Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we have only one remaining speaker. I reserve the balance of the time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, the analogy of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is very apropos. Being somebody who delivered two babies this weekend, both of them over 9 pounds, sometimes when one has got a baby and one is going to give it a bath, the first thing one has got to do is get the baby out of the mama's tummy to give the bath to it. Sometimes they do not always come out right. Sometimes one takes a pair of forceps, salad tongs, and gets that baby out of there. I am trying to get the emergency baby out of this bill. I would appreciate anybody's vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. There is an issue that is before us that really does not have anything to do with the census. There is an issue before us that does not have anything to do with the budget. The issue that is before us is dare we pull the wool over the American people's eyes about calling something an emergency when it is not. We have heard several people say we are not going to have a census if this amendment comes through. Everybody knows we are going to have a census. What they are really saying, when they are saying that, is they do not want to do the hard work to find the real money to pay for this and not take it from the Social Security fund. That is what the real answer is. That is not what is said, but that is what is intended. We all know that because we all know if this amendment passes the Committee on Appropriations is going to have to find the money for the census. I know that we can explain a lot of things back home, but I think it is a real stretch for us to be so arrogant to say we can go home, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said, and say we just forgot, therefore, it is an emergency. This is not an emergency. What will be an emergency is if we spend and break our word with regard to the Social Security surplus. There were two people in this body who voted for the President's budget to raise taxes and raise spending. Two people. Everybody else in this body voted against that budget. Everybody else voted for one of two budgets that said we will not, under any circumstances, touch Social Security money. So it is really an issue about whether or not we are going to be truthful with the American public. It is not truthful to say there will not be a census if this amendment passes because we all know there will be. It is not truthful to tell the American public that it is an emergency to fund a census because somebody forgot. They did not forget. They did not put it in, including from the Committee on the Budget. I know this from having a conversation with the chairman, because they were hoping to force a decrease in spending so they did not elicit it. So nobody really forgot. We can do what we need to do. We can take care of every American that is dependent on us; we can have an accurate census; we just need to do it more efficiently. We need to remeasure the programs that we are passing money for. Are they effective, are they doing it the most efficient way? Our problem this year is we are refusing to do the steps that will help us become efficient in our government as we are in every other aspect of our society. The Senate is talking about, and we will be discussing as well, emergency spending for the farmers, the most efficient farmers in the world. We cannot ask them to cut their costs any more. They are already the cheapest in the world by far. Let them be an example to us. Let us make every program that the Federal Government runs as efficient as the farmers are in this country. If we do that, we will have $100 billion with which to fund the census and everything else we need. I want my colleagues to check their hearts and ask themselves if they can go home and tell the people in their districts that this census is an emergency; that they had to spend their constituents' Social Security money and their grandchildren are just going to have to pay a little bit more to fund the Social Security system. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is very straightforward. It eliminates that portion of the census which is not truly an emergency from this bill. Our Founding Fathers wrote in that we would have a numerical count of the population of this country every 10 years. We have, in fact, known that we were going to be required to have a census count in the year 2000 in 1990. We knew it in 1980. We have known it since the country was founded. The application of an emergency designation for something that is well-known to need to occur is inappropriate in this case. Because I could not strike it purely as an emergency, my only option was to strike the amount. I want to give my colleagues the criteria for funding something as an emergency, and this is under the rules of the House. ``It is necessary, essential or vital.'' Well, it meets that. ``It is sudden, quickly coming into being and not building up over time.'' It definitely does not meet that. ``It is an urgent, pressing and compelling need requiring emergency action.'' It does not meet that. We have known that. ``It is unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated.'' It does not meet that because we have known about this for a considerable amount of time. ``It is not permanent.'' Well, it meets that. This is a 1-year expenditure. But it does not qualify under these guidelines. Describing the census as unforeseen, unpredictable and unanticipated is difficult given the fact we have a 10-year census every 10 years. If the census was not an emergency last year, how can it be an emergency this year? Last year, Congress provided $1.8 billion to begin preparing for the year 2000 census. Now, we are going to hear, and the supporters of emergency spending will argue that we could not have anticipated the Supreme Court ruling requiring actual enumeration for the apportionment of seats in Congress but permitting the use of sampling for the distribution of Federal grants. With the ruling, they argue that additional funds are needed to perform both sampling and enumeration. However, according to the Bureau of the Census permitting both enumeration and sampling will cost only $1.7 billion more than their original request. That is nowhere near the $4.5 billion in emergency funds provided by the House appropriation. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), has done a great job on this bill. With the exception of this designation, this is the best bill from this appropriations subcommittee that has come out since I have been a Member of Congress, and I want to say now that I appreciate very greatly the hard work the gentleman and his staff have done. But I cannot go home to Oklahoma and ask the people of my State to justify spending emergency funds off budget and potentially funds to come from the Social Security surplus for this count. We can and we must find the available funds within the existing government expenditures. That does not mean that efforts have not been made. What are the short-term effects of calling this an emergency designation? Right now, if we say we have a true surplus that is going to occur in the year 2000 of $14 billion, $9.25 billion of that are available for the Congress to spend. If we allocate some of that back to the people who paid it in, a mere $4.5 billion out of a $1.8 trillion budget, what happens is we will have no money with which to fund the most important appropriation bills to come, that for our veterans and that for those that are most dependent upon us in our society. If Congress hopes to address the shortfalls in Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education funding, or assist American farmers, which is a very real likelihood that is coming to us in the near future, we will either have to eliminate giving back some of the people some of their money, which I believe is entirely possible given where we are, or steal money from Social Security. So that I would ask the Members of this body to support this amendment on two basic reasons: Number one, this is not an emergency. It does not meet the rules of the House under emergency. And, number two, it is more than likely going to come out of the Social Security fund, which every Member of this House has pledged and obligated themselves not to touch except for Social Security. Mr. Chairman, with that I would make one final note that the other body did not declare funding for the census an emergency.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things, I think. If we are talking about keeping commitments, everybody in this body committed not to spend Social Security money on anything but Social Security. That is what we are putting at risk. Number two, where is the question about why it should cost $24 per person in this country to take the census when it cost $11 in 1990, which I find ridiculously high. There is no accountability for the numbers that have been put forward in the budget. There is no efficiency for it. Even if we pass this amendment, there will be money for the census. We will bring money back for the census. Our job as Members of this body is to pay for the things that the American public want and need. I agree we need to fund the census. I agree that we need to be honest with the American public about this not being an emergency and us not having to account for it. The real issue is do we have the courage to reduce the spending somewhere else to make the appropriate dollars for the census?

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman knows through our conversations that what my preference to do would be just to eliminate the emergency designation. However, the parliamentary rules prohibited both he or I from doing that very thing. I wanted to make that clear. My choice is not to eliminate the money but also to pay it.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple more points. One of the questions that we have not spent time with is holding the administration accountable for why it should cost $24 to count for every man, woman, and child in this country. Now, think about that. The State of Oklahoma has 3 million people. What is 24 times three? It is $72 million to count the people in Oklahoma. Give me a break. Or give me that contract. I will leave Congress right now. Give me the contract. I will become a multi- millionaire just from counting the people. The cost to count is abhorrent to anybody that is out there who knows anything about putting forth the process. We use this process not just to count but to employ a lot of people who otherwise would not have jobs. That is a social good. I do not disagree with that. But to have a $24-per-person cost in this country to count says we are much more inefficient. And that is an indication of the rest of our government which says we could surely find this $4.5 billion somewhere else.

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

Mr. COBURN. I would make two points with the gentleman. Number one is if we really were wanting to attack those communities that were underfunded, I would have included the $1.7 billion that is there designed to do the statistical sampling. We did not do that. So I do not think it is fair to say that that is what we are targeting. It is also not fair to say that we do not want a census. What we are saying is we think it is not honest to the American public to declare something an emergency that is not and, number two, I would make the point that the $14.5 billion that is recommended to be on-budget surplus is made by cooking the books.

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, the average Member in the House of Representatives turns back almost $45,000 a year, of which, if we gave our staff an 8 percent increase, we would have more than enough money, based on that average turnback. So the fact is, there is plenty of money turned back in now to have every Member and all their employees a cost of living increase.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, there is no question I want our staff to be adequately paid. I do not think that is what this is about. It sounds good, but it is not. We have so liberalized the rules on Membership's accounts that we can move money from office overhead, we can take our mail money, which averages well over $100,000 per Member, the frank, and use that money for staff salaries. The fact is, there is nothing in this motion to instruct that limits Members' abilities to pay their staff competitive salaries with the Senate. The other thing that I would say is that we are seeing reflected in the House through the appropriation process how good of a job we do in our own offices. What we are saying is, we cannot control the costs in our own offices, we cannot run them efficiently. Therefore, we need to have more money. People on social security this year are going to get less than 2 percent, and what the conference is about to do is to increase the MRAs for every Member 5 percent. If Members want to tell their seniors that they deserve 2\1/2\ times the increase that they have to buy the food and buy the drugs that are out there for their living, that is fine, vote against this motion to instruct. But if Members think we ought to lead by example, that we ought to do the hard work, maybe we will send less mail in terms of mass mailings, maybe we will just answer the letters that come to us and not use it as a political wedge, then we can accomplish what we need for our staffs and we can live within a budget, as we are asking the American people to do as we try to live within the caps and not spend social security money.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, there is not anybody that I probably respect more than the former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop. When I saw a copy of the letter that he sent our Speaker yesterday, I knew something was wrong. So I called him and I asked him about his letter. Mr. Chairman, I asked him the following four questions. I said, ``Dr. Koop, have you read these studies?'' What was the answer? No. ``Dr. Koop, do you think needle exchange programs, as presently designed in the United States, will work?'' The answer was no. ``Dr. Koop, why did you write the letter?'' The answer: ``Because in the areas in Europe where I have seen these programs work, where every needle is actually accounted for, there is some hope that they work.'' He then went on to offer the fact that he knew that in communities where there is some drug abuse, and he mentioned specifically Harlem, that a needle exchange program would never work because the culture of the addicts in our society is they will not account for the needle. They have no idea where they left them. So, as we consider his letter and his conversation with me, it falls prey to the same problems that we have seen on this debate, and that is the people who believe it is good have never read the studies. The science there undoubtedly shows that we have an increase in Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV. With every study that has been done thus far, if we account for those that are in the study at the beginning and at the end and because we want to help people, we are about to do something very, very wrong. I hope to be able to speak on the subject again. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following letter from C. Everett Koop: C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D., Surgeon General (Ret.), U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, DC, July 26, 1999. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, The Capitol, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: Having worked on the HIV/AIDS epidemic since its emergence in the U.S., I am now writing to express my strong belief that local programs of clean needle exchange can be an effective means of preventing the spread of the disease without increasing the use of illicit drugs. While I do not believe that clean needle programs are a panacea for all settings, it is clear from careful and well-documented public health studies that such programs have worked in many areas and have great potential for making further reductions in the incidence of new infections. Consequently, it would be counterproductive for the Congress to enact a Federal measure that would limit the ability of local and State public health agencies and voluntary organizations to carry out needle exchange programs. Such action by the Congress would undoubtedly result in HIV infections that could have been prevented and would unnecessarily enlarge and prolong the epidemic. If local authorities or organizations determine that needle exchange programs are appropriate to the epidemic as it affects their communities, the Congress should allow them to use all possible measures and funding sources to stem the spread of this deadly disease. I urge you to oppose any effort to limit the public health response to the AIDS epidemic. Sincerely, C. Everett Koop, M.D., Sc.D.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize that was a very moving statement. Had it been based on the facts that these kids could not be adopted, it would be relevant. But the fact is that this amendment would not prohibit one of the children that was just described by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) from being adopted. And to say that is being less than straightforward. This amendment says that even though two people might be living together who are unmarried, one of them can adopt. So it does not preclude the adoption of any group in any way from anytime adopting. It is just saying, if they are not married under the legal definition of ``marriage,'' only one of them can have that child as their child. So one of the things we do real often is confuse the issue. What does this amendment really say? It does not say that a gay person cannot adopt a child. It does not say that anybody cannot adopt a child. What it says is, if a child is adopted in a relationship that is not recognized by law, that it can be only adopted by one of those members, not both, so that the child is not confused, so that the courts are not confused about what the legal representation of that adoption is. So let us be sure we are straight about what this amendment does. It is a great emotional word picture to think that a child who is dying or a child that is disabled cannot be adopted. But, in fact, it is not true under this amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say first of all that I have admiration for those who support this program, because what they are really saying is that they care about those people who are addicted. However, I also would say, we care too. The debate divides on how best to solve the problem, and the issue is, are we best solving the problem by reducing risk, or do we best solve the problem by avoiding risk? I want to give my colleagues a corollary. This year, 13 million Americans are going to get infected with an STD; 45 percent of those will never get rid of that infection. Our message to our children has been, you can practice risky behavior as long as you use safe methods to do it. So our message has been, we are going to reduce the risk. And as our message of risk reduction has come about, we have the largest incidence of sexually transmitted disease of any society, and the largest growth of incurable viral diseases. HIV is nothing compared to what is going to happen in this country in terms of chlamydia, human papilloma virus, and the cancer that is going to be associated with it. So the debate really decides, how do we care the most? The compassion exhibited by wanting to eliminate the transmission is a wonderful, compelling argument. But it is not enough compassion. We have to have enough compassion to eliminate the problem and not enable people to fail, as we are enabling our children to fail, by our message of safe sex with a condom that does not protect 50 percent of the sexually transmitted disease in this country today. So the heart is right; the message is wrong. If we really want to help these people, then we will redouble our efforts to drug treatment centers, not enable them to continue to fail. The final thing is, what happens to somebody when they get hepatitis C in this country? And that is the growing epidemic in this country, not HIV. It is hepatitis C. That person does one of two things: they either die or they get a liver transplant. So if we want to enable this epidemic to continue to flourish, then we need to give all of the drug addicts in this country needles, because they are sharing the needles anyway, and that is what the studies show. We are not lessening their long-term health consequences; we are, in fact, enabling them to fail and die of diseases.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, I continue to be amazed. I do not believe there is anybody on that side of the aisle that has actually read the studies. I have read every study on drug use. I want to give my colleagues some statistics about Vancouver. We do not misinterpret them; we read the conclusions at the end of the studies. I actually have with me the Vancouver study, and I will be happy to quote their summation. But let me list for my colleagues some of the things that have been said about the Vancouver program. The Vancouver Police Department stated there is a 24-hour drug market now because there is a study at the location of the needle exchange program. Number two, property crime of all sorts is highest of any other place in Vancouver where the needle exchange program is located. Number three, the elementary teachers will not let their schoolchildren go outside in this area of Vancouver because there are needles strung out all over. They are fearful that these children will be infected with one of the needles. Absent any mandate for drug treatment, needle exchange programs will focus on what they can afford and do best, exchange needles. All interviewees associated with Vancouver stated that needle exchange program was not a silver bullet, but in reality that is what we are trying to do. The fact is there is a 33 percent increase in those using needles in the needle exchange program of Vancouver, increase in HIV infection compared to those drug addicts who are not in a program.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the sign we just saw was accurate. There is no question about it. But the one thing that the gentlewoman from California fails to ignore, if we are holding a baby in our arms, like I have in Haiti and in Iraq, and the dollars are not there to care for them, it does not matter if they are going to have another baby because the baby that is there is going to die. That is what this amendment is really about is whether or not we are going to fund the vaccines, the fluids, and the care for the children that are already born. She is absolutely right. If we can extend the time between pregnancies, we do enhance the likelihood of living beyond 5. But remember, 40 percent of the children in Haiti now die under 5 anyway. Haiti, in our hemisphere, 40 percent are gone. Why? Because we are not supplying the needs of those children with the funds that we have today. So I have been to Haiti. I have served time. I have experienced what has happened there. I have been to the Kurdish land in northern Iraq. I experienced what happened there. We do not supply the needs for the children that are alive today. There is nothing wrong with this amendment that cannot help accomplish both what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) would desire and help those children who presently we are not helping.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I have put a sign I know that not everybody can read, but this is a contrast between two countries, country A and country B. It is the exact representation made by the State Department as far as human rights in those two countries as of the end of 1998. I want to share with the Members just a minute what our own government says about these two countries. Then I am going to tell Members what these two countries are. The government human rights record worsens significantly, there were problems in many areas, including extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture, brutal beatings, arbitrary arrests, and detention. That is country A. Country B, the government's human rights record deteriorated sharply beginning in the final months of the year with a crackdown against organized political dissent. Abuses included instances of extrajudicial killings, torture, mistreatment of prisoners, forced confessions, arbitrary arrests, detention, lengthy incommunicado detention, and denial of due process. One other area let us look at, discrimination and violence against women remain serious problems. Discrimination against women and ethnic minorities worsened during the year. Country B, discrimination against women, minorities, and the disabled. Violence against women, including coercive family planning practices, which sometimes include forced abortion, forced sterilization, prostitution, trafficking in women and children, and abuse of children. They are all problems. I want Members to know who these two countries are. Country A we just spent billions of dollars bombing. It is called Yugoslavia, the great enemy Yugoslavia, that perpetrated such terrible acts on the Kosovar Albanians. We spent billions bombing them. The other country, country B, is China, which we have elevated and said we must trade with, regardless of what they do to their people. We are schizophrenic if we do continue to have normal trade relations with China. Why would we bomb one that has an identical record, and say the other must be our best trading partner? It has to do with money, Mr. Speaker. Is America going to sell its soul?

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I appreciate very much the hard work through the years the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has done in terms of the appropriation process, but I would remind the gentleman that we are going to work hard towards that goal and that he voted for a motion to recommit not to spend $1 of Social Security money; and if in fact we do not save that money, what he is saying is that it is okay to spend the Social Security money. And as my colleagues know, one of the things about Washington, and I want to give our chairman of our Committee on Appropriations his full due, they have worked hard. For the first time in a long time we will have passed five bills that are essentially at a hard freeze out of the House, and the appropriators have done that, and to accuse them of playing a game; it is not a game. $150 million is not a game to anybody in this country, and if we can make it 700 million after this bill, and we can make it 2 billion after the next two or three bills, then we are well on our way of meeting and living up to the commitment that every Member of this body made to the seniors of this country and their children who are going to pay for Social Security. So although his position may be that it is a facade and that we are trying to fool people, the fact is it is hard not to spend money in Washington. That has been proven by the last 50 years of the Congresses up here, and our appropriation leadership and our leadership has said we are going to try to do the best we can to keep the commitment to the American public.