The millions of people treated under the agreement.
To see a larger chart, click here, or read more.
Eliminates the requirement for providing life-saving treatment. Triples the funding, but only increases the treatment target by 50%. Diverts funding from the poorest and neediest countries to richer countries with space exploration and nuclear programs, including Russia, China, and India; Expands the scope of the bill from HIV/AIDS treatment, prevention and care to include every poverty and development program under the sun, such as: agriculture, schools, legal aid, gender empowerment, lobbying, microfinance, sanitation, and community food aid (as opposed to just critical nutritional support for patients on anti-HIV medications) Doubles the U.S. contribution to the U.N. affiliated Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB, and Malaria despite the Fund’s drug quality problems, administrative corruption, and ability to bypass U.S. laws and policies on abortion, needle exchange, and prostitution/trafficking. Senators Coburn, Demint, Burr, Vitter, Chambliss, Bunning and Sessions wrote Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, asking him to protect their rights to object to movement of the House or Senate global AIDS reauthorization bill, which turns the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) from a succesful, $15 billion program to care and treat people with AIDS in the poorest countries into a $50 global development slush fund. Click here to read the letter. The latest WebMemo from the Heritage Foundation on global AIDS legislation.
80% of people with HIV/AIDS in developing countries are unaware of their condition, and only 10% of those affected receive treatment. Mother-to-child HIV transmission – a largely preventable tragedy with proper medication– is still causing thousands of babies to be born with an AIDS death sentence. Treatment IS prevention: the availability of treatment is the number one predictor of people’s willingness to be tested for HIV/AIDS. Diagnostic testing is the major predictor for prevention-related behavior change. Africans agree... and Dr. Coburn and his colleagues support them...
The omnibus appropriations bill signed into law by President Bush today contains a provision authored by Dr. Tom Coburn that saves taxpayer dollars from being diverted to frivolous and duplicative spending in 2008. Page 345 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 reads as follows:
SEC. 222. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used— (1) for the Ombudsman Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and (2) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide additional rotating pastel lights, zero-gravity chairs, or dry-heat saunas for its fitness center.
Taxpayers Will No Longer Foot the Bill for Pricey Morale Consultations
Taxpayers Will No Longer Pay for Zero Gravity Chairs, Saunas or Light Shows
Purpose: to ensure that the U.S. contribution to the United Nations is not being lost to waste, fraud, abuse or corruption by maximizing the public transparency of all UN spending. Summary of Amendment: This amendment would require the Secretary of State to certify that the United Nations is publicly transparent about all 2007 spending before the U.S. 2008 contribution is released to the U.N. The amendment requires the U.N. to post on a publicly available web site, copies of all contracts, grants, program reviews, audits, budgets, project progress reports relating to fiscal year 2007. Rationale: The United Nations needs to be held more accountable—especially given its history of financial scandals including the Oil for Food Program (the largest financial scandal in history), rampant procurement fraud and corruption, and the unfolding Cash for Dictators scandal where the UN has been caught passing cash and military technology to state sponsors of terror. For every U.S. tax dollar that is lost to corruption at the UN, that is one less dollar that can go towards helping the most vulnerable or investing in regional stabilization or promoting human rights and the rule of law. For more detailed background on Coburn Amendment 2773 to the fiscal year 2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, click here. To learn more about Dr. Coburn's efforts in this area, visit Dr. Coburn's webpage "United Nations Watch."
Purpose: to ensure that the unprecedented increase in the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is accompanied by an end to secrecy regarding how that money is spent. Summary of Amendment: The amendment would condition 20% of the Global Fund money on a certification by the Secretary of State that the Global Fund has made all financial and programmatic documents available to the public on a web site. Rationale: The U.S. only has one vote of 20 but contributes about a quarter of the entire budget of the Fund. This year, the Fund’s Inspector General reported that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent by the Fund’s executive director on questionable expenses, including a boat cruise, champagne, limousines and tuxedo rentals. Despite media attention and Congressional demands, the Fund has refused to release the report to the public or to Congress, in violation of the Fund’s own document disclosure policy. The Inspector General, in the meantime, has resigned, citing “health concerns.” The American people have generously contributed billions to the Global Fund since its 2001 inception. They have a right to know that their money is being spent fighting diseases that threatens millions of lives every year in poor countries, rather than wasted in secret by Global Fund executives. For more detailed background on Coburn Amendment 2706 to the fiscal year 2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, click here.
Purpose: to direct funding towards programs in the Child Survival and Health account that we know are saving lives among the most vulnerable populations and away from a lower priority program, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), that produces few results and is managed by the UN Development Program (UNDP), which utilizes corrupt procurement practices, operates contrary to UN rules, and retaliates against whistleblowers. Summary of Amendment: This amendment would transfer $106.7 million from the Global Environment Facility and put $30 million into fully funding the President’s Malaria Initiative and the remaining funds into other life-saving programs in the Child Survival and Maternal Health programs. Rationale: The GEF is an account housed at the World Bank, but administered by UNDP. Earlier this week, a UNDP whistleblower came forward with information and internal documents that UNDP’s management of the Global Environment Facility includes procurement fraud and sole-source contracting with organizations that are not qualified to effectively implement the Facility’s programs. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has assessed the Global Environment Facility and found that the program cannot demonstrate results, has not implemented performance reforms, does not allocate its funding based on performance and environmental benefit, and lacks strong anti-corruption mechanisms. On the other hand, programs like the President’s Malaria Initiative are fully transparent and successful at achieving measurable goals to reduce malaria deaths in targeted countries. For more detailed background on Coburn Amendment 2716 to the fiscal year 2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, click here.
Purpose: To prohibit the U.S. contribution to the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) from being used for malaria prevention or control and to ensure that World Bank malaria-related financing is subject to maximum transparency and accountability. Summary of amendment: The amendment prohibits the U.S. contribution to the World Bank (about $1 billion annually) from being spent on malaria control and prevention. Rationale: In voting to defeat Coburn Amendment 2704 to the fiscal year 2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, the Senate threw away the chance to make a difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of vulnerable women and children in Africa and around the world who sicken and die from the scourge of malaria. The World Bank’s malaria program has been accused of medical malpractice by a team of scientist and public health experts, who published their concerns in 2006 about the Bank’s lack of transparency, support of obsolete drugs, and resistance to proven disease prevention and control methods in the medical journal The Lancet. While refusing to rebut the allegations, the World Bank now holds the dubious distinction of becoming the last multilateral aid organization clinging to the failed policies of the past responsible for soaring malaria (a fully preventable and curable disease) rates today [click here for a list of major changes in the recent past in malaria prevention and control]. What’s more, the Bank’s own auditors reported that the malaria program was at the top of the list of Bank health programs “tainted by, or at risk of, collusion, fraud and corruption.” For more detailed background on Coburn Amendment 2704 to the fiscal year 2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, click here. To learn more about Malaria, and Dr. Coburn's efforts in this area, visit Dr. Coburn's webpage on malaria oversight work in the U.S. Senate.
Late Thursday night, at 11:39 PM, the conference agreement between the House and the Senate on the bill advertised as implementing the 9-11 Commission recommendations (H.R. 1, Conference Report; Improving America's Security Act of 2007) passed the Senate by a vote of 85 yeas, 8 nays, and with 7 senators not voting. Dr. Coburn voted against the conference report because it included an unworkable mandate for 100% cargo screening, increased spending over funding amounts authorized in the Senate-passed version of the bill (S. 4, the Improving America's Security Act of 2007), contained competing, redundant interoperability programs, and because Congress refused to reorganize its own oversight over intelligence, per the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation, and chose to focus instead on over several high-profile jurisdictional turf-fights.
Although Dr. Coburn opposed the bill's final passage, he used his seat on the conference committee reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill to make dramatic improvements to the bill by increasing auditing and accountability measures for homeland security grant programs. Dr. Coburn especially thanks Senators Lieberman and Collins for their help in ensuring that language he added to the Senate version of the bill to improve accountability and oversight in homeland security grant programs was retained in the bill sent last night to the President. Dr. Coburn is pleased with the resulting first major step forward in accountability for these programs, and is grateful for the support he received from the conference leaders on this issue. For more on the topic of accountability in the homeland security grant programs, please click here.
Before the Congress left for Memorial Day recess, Dr. Coburn announced his intention to oppose unanimous passage of two bills intended to honor Rachel Carson on the 100th anniversary of her birth (one bill to name a post office after her in Pennsylvania, and a resolution honoring her). Carson was the author of the now-debunked Silent Spring, a book that was the catalyst in the deadly worldwide stigmatization against insecticides, especially DDT. DDT (sprayed in small, diluted amounts on the inside of houses) is the cheapest and most effective insecticide in the world for use in mosquito control. Mosquito bites lead to 500 million cases of malaria a year, 1-2 million of which are fatal. The majority of deaths are in tiny children and pregnant moms in Africa. The United States and western European countries all used DDT in the mid-20th century to eliminate malaria from their territories, but then banned the substance for use by poor countries today to combat their number one health threat. Although the Stockholm Convention of 2000 (the international meeting that banned DDT) allowed for the use of DDT to fight public health threats, the stigma towards the chemical had by that time almost entirely eliminated its use. President Bush's new Malaria Initiative and the World Health Organization are now actively promoting DDT and other insecticides to save Africans from malaria. Dr. Coburn opposes these measures honoring Carson because one tragic aspect of Carson’s legacy is that unscientific DDT policies have led to, and continue to lead to, millions of preventable deaths in malaria-stricken countries. Click here to read more about why Rachel Carson's science was wrong. Click here to read more about Dr. Coburn's efforts to reform and oversee federally funded global malaria control programs.
Update: Click here to read a letter Dr. Coburn sent on June 5, 2007, to Rep. Altmire (D-Pennsylvania) regarding the Rachel Carson Post Office Naming Bill.
Update: Ugandan Health Minister makes impassioned plea in Wall Street Journal to reject Rachel Carson and bring DDT to Africa.
A group of House GOP ranking members is asking for clarification of the chamber’s new rules requiring lawmakers who request earmarks to certify that neither they nor their spouses have any financial interest in the requests. The recently enacted earmark reforms are part of Democrats’ efforts to regulate a process that played a role in a series of prominent corruption cases, most notably that of jailed ex-Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.). The rules have been applauded by outside watchdog groups and Democratic leaders who promised to cut down on the number of earmark requests that ballooned under 12 years of Republican control. But a cadre of senior Republicans have recently raised concerns with the ethics committee that the rule — which calls for Members making earmark requests to send a letter to the committee of jurisdiction vowing that they have no personal monetary stake in the issue — is vaguely written, asking the committee to clarify what does, and does not, constitute a “financial interest.” “The addition of the requirements for disclosure contained in [House Rules] significantly raise the stakes for compliance with the rule,” they wrote. The letter, dated Feb. 28, was signed by GOP ranking members David Dreier (Calif.) on Rules, Spencer Bachus (Ala.) on Financial Services, Tom Davis (Va.) on Oversight and Government Reform, Ralph Hall (Texas) on Science and Technology, Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) on Intelligence, Howard McKeon (Calif.) on Education and Labor, John Mica (Fla.) on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Lamar Smith (Texas) on Judiciary. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, as the ethics panel is formally known, has not yet responded to the request. To proponents of the new disclosure rules, the requirement seems fairly straightforward. “I think it’s laudable that leadership has set up a process for Members to sign on the dotted line and say ‘I have no financial interest here,’” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “To try to find every detail, every possible permutation, twist and turn, and implication of every potential investment decision presents a much greater hurdle than what was intended here. I think reasonable people can come to similar conclusions.” But as the House embarks into uncharted territory to comply with the new requirements, these Members and knowledgeable aides argue that more explicit guidelines need to be made available because the the way rules are interpreted now will set important precedents for the future. “There is no history on this,” one senior GOP aide said. “I think Members need bright lines when it comes to new rules.” The ranking members said they are concerned that the absence of more explicit rules “has the potential to expose Members to severe sanctions for even inadvertent omissions, and these clarifications are necessary for us to assist our Members in their compliance with the rules,” they wrote. These Members also are seeking clarification on when the letter has to be filed with the committee of jurisdiction. The current rule does not offer time guidelines. “In the case of a bill which contains an earmark, is it at the time of introduction? At the time the committee holds a hearing? When the committee takes action on the measure? As currently drafted, Members do not know when and under what circumstances to file the disclosure ...” they wrote. A Member’s failure to disclose his or her personal financial interest in an earmark request could now result in an ethics violation because the reforms fall under the code of conduct provisions in House Rules. Members also have raised questions over how many degrees of separation a lawmaker and his spouse need to be from a request to certify that they have no financial interest in the project. In their letter, the GOP Members wrote: “For instance, if a Member requests an earmark to build a road near a parcel in his district, and the road will facilitate the construction of new housing, does the Member or his spouse have a financial interest if they own stock in a bank which could potentially underwrite the mortgages for new housing? Does the situation change if the Member owns shares in a mutual fund which contains a number of banks which are mortgage lenders?” Similarly, Ellis acknowledged that there are gray areas when it comes to the disclosure forms. For instance, any road that is built in a district has the potential to raise the real estate value of a lawmaker’s home — which could count as a financial interest even if the road is important to the district as a whole. “In that case, it’s hard to say if there was a financial benefit or not,” Ellis said. “At some point, you have to decide, ‘How many degrees do you want to take it?’ But I think reasonable people can make those determinations.” Taxpayers for Common Sense and other reform groups — as well as House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) — have said the ultimate goal of the reforms is to severely restrict the total number of earmark requests, which quintupled under Republican control. Ellis argued that Members should more often be seeking funds through regular order and the budget process than relying on earmarks as heavily as they have in the past. “At the end of the day, if all this means is Members are going to take a harder look at their requests and that there’s going to be less earmarking, then we’re not going to shed any tears over that,” he said. A spokeswoman for the Appropriations Committee said the panel is referring all disclosure inquiries to the ethics committee; the panel has not released any public guidance on the new earmark rules. Ethics Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) declined to comment last week when asked if the committee was working toward that end, but the panel does not comment on internal matters. Members can always seek individual guidance from the ethics committee on the new earmark requirements. While the committee does not make those communications public, the requesters can do so if they choose.
Article link: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_92/news/17470-1.html
The 9/11 Commission Report cautioned Congress that homeland security spending should be based on risk alone, not pork barrel politics. S. 4, the bill currently before the Senate, does not heed their recommendation, and guarantees a significant amount of money in the form of grants for all states and U.S. territories regardless of risk.
It should be noted that Congress did not hold hearings or debates on this bill prior to the Committee markup or the floor debate. There are some radical policy shifts in this bill which have absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
During the Committee markup of this bill on 2/14/07, Dr. Coburn introduced a resolution expressing that the title of this bill, the “Improving America's Security by Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007” actually mischaracterizes the actual intent of the legislation. This bill uses the name of the 9/11 Commission Report as cover to vastly expand the growth of government with new spending programs and provisions that were not recommended by the Commission and in some cases might put this country at greater risk.
Dr. Coburn introduced three amendments which are currently pending before the Senate which attempt to address the shortcomings of the bill.
COBURN AMENDMENT 294 To ensure appropriate and necessary congressional oversight and reauthorization of the “Improving America's Security by Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007” (S.4) by inserting a sunset date of 5 years (December 31, 2012) so that every dollar authorized for homeland security goes to the most critical threats, and the nation’s most critical vulnerabilities.
COBURN AMENDMENT 325 To require the Department of Homeland Security to comply with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) before funds in S.4 can be spent on grant programs within the Department of Homeland Security.
COBURN AMENDMENT 345 Would streamline the interoperable communications grant programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security to ensure accountability and fiscal responsibility in the grant process.
