Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008

Floor Speech

TOM LANTOS AND HENRY J. HYDE UNITED STATES GLOBAL LEADERSHIP AGAINST HIV/AIDS, TUBERCULOSIS, AND MALARIA REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008 -- (Senate - July 16, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as I was saying, I think we can all agree that providing relief for those afflicted with the AIDS virus is a worthy and noble goal. I appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, and the Senator from Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, for their work.

I think we all would recognize, though, that it is important not only that Congress provide appropriate oversight for the various programs that we create and the spending that we authorize but that we actually do everything we can to make sure any waste associated with a Government program, particularly one as big as this one, with a $50 billion authorization, that we establish mechanisms that will allow us to review and provide the appropriate oversight, and, if necessary, eliminate inefficient and wasteful programs.

My amendment establishes the bipartisan U.S. Authorization and Sunset Commission, which will help improve oversight and eliminate wasteful Government spending in programs reauthorized or established by S. 2731, the PEPFAR bill.

Just to be clear, in negotiations with the majority leader, I actually had a sunset commission bill modeled after the sunset commission in my State and a variety of States that has been enormously effective in looking across the Government to reduce waste and inefficient programs. But in our negotiations we agreed this would be narrowly addressed in the PEPFAR Program, which I think is appropriate. But I want to say that I intend to be here at every opportunity pressing this issue because of its importance across the Federal Government in reducing waste and inefficiency.

As I said, the sunset commission idea was modeled after the process in my State, which--and I know many other States, but in Texas it was instituted in 1977 and has eliminated, over time, more than 50 State agencies that were no longer serving their stated purpose and saved State taxpayers more than $700 million.

The commission consists of four Senators and four Members of the House of Representatives. The CBO and GAO will serve as nonvoting ex officio members. My original intent, as I said, was to make this more broad than just the PEPFAR Program, but perhaps this would be a great sort of pilot program, if you will, to see how it works, as we consider programs and expand it more broadly.

The commission will recommend ways to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the PEPFAR Program according to a timeline. While certainly this $50 billion is an awful lot of money, and certainly it is $20 billion over and above what the President actually originally asked for, and as the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office has said, it is probably going to be impossible for the program to spend more than $35 billion within the 5-year budget window, it makes it even more important--the matter of making sure that the money is spent for intended purposes--that it is actually used to treat AIDS and HIV and actually help people get better and not waste it on extraneous matters. Under this amendment, Congress cannot simply ignore the commission's report. The amendment provides expedited procedures that will force Congress to consider and debate the commission's work, similar to the BRAC procedures.

This commission will help Congress do the necessary oversight to make sure every taxpayer dollar under PEPFAR is being spent wisely. The commission will focus on unauthorized and ineffective programs, as I said. The simple fact is, within the myriad of programs, funds, and organizations funded by Congress each year, the Office of Management and Budget has done a review of about 1,000 Government programs and concluded that about 25 percent of them were either ineffective or that the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, said there was not sufficient information to make a conclusion one way or another.

That is 25 percent of about 1,000 Government programs. So we know there is waste and ineffectiveness of Government programs, and the need for more oversight is there. I think this would basically provide Congress two bites at the apple when it comes to evaluating Federal spending: when it authorizes a program, and, secondly, when it appropriates money for it.

Year after year the Congressional Budget Office has found that Congress appropriates billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on programs, despite the fact that their authorization has expired. This means Congress has dropped the ball when it comes to doing the hard work of figuring out whether these programs are working and whether taxpayers' money is being spent efficiently or wastefully.

While we all do our best to ensure that proper oversight is given to every program, we simply do not have the tools or the time necessary to monitor and review every program. That is why this sunset commission review is important. It would give these tools, specifically because of the narrowed-down nature of the amendment, to the PEPFAR Program. But I think it is particularly applicable, given the fact that this bill would more than triple the amount of Government spending for this particular program.

The commission will be of assistance to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It will not replace their work; instead, it will supplement their work. It will serve as another set of eyeballs, keeping a close eye on the wallets of the taxpayer.

Let me be clear, though, in conclusion. This is not a problem only for PEPFAR and this program, it is a problem in every part of our Government. I continue to support the creation of a sunset commission that would review all Government operations--from transportation to scientific research to foreign aid. And my hope is at a later point we will be able to urge its adoption more broadly.

Simply put, the purpose of the commission is to ask: Is this program still needed? Is it still serving the intended purpose? Is the money that Congress has appropriated, is it accomplishing the goal that Congress intends?

I think, and my hope is, that my colleagues would support this amendment and provide this needed additional oversight that would assist the Congress in making sure that taxpayers' money is being spent as intended to help the worthy humanitarian purposes for which this particular program is intended.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I think everyone admires the humanitarian intent of this legislation. But the American people have a right to know that their money is going to be spent for the intended purpose--to treat AIDS and HIV in the countries covered--and that it is not wasted. One of the reasons foreign aid gets a bad rap is because people wonder whether it is going to be squandered or used appropriately.

The only thing this amendment does is provide an extra set of eyes to make sure every dollar is spent, as Congress intended, on a humanitarian purpose. This is especially important under this particular program because the Congressional Budget Office says that even though this bill authorizes $50 billion for this purpose, only about $35 billion could actually be spent during the 5-year period covered by this bill. What is going to happen to the additional $15 billion? One might ask, are we going to try to jam $15 billion more into the program than can actually be spent effectively and efficiently to accomplish congressional purpose?

The extra set of eyes would be welcome. It doesn't substitute for the important oversight work the committee is performing, but when the Office of Management and Budget surveys 1,000 Government programs and finds that almost a quarter of them are not operating the way Congress intended or there is not enough evidence to tell, which I am not sure which is worse, we have to be more diligent than we have been about spending money effectively.

As regards the uncertainty of future Congresses and how they might act, that is inherent in the fact that Congress can pass laws, can repeal laws. That is part of what we do, the reason why we have an open process and full and fair debate on issues. No one is suggesting that is going to happen here. I am saying, let's make sure this money is spent for the intended purpose.

Source