cancer research and crime prevention.

Now, Senate Democrats are gearing up for a re-match. According to the Hill, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), spurred on by activists and TV talk show host Oprah Winfrey…has sent word to Senate Democrats that it would like to bring the so-called Coburn omnibus bill to the floor soon, setting up a rematch with the conservative Oklahoma Republican who has often brought the Senate to gridlock.”

Indeed, in his three short years in the Senate, Coburn has earned the reputation of “a fly in the soup,” abusing the senate’s hold privilege to prevent “the Senate leadership” from bringing matters to a vote. He “initially blocked” S 1738 “because it would have authorized nearly a billion dollars over eight years to fund a law enforcement crackdown on child exploitation,” but now “questions the efficacy of a new program.”

Far from controversial, the bill is co-sponsored by conservative Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ted Stevens (R-AK) and is estimated to cost just $3 per American over the 2009-2013 budgeted period.”

Cross-posted at ThinkProgress.

Coburn’s Obstructionism Leaves 44,000 Paralyzed Veterans In A Lurch»

While personally blocking more than 70 pieces of legislation, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has portrayed himself as a champion against “wasteful” government spending. In reality, Coburn’s obstructionism has delayed, deferred, or killed legislation that would have expanded medical research and improved the lives of millions of Americans.

Responding to Coburn’s obstructionism, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) crafted the Advancing America’s Priorities Act, a package of nearly 40 bills that Coburn and other conservatives prevented from coming to a vote.

The package included The Christopher Reeve and Dana Reeve Act, which would have “allocated $25 million for research on spinal cord injuries, rehabilitation and measures to improve the quality of life for paralyzed Americans.”

Because Coburn and his conservative allies successfully killed the deal, he has attracted a number of right-wing admirers:

- Two months ago, I made a rather vivid attack on a group of U.S. senators I called “the Coburn Seven,” who were blocking consideration of this measure. I was convinced that Tom Coburn — known in the Senate as “Dr. No” for objecting to nearly all spending increases — intended to kill the bill. Then I made the worst mistake of the commentator: actually meeting the object of your scorn….Coburn politely assured me that his motivation was not stinginess. His main goal was to increase the number of people receiving treatment. [WP, 7/30/2008]

- “Now that he is a member of the Senate and I am back in the private sector, paying taxes and worrying about the debt, my view of Coburn has changed. I love the guy.” [The Hill, 7/28/2008]

- “But this other Advancing America’s Priorities Act, that has to be shut down. And Senator Tom Coburn, we we love him. Dr. No , he is up there crusading, it’s a one man crusade if you ask me, against what’s going on on Capitol Hill.” [The Laura Ingraham Show, 7/28/2008]

- “Much like the late conservative hero “Senator No” (Jesse Helms), Coburn seems to be the only conservative willing to block legislation that would exacerbate the $9.3 trillion dollar debt this Congress is passing on to future generations.” [Human Events, 7/14/2008]

Coburn’s so-called ‘idealism’ has real and negative impacts on Americans. According to the Paralyzed Veterans for America, the bill, which would have cost just $0.82 cents per family, would have benefited the 240,000 Americans, including 44,000 veterans, “who suffer from spinal cord injuries or paralysis.”

Unfortunately, these Americans now have to bear the burden of Coburn’s “idealism.”

Coburn Denies Responsibility: ‘A Hold On A Bill Is Not Blocking A Bill’»

Yesterday, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) took to the floor to protest Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) attempts to overcome conservative holds on popular bipartisan legislation by wrapping “many of the bills into one large measure to be voted on by the Senate.” Coburn, who currently has holds on about 80 bills, argued that ‘holding bills’ — a technique which allows senators to “object to bringing a bill or nomination to the floor for consideration” — actually improves the democratic process and is in the “tradition of the senate”:

A hold on a bill is not blocking a bill from coming to the Senate floor…So if you’re holding a bill because you’re saying ‘I don’t agree with unanimous consent,’ which means ‘I don’t agree that we should not debate, I don’t agree that we should not amend, and I don’t agree that the public shouldn’t have a recorded vote on this bill,’ that does nothing to stop the bill from coming to the floor….Debate—full, open, honest debate—is great for this country.

Watch it:

‘A Fly In The Soup’: Coburn’s History Of Obstructing Medical Research»

On Monday, the Wonk Room reported on Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) stubborn insistence that the bipartisan President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief bill (PEPFAR) include a wasteful earmark mandating that “55 percent of the money go to treatment programs.” Speaking on the Senate floor, Coburn suggested that his insistence on restoring the mandate saved the PEPFAR program:

Maybe treatment wouldn’t have been eliminated but it would have taken a back seat… the commitment to treatment would have eroded over time and PEPFAR would have been like any other aid program.

But Coburn is no hero. Far from it. In his three years in the senate, Coburn has earned the reputation of “a fly in the soup,” abusing the senate’s hold privilege — a technique which allows senators to “object to bringing a bill or nomination to the floor for consideration” — to prevent “the Senate leadership” from bringing matters to a vote.

Remarkably, Coburn’s obstructionism has even led “senate aides to now take legislation directly to Coburn’s office” to ensure “he has no objections“:

Senate aides on both sides of the aisle now take legislation directly to Coburn’s office before moving forward to make sure he has no objections — whether he’s on the relevant committee or not. If he does, they often swallow their pride and make the changes he’s asking for.

Currently, “Coburn has holds on about 80 bills” which are “non-controversial, bipartisan bills that he just doesn’t like.” Here is a small sampling:

- Caroline Pryce Walker Conquer Childhood Cancer Act (S.911): The bill, named “in memory of Caroline Pryce Walker, daughter of Congresswoman Deborah Pryce (R-OH), who succumbed to neuroblastoma in 1999 at age nine,” authorizes $30 million over five years, “to significantly increase federal investment into childhood cancer research.”

- The ALS Registry Act of 2007 (S.1382): Creates a single nationwide patient registry for incidences of Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, to improve ALS research, disease management and the development of standards of care.

- The Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act (S.1183): The bill coordinates and collaborates paralysis research, prevents research redundancies and hastens the discovery of better treatments and cures.

- Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act of 2008 (S.999): Amends the Public Health Service Act “to improve stroke prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation.”

Coburn argues that his holds make legislation “better” and claims that he is “not hard to deal with if you talk with us, but if you won’t talk with us, we are hard to deal with.”

This week, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) plans to “deal with” Coburn’s attention-seeking theatrics. According to the Crypt, Reid will “wrap most if not all of the bills held by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) into one large measure to be voted on by the Senate.”

The “broad popularity of the bills means that there would likely be more than enough support for veto-proof passage.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has often cited Congress’ low approval rating and has suggested that it is failing Americans. Will he vote against Coburn’s obstructionism?

Conservatives Demand Wasteful PEPFAR Earmark»

Today, the Senate plans to vote on the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief or PEPFAR, an international health initiative dedicated to combating HIV/AIDS around the world.The Wonk Room has previously argued that the bill is imperfect and that its ideological restrictions place unnecessary obstacles in the path of effective prevention policies. Now, a small group of conservative senators, concerned about the cost of the bill, seek to further hamper access to life-saving information and services:

A main sticking point is a current program mandate that requires 55 percent of the money go to treatment programs. Writers of the new bill dropped the provision, arguing that health care workers on the ground - not Washington politicians - can better determine what programs are most effective.

But Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican and a longtime supporter of PEPFAR, has spearheaded an effort to get the requirement restored, saying the mandate is necessary to prevent money from getting diverted into unrelated development and poverty-relief programs.

Access “to treatment, while vital, cannot reverse the spread of HIV.” In fact, “given that there are about 2.5 new HIV infections for every person starting on AIDS drugs, there is no way to control the pandemic through treatment alone.”

The “real issue is how wisely the money is spent.” And, according to both the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office, “earmarking a specific percentage of funds to be spent on particular activities hampers the flexibility and effectiveness of the program.”

The requirements also wastes aid resources. As Michael Gerson, President Bush’s former speech writer, points out:

And because treatment is less expensive than it used to be, PEPFAR is meeting its treatment goal for less money. The 55 percent treatment floor would force the program to waste money in pursuit of an arbitrary, nonsensical spending target — the worst kind of congressional earmark.

Since 2003, “PEPFAR has been getting life-saving treatment to nearly two million people,” but ideological and spending restrictions have wasted millions and “failed to slow the infection rate.” Self-professed fiscal conservatives should take note and drop their opposition to this imperfect, but certainly necessary, piece of legislation.

UPDATE: RH Reality Check has more on the pending PEPFAR vote.

Bill Bennett Must Just Be Confused Too»

You know it’s bad when arch-conservative Bill Bennett won’t even endorse the Republican presidential candidate’s health care plan.

It’s just the latest chapter in Elizabeth Edwards’ effort to explain the facts on the McCain health plan, which started Saturday at her speech to the Association of Health Care Journalists. While there, Elizabeth Edwards pointed out that she and John McCain had something in common, that neither of them would get coverage under his health plan.

This lead to the McCain campaign calling her “confused” in a piece published by the Los Angeles Times, something Edwards responded to on this blog and then this morning on the Today Show.

When Bill Bennett followed Edwards this morning, the best response he could muster was a generic assertion that the free market could cure the country’s health care crisis, saying, “I think a market approach is going to be the better approach.”

He added that what McCain is trying to do is, “unprecedented,” and because of that, “ We don’t know what the market will provide.” Commenting on whether all persons would be covered under the McCain plan, the best Bennett could do is to say, “It is John McCain’s position, and Dr. Coburn’s position [Republican Senator from Oklahoma, whose health idea McCain’s follows], that an influx of that amount of supply [under their plan], if you will, will create possibilities for people that haven’t existed before. So, I don’t think you can rule this out categorically.” Watch it:

We can’t rule out that the McCain plan will help people get coverage? We don’t know what the McCain plan will mean? Wow Bill, there is a ringing endorsement. It was a simple enough question, and Bennett couldn’t give a straight forward answer supporting McCain. Bennett got one thing right though, McCain’s idea of trying to move everyone into the individual market is “unprecedented,” mostly because the individual market is broken and conservative ideas to markets like McCain’s would further weaken individual market protections.

I’ll be waiting for the McCain campaign statement that Bennett must be just as “confused” as Edwards on the merits of the McCain plan.