While Dr. Coburn does not have concerns with the underlying policies of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), he does have great concern with the offset used to pay for the bill. He encourages his colleagues to stop defering hard choices on financing priorities for political expediency.

Highlights…

• “We're a country that is $15.8 trillion in debt. We have a process that is not open to the consideration of addressing real pay-for’s for a real bill that I agree needs to pass. I have no objections with the underlying policies in any of the three components in this bill but there is a principle that we continue to practice which has our country bankrupt, and that process is the following: We're going to spend $200 million over the next three years and then we're going to take ten years to pay for it. And we have $350 billion in waste, fraud, and duplication in the federal government that we've done nothing about as a Senate.”

• “Not only do we not want to address the real problem, we don't even want to have debate and opportunity to stand up and say whether we're for cutting wasteful spending that even the administration agrees with. That's what was offered. So now we stand here with Burma sanctions going to expire. I’m not moving. I will object to any unanimous consent that doesn't put a real pay-for for this $200 million bill out of real spending in the next year or two or three, which is exactly what we offered to put forward in committee, and what we have offered to negotiate. I'm not going to be a part of kicking the can down the road again.”

• “What the chairman said is this bill is paid for. I would put forward to the American public that if you went to Wendy's this afternoon and said, "give me a double cheeseburger and, oh, by the way, over the next ten years I am going to pay for it," most Americans would not say it's paid for.”

• “To say we can't pay for $200 million in a bill to do this, right now to start the self-discipline of paying for it, this just says I would love to work a solution for this but there is a time and place where you change the direction of how you op operate. For me, this is the bill that now says to me, ‘we're going to start paying for things.’ And if we can't pay for a $200 million pay-for in the same year or at least the same three years that we're actually going to spend it, then we're just not going to pass bills with my help. I'm not just speaking for Tom Coburn. The vast majority of Americans want us to pay for things by cutting wasteful spending.” 

Full transcript:

Senator Coburn:In my opening statement in the Finance Committee on this bill, I made it very clear that I opposed the pay-for in this bill. I had two amendments offered. They were not offered because the chairman had assured me beforehand that he would object and rule them non-germane, even though they were not non-germane. As a matter of fact, we had offered what the Obama administration had already offered in terms of trade duplication, a $200 million pay-for, that the administration supports.

So let's talk about what's really going on here. We're a country that's $15.8 trillion in debt. We have a process that is not open to the consideration of addressing real pay-for’s for a real bill that I agree needs to pass. I have no objections with the underlying policies in any of the three components in this bill. But there is a principle that we continue to practice which has our country bankrupt, and that process is the following: We're going to spend $200 million over the next three years and then we're going to take ten years to pay for it. And we have $350 billion in waste, fraud, and duplication in the federal government that we've done nothing about as a Senate.

And what I’ve offered to do if you split it is to give me 30 minutes on the floor to explain why I want to pay for the AGOA and then have a vote and let it go. But we wouldn't even do that. So not only do we not want to address the real problem, we don't even want to have debate and opportunity to stand up and say whether we're for cutting wasteful spending that even the administration agrees with. That's what was offered. So now we stand here with Burma sanctions going to expire. I'm going to tell you, I’m not moving. I will object to any unanimous consent that doesn't put a real pay-for for this $200 million bill out of real spending in the next year or two or three, which is exactly what we offered to put forward in committee, and what we have offered to negotiate. I'm not going to be a part of kicking the can down the road again.

I am not going to be a part of playing gimmicks where we ask corporations to overpay their taxes so we can get around the 1974 budget act and PayGo and essentially dishonest to the American people about what we're doing. I am not the chairman of the finance committee, but I am a member of this body, and I did not have the right in committee to offer an offset because there were rules they were going to be ruled non-germane, which they weren't; and now consequently we want to ram this thing through, and i'm not going to agree to that happening.

So either we're going to start acting like grown-ups in terms of our debt and not kick the can down the road ten years -- and that's what we're doing; we're going to spend ten years to pay for something we're going to spend over three -- just like we violated PayGo, just like we violated the budget agreement that we just agreed to last august -- we're going to continue do the same thing.

I have the greatest respect for my chairman. He's been here a long time he knows a lot about these issues. he agree they need happen. -- i agree they need to hatch but they don't need to happen on the backs ten years from now. we need to pay for what we're doing now. that's the whole point of this exercise. and i want us to be able to have certainty. I want us to have the Burma sanctions continued. I want us to dot right thing but I want us to do it in the right way and we're not.

What the chairman said is this bill is paid for. I would put forward to the American public that if you went to Wendy's this afternoon and said, "give me a double cheeseburger and, oh, by the way, over the next ten years I am going to pay for it," most Americans would not say it's paid for.

What we're doing is we're taking custom user fees in the years 2021 to understand 20 and 2019 and all the while down pay for this bill. That's the problem. We'll never solve our other problems until we get out of the mind-set of saying, because of the rules we can stretch out the payment and call it paid for. this bill isn't paid for.

It's going to be paid for by the people who import things ten years from now. Not now. that's the whole point. that's why we have a $1.3 trillion deficit this year. that's why we have at least 2 million to 3 million people unemployed in this country, because of our debt. so the point is, is there a point in time where we're going to stop paying for things in the future and pay for them now? that's my objection. I am fully open to passing this bill, if somebody will just pay for it this year. but if we're not going to pay for it this year, then we're not going to pass the bill by unanimous consent.

Nobody else operates this way. Nobody rationalizes that you can pay for -- and the other thing, this is just $200 billion. Everybody outside of Washington, that is a lot of money. Here, it is peanuts. To say we can't pay for something of $200 million in a bill to do this, right now to start the self-discipline of paying for it, it just says I would love to work a solution for this but there is a time and place where you change the direction of how you op operate. and for me, this is the bill that now says to me, we're going to start paying for things. and if we can't pay for a $200 million pay-for in the same year or at least the same three years that we're actually going to spend it, then we're just not going to pass bills with my help.

I'm not just speaking for Tom Coburn. The vast majority of Americans want us to pay for things by cutting wasteful spending. and the fact that we're going to take custom user fees over ten years to pay for this is just ludicrous. and nobody in the rest of the economy can go out and say, 'oh, by the way, i want to consume it now but i'll pay you ten years from now interest free.'

It doesn't work that way. and we ought not to be doing it. so with that, the chairman has my utmost respect. he has a tough job. I know that. I will continue to try to work on a solution for this problem but I am not moving from a position that we're going to pay for the things in the year in which we encounter them.