Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we have addressed this amendment 2 years prior to now, and we have passed it each year in the House. What this amendment does is limit and prohibit the use of funds by the Food and Drug Administration in approving any drug that's sole intended purpose is the chemical inducement of an abortion. Why is this important? First of all, if we go and look at the authorizing language to the Food and Drug Administration what we will find is that, in fact, its charge and its mission is to provide safety and efficacy for life and health. There is nothing about the chemical inducement of an abortion that is safe, either for the mother or for the unborn child. The other reason that this is important is that it violates the very premise under which the FDA was authorized. What this amendment would do is it would limit the expenditure of Federal funds by the Food and Drug Administration in their efforts to approve drugs whose sole purpose is to terminate life, to take the life of an unborn child. One of the things that has come to light over the last 3 years that now cannot be disputed scientifically is that we have an ever enlarging number of women who encounter breast cancer. And although it is not politically correct in our culture today, the fact is that having an abortion markedly increases one's risk for breast cancer. There are now 10 out of 11 studies that prove that without a shadow of a doubt. An analysis of all those studies combined, plus other studies, show that there is a 30 percent increase in the risk for breast cancer. We have funded through this Congress and many others marked research in breast cancer. We just passed a breast cancer and cervical cancer bill through this House with the whole goal to extend the life of these women. It would seem fitting to me that we would not want to allow the FDA to go down a course in which their whole intended purpose is to take the life of the unborn child. The other thing that is important in this is that drugs that are intended solely for this purpose are intended so to take the life of a child under 9 weeks of age. We also have irrefutable evidence that now an unborn child at 19 days post conception has a heartbeat, and at 41 days post conception has brain waves. If we look at our definition of death in this country and we say that the absence of brain waves and the absence of a heartbeat is death, then certainly the opposite of that is life. So what we are talking about is taking unborn life. Whether we fight about when life begins or not, we know it is present at 41 days. So we are talking about authorizing an agency of the Federal Government to figure out how best to provide a drug to take that life. That is not what this country is about, it is not what this bill should be about, and I would ask that the Members support this amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. COBURN. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, the European Union today has just as strong rules as we do. They import drugs from all over. In terms of quality, efficacy, and safety, their laws are almost exactly the same. They are coming from a range of 13 to 15 countries. If they can do it, certainly we can do it with our neighbors.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think a couple of points are important. Number one is when we get a drug in this country, we do not know where it is made, because a large portion of our drugs in this country are made in Europe, made in South America, made in Puerto Rico, in FDA- approved facilities. They have to meet that standard. That is number one. Will there be an accident? Sure, there will be. I will not deny that there will be a mistake made in filling a prescription just like there is every day in this country as well. However, I would challenge the ranking member on this committee, how many people are not getting the medicines they needed to because they cannot afford to get them, and if we allow competition to resume, which this is just one way of doing it, whom of them will markedly benefit their health, their quality of life? People's lives are being shortened today because of the abnormally high and ridiculously increased prices of many pharmaceuticals out there. Can we assure 100 percent safety? No. The FDA cannot now. As a matter of fact, what they do is they look at drugs and say, are they safe enough? There is not any drug that is absolutely safe. Aspirin is not absolutely safe. But are we going to markedly increase the risk for Americans with this? Absolutely not. The FDA knows those facilities. Will they have absolute assurance on a drug like Viagra, will somebody try to prostitute that drug and make a substitute? They are doing that now and they are bringing them in. It is not going to be a new problem for the FDA, and it is not going to be more of a problem. What it is going to be is more access at better prices for our seniors and everybody else in this country for the pharmaceuticals, because the competitive model is not working in this industry today. This will be a shot that says that we need the competition to work. That is why we want to do this.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, my point is said by this chart, is that, in fact, the rule of the land is that they do not provide good health care unless they are willing to terminate an unborn child. That is NARAL's position. That is where we are headed with the language as it is written in this bill. This bill has great intention. The authors never intended this quirk of availability to be there. That was not the intention of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). But it is there. And unless it is fixed, what will happen is NARAL's position that they are not providing health care unless they are terminating unborn children in every health plan, every Catholic hospital in this country that are on health insurance or extended facility will be at the mercy of NARAL. Seventy-five percent of the people in this country, the latest poll, believes it is murder to kill an unborn child. Twenty-five percent of the people in this country are wrong. They are wrong. There is a God in heaven, and we will pay a price for what we are doing to unborn children. Do not let this bill go out of this House without this amendment. My colleagues will doom not only those organizations that are there for life, but they will doom some of the best health care organizations in the country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, if, in fact, the gentleman is correct, then there is nothing wrong with my amendment. If, in fact, he is incorrect, and I believe he is, that the unintended consequence is exactly as I described, we will, in fact, have the situation as I described.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to answer the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood). Mr. Chairman, what the bill says is that they can negotiate for abortion rights but they cannot negotiate for life. That is the ultimate result of this language. And in fact, it puts in jeopardy every Catholic hospital in this country. What it also does, to say that this is not happening is the California Medical Association has already tried to introduce this law. It is through the State of California to mandate that every health care provider and every health care organization offer abortion services. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me quote from the bill: Nothing in this section shall exempt from the application of the antitrust laws any agreement or otherwise unlawful conspiracy that excludes, limits, the participation or reimbursement or other otherwise limits the scope of services to be provided by any health care professional, or group of health care professionals, with respect to the performance of services that are within their scope of practice as defined by permitted relevant law or regulation. Well, let me tell my colleagues what that very slickly says. What that says is that health care providers have the right to retain services, but no right to exemption from antitrust laws to reduce services. So if a group, if a Catholic hospital buys a hospital that is presently performing abortions and under their conscience do not additionally want to offer that service, then in fact they will not be able to do that. So that is not the intention of this author, and I understand that. That was never his intention. But that is the result and the effect is that those hospitals in this country who consciously object to the taking of unborn life can in fact be forced to perform that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is an ironic twist that I am against my doctor friends in the House. I do so not without risk to myself. I was castigated at the AMA when they had the House of Delegates because I opposed the bill. I voted for the Patients' Bill of Rights. I have worked hard to try to see that we get a bill for patients. I understand the motivation, severely, behind this bill. I think the motivation is pure. But I do think that our obligation, and as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) said, if a patient came to him, he would do it whether he got paid or not. How is it we have a health care system where we have to make a consideration about whether we get paid or not, whether or not there is a question about adequate remuneration? The fact is that this is about money, unfortunately. To say it is about patient care is really not true, because everything I have heard from the doctors that I have talked about has been about money. Money is associated with patient care. The question has been raised about low monthly payments for patients in an HMO, but the only way an HMO can force a doctor to accept $10 a month for pediatric care is if there are way too many doctors in that market. So although the goals and the desires of my friends from the AMA are good, what they want to do is continue to perpetrate the maldistribution of physicians in this country. The other thing to think about is if this bill becomes law and Members live in a rural district, half of their doctors will no longer be in the rural district because we will have set up a system where they can come to the urban areas, where many of them would rather be, and get the same treatment because we can negotiate the fees higher. So we are going to disrupt further the distribution of physicians in the country. I am with my brothers and sisters in the medicine field. I believe this is the wrong way to solve our problem. The right way to solve our problem is the Patients' Bill of Rights. If this amendment is accepted and my amendment is accepted, I will be voting for this bill.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, every doctor in this country, unless they work for an HMO firm as a company doctor judging other doctors, is frustrated in this country. What the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) just described to you is a situation that does, in fact, occur. One of the things that happens is the doctor is consolidated into a group. That group as a group can decide whether or not they will or will not take an HMO contract. The problem is that in urban areas, we have way too many doctors, and the only way an HMO or an insurance company can take advantage of that is when there is an excess of physicians. So the real answer to this problem is to, in fact, allow the marketplace to work. The problem is the former bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), which we should be voting on, which takes away the exemption from the insurance companies rather than giving it to the physicians.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, say that as a practicing physician I am extremely frustrated with the position physicians are placed in in this country in not being able to make decisions to care for their patients. I think the problem that the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) is trying to address with this bill is a real problem, but I think this is the wrong fix. I do want to take exception to what he said about the position as to certain organizations wanting to require people to have to perform abortion services or to offer them. In his own State, in the California legislature this year, by a very narrow margin, a bill that would have forced Catholic hospitals in his own State was offered and barely defeated. It is the position of the California Medical Association that, in fact, that be the policy in California. That position was offered in the House of Delegates at the AMA this year. So to claim that this is not an intent is not true; it is an intent in the long run to limit the conscious objection of health care providers and the hospitals to not provide abortion services. I am leaving this House at the end of this session, and I will be in practice; and I will tell my colleagues that if the Campbell bill becomes law, I will utilize it vigorously. But it will not be, in the long term, the best thing for medicine. Because the prices would rise exorbitantly; and after that has happened, then the focus of the health care problems that we have in the country then will be on the doctors, and we are not the ones to blame. But through our frustration, through the lack of fees to keep pace, through our inability to care for our patients, we are bound to do the wrong thing. So I adamantly oppose the Campbell bill. I was originally a cosponsor of this bill, and my first thought was, I thought this was a good idea. Thinking through of what I want the profession of medicine to be 10 years from now, I think this is a terrible bill. I think the rule is fair.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the original House- passed bill had $4 billion in defense spending in it which is not in this bill that was moved to the Defense Appropriations bill?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I think we need to ask ourselves, there is no question there are significant needs in this bill. But we are getting ready to vote on a bill that is $2.7 billion larger than the bill we voted on before. Nobody in this body outside of those in the appropriations process is going to be privy to what is in this. The question will be, do we know what we are voting on? The answer to that is no. If my colleagues feel very comfortable in spending $11.2 billion and not knowing where the money is going, then we should take that up. I will not object, but I think we are doing a disservice to the people of this country. I also might note that in this appropriation bill is $105 million in both the Senate and the House to sprinkle around for us, just $105 million each; $105 million for pork projects or otherwise. My colleagues are not going to know where it is, but they are going to vote for it whether they agree with it or not. So I will withdraw my reservation, but I think the process, even though well-intended, will create major problems for us here forward. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to get in this debate, but one of the things I heard that really bothered me is an assumption that the American people should not take as fact. There is no shortage of money. Discretionary spending from this Congress last year rose almost 9 percent, three times the rate of inflation in this country. So dare we not make the case that money is tight. Our pocketbooks that we are spending of taxpayers' money is growing three times the rate most of them are seeing increases in their own budget. The second contention that I would make is that it is okay to fund research that is not necessarily legitimate, because sometimes something positive comes out of it. I am reminded of the research that was appropriated when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was chairman of the committee that studied the flatulence of cows. There has been nothing positive that has come out of that approach. It is ironic that we would be so resistent to a lessening of programs that are not necessarily cogent and reasonable that are necessarily related to regional politics and reelection.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent for the body to extend the time on this debate for 4 minutes and allow me a total of 5 minutes to speak.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, point of inquiry. Is it out of order to make a unanimous consent request outside of the rule for additional time on extension of the rule?

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.