Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, yes, I want to save $2 million for senior citizens for the Social Security system. There is no question I want to do that.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I am just trying to get us down to the Senate. It is ironic that we are above the Senate, but I am trying to get us down to the Senate.

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, we have just heard a debate over why we should transfer money out of clean coal technology to a fund that was designed for conservation and protection of land and environment. And we heard several people say that we ought to live up to that commitment, that that is the purpose for that fund. And we are going to vote on that in a little bit. This bill, in conjunction with the rest of the bills, has just as much commitment that should be attached to it. I wanted to take a minute first and say to the chairman and the ranking member how much I appreciate the cooperation that they have given us this year in working on this bill, in taking our suggestions towards savings and the collegial manner in which they accepted some of our ideas and did not accept others. I am appreciative of the hard work they have done and the attitude with which they have accepted some of our ideas. The purpose behind this amendment is to show the disparity when we look at just administrative accounts for the Fish and Wildlife Service. This bill, as it is presently written, has a 6.6 percent increase in administration of the Fish and Wildlife Service for a total of $114.7 million. And out of this, the central administration, that here in Washington, is increased by 6 percent; but the regional administration, those areas outside of Washington, are increased by only 3.5 percent. So what, in effect, this bill does, besides the fact that it increases at three times the rate of inflation the bureaucracy associated with Fish and Wildlife, not touching any of the programs but just simply the administrative portion of this, it increases Washington-based bureaucracy at almost twice the rate at which we give increased funds for administration outside of Washington. The committee also increases the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation by 16.6 percent and increases the international affairs administration by 32 percent. There is no question we should adequately fund these organizations, but I think there is a legitimate question that should be asked, and there should be an explanation by the committee as to why a bureaucracy here in Washington needs an increase in its administrative costs of 6.6 percent when, in fact, our seniors who are going to receive a Social Security increase in terms of cost of living are going to receive somewhere around 1.8 percent. So we are going to recognize that it takes 3\1/2\ to four times to do in Washington what we are going to recognize that is needed by the members of our society who are receiving Social Security, not to mention the fact that this money is going to come out of Social Security, this increase in spending. So the real question is, are we going to increase bureaucracy costs at a rate far above inflation and at the same time take the money to do that from the Social Security fund; or can we not pare it back to a 2 percent increase? Can we not realistically ask the employees of the Federal Government to live within the constraints we are asking the rest of the country to live within? So the purpose of this amendment basically brings us back down to a legitimate cost-of-living increase in terms of administrative costs. I understand that Federal employees are going to have a pay increase out of that, but that is not the far and greater portion of this increase. And I would compare also the increases that were in the House-marked bill with what the Senate has marked up. And when we look at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, they gave them an 8.3 percent increase. We have given them a 16.6 percent increase. In international affairs we gave them a 32 percent increase and the Senate gave a 4.7 percent increase. Overall, the Senate increased 4.9 percent the cost of administration of the National Fish and Wildlife administrative overhead budget, and we have done them one better: we have increased it 6.6 percent. So all we are asking is simply give the American people a justification of why we should have this kind of increase in the administration of this agency and at the same time not be able to fund adequately some of the things that those that are dependent in our society are so desperately in need of.

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to work with anyone that will help us fund veterans affairs appropriately, that will help us make appropriate judgments in all the other areas where we are worried about the balances and the targets that have been set. One of the ways to do that is to make sure we do not spend money in these early bills that we do not have to. If we can take $300 million or $570 million, which is my goal for this bill, and move towards it, that is a half a billion. In Oklahoma half a billion dollars is a lot of money.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against provisions of the bill and would request that the point of order that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) just made be expanded to include starting on page 10, line 17 and include through page 13, line 13. The Federal Aviation Administration operations are unauthorized. They have never been authorized by this Congress and, therefore, are in violation of clause 2, rule XXI prohibiting the expenditure of funds for programs not authorized by law. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that the American public know that every Member of this House voted for a budget resolution that would not touch social security money. Only two Members of this House voted for the President's budget, which said that we have to spend some social security money. Having said that, to me actually the savings thus far are $170 million. To most people in Oklahoma and the rest of the country, $170 million saved is a lot of money. I know it is not here in Washington, but to those who are actually paying the taxes, $170 million is a lot of money. I think we as a House have to tell the American public either we meant what we said when we voted on our respective budgets that we would not spend social security money, and I would note for the Record that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) did in fact vote for his party's budget and did not vote for the President's budget; that in fact, then, if Members say something, i.e., we are not going to spend social security money, regardless of how hard it is and regardless of how tough a job it is, that we ought to make every effort in good faith to try to do that. The gentleman makes some real points. I would tend to agree with him. I do not think we will pass a bill in Labor-HHS with those kinds of cuts. But I think it is entirely possible that we can pass a Labor-HHS bill that has $700 million or $800 million or $900 million less because we are obligated to do that, recognizing that any money that we spend above our level target of $438 billion will in fact come from social security money. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has great experience in the appropriations process. I understand that. But I also understand that it is time for us to do what we say we are going to do. That means honoring our commitment and making sure that when we vote for something, we mean it. It is fine if we all want to disavow the votes on the budgets, the respective votes on the budgets. I do not intend to do that. Yes, I am part of that portion of the Republican conference that, number one, believes that the government is too big; number two, believes if we tell people we are not going to spend social security, we should not do it, and which should die trying not to spend their money. We can do that. This amendment that is before us will delay the expenditure of money. No, it does not save any money right now, but it will delay the spending of the money. In Washington, if we can delay spending money, we may be able to get better at not spending it.

Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, there are three principles. One is that almost every Member of the House, and in one way or another every Member of the House, has cast a vote to not spend social security money. Number two, we do have a 1997 budget agreement that is law that the President has already said he is not going to follow, but that does not mean we should not. Number three, one of our obligations as Members of this body is to rebuild confidence in it, not to tear it down. If we say we are not going to touch social security money, then we ought to make the effort. Finally, I would say $170 million is not much. We have a long ways to go. But the assumption we are going to pass a bill that has $19 billion in increased defense spending, I do not think that is a true assumption. So I am willing to work with anybody that will help me fund Labor-HHS adequately.

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. COBURN. I thank the gentleman. I stand corrected.

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It takes a million dollars away from a $39 million increase. The reason it does, it says to the people who are working in this center, you can spend the money more wisely, more efficiently. The concept of the center is fine, but a 45 percent increase in your spending this year? We are going to cut some of that back. We recognize the value of this center, but we can save a million dollars and send a signal that ``next year, if you are not better, you are not going to see this kind of increase. Regardless of what is there, you cannot justify the inefficiencies that you are generating.'' The Sanford amendment takes just $1 million out of a $39 million increase and says, ``We want you to wake up and smell the roses, do some things a little more efficiently, and let's save some money.'' It is not even 1 percent of their budget, it is about three-quarters of 1 percent, and it is of an increase. They had $109 million last year, we are going to give them $148 million this year. I want to make one other statement. Earlier in our debate today, we talked about how $170 million was not much. $170 million will pay for the Social Security for 1.8 million Americans this year. When this bill is finished, if we pass it, we are going to have savings of about $555 million. That is enough to pay the Social Security for 5.4 million Americans. That is a good achievement. We ought not to lose sight of that. Let us save an additional $1 million, we can save another couple of hundred thousand people their opportunity for Social Security, and we can live up to the commitment that we all agreed to.

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the so-called Emerson amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I do have great respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I do believe he is a man of principle. But I think that the reason we are at this position is that there is a bigger principle, and the bigger principle, in 1997, this Congress and the President of the United States agreed to spend a certain amount of money; and this is the year that the hard, tough cuts come in that. Now, for many years, Congresses have said, we will make a deal and wink, and we know 2 or 3 years down the road we are not going to honor that deal. Well, we have a new dilemma before us, and the new dilemma before us is every penny that we spend above that agreement we take from the seniors in this country, we take from the working men and women in this country, and we take from the children who are going to work, because every one of those dollars is going to be stolen from Social Security. Now, in Oklahoma, we think $54 million is a whole lot of money. We think $54 million added to Labor HHS might make the difference in somebody's life. I am sorry that the people on the other side do not think that that is a significant sum. But I would tell you that $54 million will make a difference. It is money that we are not going to spend now so that we will have it available to take care of those people in this country that are depending on us. We claim a surplus. The only surplus we have is the excess of the payments that are coming into the Treasury over the Social Security payments that are going out. It is not our money to spend. We have an absolute obligation to make every effort to try to live up to the agreement between the Congress of the United States and the President that we made in 1997. It is unfortunate that it is happening this way, but the fact is that every senior out there believes that we should not touch their Social Security money. Most people who are paying 12.5 percent FICA believe we should not be touching their Social Security money. The children that are coming up are either going to have to pay 25 percent FICA or they are not going to have any Social Security. So we can say this is a partisan debate. What the real debate is is whether or not we can lead by example. Now, the average Member of Congress has $1.5 million, almost $1.6 million, to spend a year; and that is more than enough to adequately represent our districts. I noticed that the two gentlemen that I have great respect for, who really made a statement that that was not enough, happened to represent the bureaucracy in Washington. $1.6 million to employ somewhere between 18 and 22 people and adequately represent that constituency is far greater than what we need. But that is where we are. We can live within that budget. If we cannot live within that budget, then we ought to have a better understanding of what the Social Security recipients out there are doing when they get a COLA of 1.3 percent. So the real principle is, if we have been elected to represent a group of people in this Congress, the least we can do is lead by example in our own offices. We do not have to pay high rents in our own offices. We can find something less. There will not be one person who does not get an increase that is earned by us freezing our Members' representational allowance. I would ask the Members of this body to support this rule. We are spending adequate amounts on the legislative branch. And let us lead by example and let us save the money for the Labor-HHS that is coming up later.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to the National Cancer Institute study. The gentlewoman added one word there that totally throws out what they said, ``spontaneous.'' If we add all the spontaneous abortions in with the induced abortions, we will not get an effect, because the number of spontaneous abortions is close to 600,000 to 700,000 per year, 800,000 in some studies. So by combining that data, a normal response to a wrong and incomplete reproductive event to the termination of a normal event, we do not have good data. They know that. That is why they put that material in there. I want to continue my point, if I may. I will be happy to debate back and forth with the gentlewoman. Mr. Chairman, I heard from this floor statements exactly opposite of what I said was the intention of my amendment. I am deeply concerned that people would use untruth about what this intended amendment is. Everyone knows me well enough that I am not going to oppose good research for things that help people get well. There is nothing, and it does not matter what the gentlewoman says, there is nothing in this amendment that will eliminate any cure for cancer, eliminate any process under which any drug can be studied for cancer, because the actual application that the Food and Drug uses, which is right here, it says, what is the purpose for the IND. And if the purpose is chemical inducement for abortion, then they cannot do it. If it says anything else other than that, they cannot. Finally, I would like to comment about the comments on whether or not we ought to be involved in this. If the issue of life is not something this House should debate, I do not know what we should debate. There is nothing more important, whether it is the end of life or beginning of life. We can have our differences. We have a Supreme Court ruling; I understand that. But to say we should not be debating and then finally to say that Congress should not try to work what it thinks the will is, I would propose that most of those who oppose this amendment voted for the amendments that limited drive-through deliveries, that limited drive-through mastectomies, so they have already said that they believe that Congress should practice medicine. My colleagues cannot claim both sides of this issue. Either they think it is a proper position for this government or this Congress to get involved in things that are wrong or they do not. Now my colleagues may not agree with the issue, but to use the false premise that we should not be discussing this is intellectually dishonest; it is inappropriate and misstates the situation. There is nothing in this amendment that will limit NCI's research whatsoever into any cancer treatment, into any treatment whatsoever in any way. To claim otherwise is to distort the truth for purposes of debate and to not carry out an equitable and fair debate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard again the tactic from the other side, it is to misdirect, to dodge. This is not about creating lawsuits. This is not about preventing drug research in other areas. This amendment is written very clearly. I would happily have taken an amendment from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) because then I would have felt he would have been obligated to vote for the amendment, and that is why he would not offer it. We understand that. This is about spending Federal money in a way to figure out how to kill unborn children. That is what this amendment is about. There is no ulterior motive to it. It is saying, is it a principle position of this country to tax working families and then take that money and spend it on science on how to figure out how to kill an unborn baby. That is what this amendment does. They know that is what it does. The only thing that we are hearing is that this will limit cancer research, this will make unintended consequences. That is not true at all. Having been in the drug manufacturing business, having applied for NDAs and INDs, I understand full well how the FDA works. There is an area on the application. You have to specify what you are applying that drug for. If it is for anything other than the inducement of abortion, this law will have no effect. The other side understands that but they do not have an argument against that, so, therefore, they use an argument that is not based on any intellectual honesty. It is based on a dishonest pass out of bounds. This is about, and I am not ashamed to say, I do not think one dollar of Federal taxpayer money should be used to figure out how to kill an unborn child. I have no embarrassment for that whatsoever. I am proud to make that statement. If we look at what is going on in our country, we understand where violence comes from. The first act of violence is to violate a baby in its mother's womb. When we decide that that life has no value, then no life has value, regardless of what the Supreme Court said. At 19 days postconception, a baby has a heartbeat. At 41 days postconception, the baby has brain waves. In this country, in every State, in every territory you are alive if you have brain waves and a heartbeat, and you are only dead if you do not. So explain to me why a baby at 5\1/2\ weeks postconception is not considered alive when if you are considered the opposite of that, you are considered dead. We are schizophrenic in our law because we cannot have equal justice under the law for the unborn when we want the convenience of doing what we in fact know is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the honorable gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend from Ohio and the gentleman from Virginia and the gentlewoman from New York this is not a fun debate for me either. I am not happy that we are here doing this. But, you know, if one child is not aborted because we have this debate, I am willing to do it all night long, 365 days a year. That is how much I value life. Now, I want to discuss for a minute, you say we should not be politicizing the FDA with this action. Well, I want to tell you, the FDA is already politicized. How many drugs do you know of that have been approved of basically on research done overseas? There is zero, except one. Guess what drug that is? Guess what drug that is? That is RU-486. The vast majority of the studies on RU-486 were not conducted in this country; they were conducted overseas. That totally is a whole new precedent for the FDA. They have never before done that on any new drug approval. The second thing I would say is this amendment will have no effect whatsoever on any other utilization of any other drug. Cytotec, which is the second drug used with RU-486, is used to protect the lining of the stomach. It is a prostaglandin inhibitor. We use prostaglandins today. We are actually starting to use Cytotec, a very strong component of this, to induce labor. I did it about a week ago, first time. So we did not learn that from it being studied on the basis of it being an abortifacient or a drug to induce abortion. We learned that because that drug was developed to protect the lining of the stomach for people who have ulcers, consequently learning that you do not dare take that drug if you are pregnant. Well, if it works in terms of causing uterine contractions, what about using it to induce labor? Maybe it is safer than pitocin or other prostaglandins. So there is no limitation that is going to come about from this amendment. Five percent of the women who take this drug get a uterine infection, which, when you have a uterine infection, number one, it will affect your ability to conceive in the future. One hundred percent of the women lose more blood with a chemically induced abortion than they would either through a spontaneous or a surgical abortion. It may not be important to you, but if it is you losing the blood, it becomes very important. Number three, more than one-third of them end up delivering the conceptus outside of the clinic. In France, they have very selected rules on how you can use this drug. None of those are protected and planned in this country. So is the issue all of the things that we have heard: Not being able to use research? Not being able to get cancer drugs? No, it is not. The issue is nobody from the opposing viewpoint, either from the Republican or Democrat side of the aisle, answered the question, should Federal money be used to help find ways to kill babies? Nobody wants to answer that question. That is because there is not a good answer. Nobody agrees with it. So, therefore, we see arguments that are something other than that. We distort what the argument is because there is not a good argument. We will not limit in any way the ability of the FDA to do any research. What we will say is, is if your number one goal is to figure out how to kill an unborn baby, number one, first of all, this does not work in 2 days or 3 days or 5 days or 6 days postconception. I am sorry if that is what people think. This works 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 weeks after. It is not a morning-after drug. That is now how it is going to be used. What this is going to do is say if you are intending to bring a drug to the market, then the FDA should not spend the first Federal taxpayer's money to figure out how to kill a baby. All right, if that is a consequence of it, of some other intended purpose, maybe that is okay. Because these drugs, Cytotec is going to be used for that. You do not have to have approval of the FDA to use drugs in ways other than how they are indicated. We all know that. So Cytotec is already being used to induce abortions. The point is should we spend the money, your children's, your grandchildren's, our community's money, to figure out how to take a life? My answer is no. I ask you, should we really do that? I do not believe most people think we should. That does not say that abortion still is not legal. It is. The question comes, when you have done, as I have, and sat there at the bottom of a table when a woman delivers a 10-week fetus or a 12-week fetus, and hold it in your hand, and she is distraught and crying because that baby was created by her and her partner, and is totally unique to anything else that has ever been created or ever will be created. It has a totally unique genetic structure, it is a God- ordained being, and we are going to say it is okay, we are going to figure out ways to kill those God-ordained beings, and we are going to say for convenience sake, because we made a mistake, because somebody erred, because somebody failed to protect themselves, that it is okay to destroy that life, I reject it. I do not dislike anybody who disagrees with me on that, but I reject that as an argument of the heart and of the soul. If we are going to decide in this country that you are dead when you do not have heartbeat and brain waves, but you are alive in all 50 States and territories when you do, how can we reject the argument that at 41 days every fetus, every unborn child, has a heartbeat and a brain wave? Now, you cannot deny that scientific fact. That is absolutely proven. So the response to that question is ``we will talk about something different.'' It is a hard issue, I understand. I wish we did not have unintended pregnancy. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I have the same goal on that. We believe in getting there a different way. I am not supporting some of her contraceptive research, because I am seeing what is happening with contraceptives and sexually transmitted disease and cancer of the cervix, which is at an all-time high in this country, under the false assumption you are safe, when a condom offers no protection from human papilloma virus whatsoever, yet we tell all our kids they are safe. Well, I am tired of all the deceit around the arguments. There is good science. I am a scientist by training. I have read the studies. I have looked at it. This amendment is designed for one thing only. The gentleman from Washington State gave me more credit. I have never thought out about to figure out how to be devious enough to set up lawsuits. My purpose was to say no taxpayer money from Oklahoma or anywhere else ought to be used in figuring out how to kill children. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear a lot of debate this afternoon and statements about the intended purpose of this amendment. I want to say from the outset that this amendment is not intended to have an effect on any drug used for any purpose other than that which is specifically spelled out in this amendment. The taxpayers of the United States spend a great deal of money each year in funding the Food and Drug Administration. There is something terribly wrong when we ask the taxpayers of this country to spend money in a way which is designed to give the Food and Drug Administration the ability to research and approve drugs that are designed to kill unborn children. Now let me say that again. The purpose of this amendment is to limit the FDA's ability to approve any drug which has its sole purpose to eliminate and terminate an unborn child. This should not be in a debate about abortion, and I do not intend it to be. It is about how we use taxpayers' money and for what purpose should that money be used. Abortion is legal in this country. I recognize that. But allowing a Federal agency to spend taxpayers' dollars to perfect and approve a method under which we take life to me seems totally irreconcilable with the fact that our whole country is supposed to be about the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of freedom and the pursuit of life. So this amendment will not block Cytotech from being used in other medicines and in other ways, it will not block RU-486 if it has an intended purpose for giving life, saving life, prolonging life. It will not stop any utilization of FDA funds in terms of that effort. Its sole purpose is to say to the FDA none of their money should be used in a manner which will enhance the taking of unborn life. It is a very simple proposition. Whether one believes in abortion or do not, both sides of this issue believe that we have way too many abortions. None of us think that abortion is a great thing. There are not many people who have been through an abortion who think an abortion is a great thing. So I want to move our debate not to the issue of abortion, but whether or not we can in good conscience utilize taxpayer dollars to perfect drugs to kill unborn children. That is what the debate is about. It is not about whether or not somebody can have an abortion; we all know that that is possible. Regrettably so, from my viewpoint. But, rather, the debate is about protecting unborn life from unwise use of Federal taxpayer dollars. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the gentlewoman did not hear my first statement. There is nothing in this amendment that will limit the research of any drug in any way, in any concept, whose purpose is something other than that. So if you were to take Cytotech or RU-486 and say you want to try to use it in a different way, this does not limit that at all. When you file an application with the FDA, you give what your intended purpose is. What this amendment says is if you bring to the FDA a drug whose only intended purpose is to induce the separation of a blastocyst from the uterine wall, that is the technical term for what it does, that they should not spend money approving that. If you bring the same drug to the FDA and say this is something that solves a problem with the liver, or this decreases portal hypertension, even though it might have that effect of causing an inducement of abortion, it is still approved. Let me give you some examples. There is a new hair treatment to grow hair back on the head of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), yet it cannot be used around anyone wanting to get pregnant. Why? Because it causes severe birth defects and can in fact induce abortions. That was approved. This would not eliminate that drug from ever coming to market or the FDA spending money on it.