It took a few weeks, but Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) finally responded to letters from roadies who implored him to reconsider his staunch opposition to a lands bill that contains legislation to reauthorize the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program for another 10 years.
I received an e-mailed response a few days ago from Coburn, but the content didn’t address Route 66 at all.
However, Kathy Anderson and other roadies received similar e-mails that elaborated more about the Mother Road. Here’s Coburn’s response:
Thank you for your email regarding the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program Reauthorization Act (S. 3010) and for your kind words. It is good to hear from you.
As you may know, the Senate Majority Leader decided to combine over 150 individual bills into one “omnibus” bill containing numerous measures that would expand our already oversized federal government and authorize over $8 billion in spending. Please know I am opposing the entire package, though I would support some of the individual bills in it. Overall, this bill would restrict American energy production at a time when over a third of our trade deficit is the result of oil imports, and much of this transfer of our wealth is to nations who are our enemies. For example, the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, which is in the legislative package, by itself would prohibit the production of 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and over 300 million barrels of oil. This bill also imposes consequences on other forms of potential energy production such as geothermal and nuclear power. Such restrictions are a severe setback as our nation seeks to transition to a sustainable energy economy. Additionally, I am concerned the designation of nearly two million acres as wilderness will remove all future energy activity on these lands (Congress has already designated 107 million acres as wilderness), and the nearly 1,000 miles of river designated as wild and scenic will block potential oil and natural gas pipelines critical to American energy independence. Finally, the bill creates four new units of the National Park Service, at a time when the agency faces a $9 billion maintenance backlog on existing obligations.
The bill that you refer to, the Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program, is included in the larger omnibus bill. The program currently allocates cost-share grants to support the preservation of buildings, structures, road segments and cultural landscapes in the eight states through which Route 66 passes. Assistance is also provided for research, planning, oral history and education outreach projects related to the preservation of Route 66.
I certainly appreciate your efforts to preserve our nation’s heritage. It is clear to me that dedicated preservationists in Oklahoma and along the entire route are having a major impact on sustaining this important part of our history. As you know well, Oklahoma has more miles of the original Route 66 than any other state, and I hope to see this portion of our state’s legacy sustained. However, at a time when our federal government faces a $10 trillion in debt, which will grow by another $1 trillion this year, I only favor extending absolutely essential federal responsibilities. Also, as it is written, the Route 66 program would be reauthorized without reducing spending for a lower priority item and that will further block efforts to reduce the growing National Park Service maintenance backlog. While I am encouraged by the work to preserve the route, I also do not believe this is responsible path to take, nor do I believe it falls within our narrow Constitutional authority.
Finally, I would like to clarify some of the media reports regarding this lands omnibus package, which includes the Route 66 program. It is important to note that my objection does not prevent passage of the legislation. The Majority Leader has chosen to try to pass the massive package by unanimous consent, meaning there will be no votes, no amendments, and no public debate. I believe a package of this size and impact-particularly on energy security-should receive full consideration, debate and recorded votes. I have not given consent to passing it unanimously; however, it could be passed at any time if the Majority Leader brought the measure the Senate floor, and embarked on regular order and debate. My objection can be overcome with 60 votes, yet it appears the bill’s supporters would rather have a political issue rather than a spirited debate. I believe we uphold the values of the senate, and of our Constitution, when we take the time to read bills and debate them.
Although I oppose this bill, I appreciate your voice in the matter, and I promise to carefully consider all legislation that is brought before me in the Senate.
So there it is.
I don’t mind Coburn being a deficit hawk, but you’d think at least he’d be more consistent about it. Less than three months ago, he voted for the $700 billion bailout of the financial system — one of the most expensive bills in U.S. history.
And Coburn dodged or ignored the compelling case made by roadies to keep the program going. It makes one wonder whether he read it at all.
Like most other legislation that gets passed, the Congress is going to have to do another end-around of Coburn. No man is an island, especially in the U.S. Senate.