Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is inappropriate to mention the other body.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to support H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act. I am a practicing physician. I deliver babies, and what I would want Members of this body and the American public to know is, do you think it is right for a 12-year-old child or a 13-year-old child to be taken across a State line to have an abortion performed when they are incapable of making that decision themselves and without the knowledge of the parents? That is what this bill is all about. If, in fact, a child is transported across a State line for an abortion to violate the laws of the State in which they reside, then, in fact, it would be a Federal offense. The real issue is whether or not parents ought to be involved in the reproductive health of their children. Whether they ought to know, whether they ought to be given information about whether or not their child is seeking help in the midst of a difficulty, some would have us say that the government is the answer to that. I believe the parents are the answer to that. And I believe that we should pass the Child Custody Protection Law.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say I am disheartened by what I just heard. The misstatement of fact is inappropriate for this body. Should the size of this government grow? That is the question we need to ask. Should this government get bigger? There is only one budget that says no, we will grow it right with inflation and not let it get bigger, and that is this budget. Is there any budget that truly puts teeth in protecting Social Security? There is only one. It is Nuemann. We put it in negotiable bonds. It is not paper anymore. It is truly bonds. Do we really save Social Security? You bet. Is the money that goes into the trust fund really put into something that matters, not just more paperwork that we can flip around with the transportation bill and use? We heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) talk about education. This budget, the Neumann budget, sends the money to the classrooms. It sends 95 percent of the education dollars to the local classrooms and lets them do it: the teachers, the principals, the local school board. So that is another reason that it is better than any proposal. Number five, it cuts taxes. You bet. It eliminates the marriage penalty. It expands the 15 percent tax bracket, which happens to be where most people are in this country. It eliminates the death tax on the farmers and the ranchers and those that can least afford to pay it. Finally, yes, it reduces the holding period on capital gains, because for once we now can prove that lowering that actually generates more revenue for the country. Finally, it dedicates 50 percent of everything that comes in above excess revenues for reduction in the debt. It is unfortunate that we hear rhetoric that does not match the facts. It is unfortunate that this body is abused in that manner. I am sorry that we have to hear that. But if the American public does not want this government to grow any larger, then they should, in fact, insist on the Neumann budget. It does what the American people ask.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that our high school student's math and science skills rank near the bottom of the world. As we discuss how to reverse this alarming trend, we should take a moment to reflect on the legacy of a math-education pioneer who foresaw our present crisis, the late John Saxon of Oklahoma. Saxon gained national notoriety for his revolutionary Saxon method of teaching and for waging a war against the mathematics education establishment over their failed theories. Saxon was praised by President Reagan and featured by most major news outlets. Stanley Hartzler, a leading authority on algebra textbooks, credits him with a truly major advance. Commentator William F. Buckley predicts that Saxon will figure as prominently in the history of math education as Hyman Rickover did in the development of nuclear submarines. In 1995, Saxon said, ``America is on the road to becoming a follower in technology and science rather than a leader. Our captains of industry tell us that they are at a disadvantage in worldwide competition because our labor pool is mathematically incompetent. The time has come to question the math experts.'' The type of math experts Saxon criticized were the proponents of touchy-feely new math theories. One such theorist has said it is downright dangerous to teach students basic computational math skills such as 6 times 7 equals 42 because students who have difficulty with these concepts will be cast aside and experience a terrible psychic toll measured by loss of self-esteem. Saxon first became aware of the pending crisis in math education in the 1970s during his first teaching job at Rose State College in Oklahoma City, after retiring from an exemplary and distinguished career of 27 years in the Air Force. Saxon discovered that his students were neither comprehending nor retaining the material they were learning from their textbook. At a student's suggestion, Saxon wrote out some problems for his class. When the students were successful from learning from his writings, Saxon decided to write a college level algebra textbook. Saxon was then a man on a mission. Publishers told Saxon he lacked the credentials to write a textbook. However, Saxon believed so strongly in his method that he mortgaged his house, spent his savings, and borrowed money from his four children to launch his own publishing company. Early results showed that students who learned using the Saxon method outscored those who did not by a margin of two to one. Across the Nation, C and D students were now getting A's and B's. Classes who used his K through 12 math series routinely doubled enrollment and raised college board scores by greater than 50 percent. Despite the mounting evidence supporting the Saxon method, the math establishment considered him to be a pariah. One journal of the profession dismissed his method as meaningless, while others accused him of turning back the clock on math education. The cornerstone of Saxon's method is to train students in the fundamentals. Saxon was the Vince Lombardy of math education. He understood the importance of constantly drilling his pupils in the fundamentals like blocking and tackling. Saxon said that algebra is the basic language of all mathematics beyond arithmetic. He believed higher math skills could not be taught or comprehended by students who were not thoroughly drilled in the basics. To Saxon, the math establishment was like a coach. He was trying to teach his players trick plays before they knew how to run a sweep. As we consider how to improve math education in this country, we should reconsider what the so-called math education experts have been telling us. The education experts in society ought to be determined by the results that they produce, the impact that they have in the lives of the children, not by the titles or by their degrees that adorn their offices. Saxon's success was due to the power of his ideas, not by the prestige of any position. Today, Saxon Publishing is growing like crazy, according to the company president Frank Wang. All 50 States and 20,000 schools nationwide use Saxon books, and company sales have quadrupled since 1991. The Washington Post ran a column this week by Wang. He said that, Saxon was in Washington picketing the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics for their recommendation that calculators be integrated into classrooms. Wang said Saxon would have been surprised that at last month's council meeting Wang was invited to participate in a panel discussion on the role of the basics. John Saxon is no longer a voice in the wilderness. Today, his legacy is on the bridge of revolutionizing math education in America. As we continue to discuss how to improve math and science education, I encourage my colleagues to let the Saxon legacy lead the way.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, with the availability of powerful new drug therapies, many with HIV infection now have hope. The cost of that hope is anywhere from $10,000 to $40,000 a year. I believe it is unconscionable to deny drugs to this group of people who are living with HIV, and I commend this body for the money that we have raised and allocated for this purpose. However, I have been shocked to learn that many AIDS organizations pay their executives excessive salaries at the expense of those living with HIV. Medically necessary care is being severely curtailed while these executives line their pockets with Federal dollars. I would advise the Members of this body and the public in general to look at www.accountabilityproject.com. to look at how this money is spent. I welcome AIDS patients to discuss this with this body. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the following article from the April 26 San Francisco Examiner about the accountability project. [From the San Francisco Examiner, April 26, 1998] Tracking the Funds for AIDS (By Erin McCormick) Michael Petrelis wants to know what happened to the $1.5 billion the United States spent on AIDS last year. The 39-year-old AIDS patient, and a growing number of activists like him, have been willing to bang on locked boardroom doors, rifle through file cabinets and generally raise hell to make sure money raised for AIDS goes to fight the deadly disease and not to overhead expenses and high salaries for charity executives. Now they are taking their crusade public with an Internet Web site that will allow donors and people with AIDS to follow the money that goes to the dozens of charity relief efforts around the country. ``There's a new phenomenon of people with AIDS living longer, which means we're asking more questions about services,'' Sid Petrelis, who said since he started prodding organizations for financial information he has been banned from receiving full services at three Bay Area AIDS charities. ``We're now questioning where the money goes from the AIDS Walk, the AIDs Ride and the AIDS Dance-athon because we would like to have services like hot meals and housing,'' he said. The Accountability Project Web site (www.accountabilityproject.com), which reveals IRS tax filings and other financial information about major U.S. AIDS charities and other nonprofits, makes it possible for internet surfers to get instant information about how they spend their money. The project, an offshoot of the in-your-face AIDS activist group, ACT UP Golden Gate, is also pushing for laws to require open board meetings, democratic management and greater financial scrutiny for the nation's rapidly growing nonprofit sector. ``Nonprofits are a trillion-dollar industry in the U.S.,'' said project member Jeff Getty, who has lobbied to get City Hall to pass laws requiring more public accountability from nonprofits that get city funds. ``Our country is creating a [p.8] huge sector that's sometimes replacing government and is spending government money, but has no elected officials and no taxpayer accountability.'' tax returns in public eye So far, the Accountability Project Web site has published the tax returns of 28 nonprofits from around the nation, ranging from the San Francisco AIDS Foundation and New York's Gay Men's Health Crisis to Walden House, a substance abuse recovery program that devotes only a portion of its resources to people with AIDS. And while, on the whole, the documents show a vast array of lifesaving work being done on behalf of AIDs patients, Petrelis says, they also raise questions about some charities' priorities. For instance, the reports show that 21 executives who worked at 10 of the charities, had pay packages exceeding $100,000. The highest salary and benefits package went to Walden House Executive Director Alfonso Acamporo, who made $186,000 in 1996. Jerome Radwin, a director of the American Foundation for AIDS Research in New York, received the second highest, $181,000, followed by Pat Christen of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, whose total compensation was $162,000. The tax information also shows some executives getting large pay increases at a time when, Petrelis says government funding for AIDS is increasingly scarce. In the case of the Washington, D.C., meal program, Food and Friends, tax returns show that Executive Director Craig Schniderman got a 62 percent raise in 1996, from $63,000 to $102,000. judging the compensation Dan Langen of the National Charities Information Bureau, which monitors tax-exempt organizations, said the issue of how much they should pay their executives is often controversial. On one hand, he said, if a multimillion-dollar charity hires a manager who doesn't know how to handle money, it may see revenues--and services--disappear fast. But ``there should be a difference between for-profit compensation and nonprofit. These people might be able to make a lot of money on Wall Street, but when they choose to work for a charity, they have chosen a different lifestyle.'' The National Charities Bureau says nonprofits should spend at least half of their budgets on the charity mission, not on fund raising or administrative costs. It's a goal exceeded by all groups on the Web site. That doesn't satisfy Petrelis. He questions spending by Visual Aid, a small charity that helps artists suffering from devastating diseases by providing art supplies and organizing exhibitions. Petrelis noted that the group reported spending only 21 percent of its $159,000 budget on grants for artists' supplies, while much of the rest went to salaries and overhead. Visual Aid Executive Director Jim Fisher said without its two staff members, the organization would be unable to put on exhibits, solicit donations of supplies or do any fund raising. ``We're about motivating people with illnesses to start working again,'' he said. ``The Michael Petrelises of the world like to yell at us tiny people, who are just trying to build a base.'' Petrelis said his pet peeve is the campaign for a $3.7 million Memorial AIDS Grove in Gold Gate Park, which solicited donors to pay $10,000 to sponsor a boulder and $15,000 for a park bench. Petrelis said he doesn't understand how, at a time when people are still dying of AIDS, groups can be raising $10,000 for a boulder. But project director Tom Weyand said the grove serves a vital purpose for those who have lost loved ones to AIDS and is not meant to compete with programs helping those fighting the disease. ``It's about memories,'' he said. While no nonprofit groups protest having their IRS reports on the Accountability Project Web site, some recoil at the group's efforts to get them to make public all financial records and board meetings. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation said it's happy to have its tax filings posted but opposes measures that would require additional paperwork. Petrelis said the cooperative treatment program run by the AIDS Foundation, the San Francisco AIDS Health Project and the Shanti Project barred him from group therapy sessions and group events after he got another piece of information and put it on the Web site; a transcript of an AIDS Foundation focus group in which patients were interviewed about the quality of services. Petrelis said the foundation charged he had stolen the transcripts and banished him from group sessions as punishment for compromising the confidentiality of survey participants. The AIDS Foundation and the Shanti Project said confidentiality rules barred them from commenting on Petrelis' status as a client. But, while Petrelis and other Accountability advocates are criticized for being confrontational, the movement to require more scrutiny of nonprofits has caught fire. ``The bigger nonprofits get, the more chance they get out of touch with their constituencies,'' said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who plans to introduce legislation Monday requiring more openness from nonprofits getting city money. ``We need to make sure the accountability is there so we aren't kept in the dark about what these organizations are doing to earn their keep,'' Ammiano said. Top-Earning Charity Executives These executives earned the highest compensation packages of the 28 AIDS charities and other nonprofits that have so far provided IRS information to Project Accountability. AIDS Healthcare Foundation-Los Angeles, $30 million annual budget: Michael Weinstein, President, $126,548. AIDS Project Los Angeles, $16 million annual budget: James Earl Loyce Jr., Executive director, $144,227; William Misenhimer, Chief financial officer, $114,321; Allen Carrier, Director, $109,915. American Foundation for AIDS Research-New York, $17 million annual budget: Jerome Radwin, Chief operating officer, $181,443; John Logan, General counsel, $104,391; Ellen Cooper, MD MPH, Vice president, $157,597; Sally Morrison, Vice president, $100,186. Food and Friends, Washington DC meal program, $4 million annual budget: Craig Shniderman, Executive director, $102,125. Gay Men's Health crisis-New York, $28 million annual budget: Mark Robinson, Executive director, $153,565; Addie Guttag, Deputy director, $139,337; Michael Isbel, Deputy director, $139,337. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund-New York, $4 million annual budget: Kevin Cathcart, Executive director, $138,591. Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services, $17 million annual budget: Name not provided, Executive director, $127,803. San Francisco AIDS Foundation, $16 million annual budget: Pat Christen, Executive director, $162,294; Jane Breyer, Development director, $117,633; Lance Henderson, Finance director, $110,465; Rene Durazzo, Program director, $100,362. Walden House-San Francisco substance abuse program, $14 million annual budget: Alfonso Acampora, Chief executive officer, $185,810. Whitman-Walker Clinic-Washington DC, $16 million annual budget: James Graham, Executive director, $141,548; Harold Hawley, Medical director, $117,860. Source: summaries of charities' most recent IRS 990 forms posted on the Accountability Project Web site. Some charities' reports cover the fiscal year 1995-96, while others cover calendar year 1996.

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to address the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and say I admire her efforts in HIV prevention and the work that she has put forward in trying to solve this epidemic. I probably find myself in a unique category because I have read all the studies on needle exchange; I have actually read the studies, and I find it ironic that the report that was issued, even though we have a statement from April of 1998, the NIH consensus statement was made prior to the release of the Montreal data. I want to quote from the Montreal study, and I also want to educate the Members a little bit on the studies, because there have only been two studies done on all needle exchange programs that have the same group of individuals in the beginning of the study as they had at the end of the study. All of the others had unidentified needle users and unidentified needle users at the end and took averages of numbers, which scientifically is meaningless when we want to try to show something as a cause and effect or a reduction of risk. The Montreal study and the Vancouver study were both excellent studies. They had the same people looked at when they began the study as when they ended the study. I want to read to my colleagues the conclusion as printed in the American Journal of Epidemiology by Doctors Bruneau and others as to what their conclusion is. They were not anticipating the debate in the U.S. Congress when they wrote this conclusion: ``In summary, Montreal needle exchange program users have a higher HIV seroconversion rate than needle exchange program nonusers.'' What does that say? That says that if one is in their program and one is getting free needles, one is more likely to get HIV than if one is not in their program using needles. Now, we can distort that, but that is the science of the two studies, and the Vancouver study supports the same claim. We should be concerned about drug injection in this country. We should be concerned about drug addiction. The way to solve that is mandatory treatment programs for people who are addicted. I will pledge to those on the other side of the aisle who differ with me on this issue that I will support any program that comes forward for funding for mandatory drug treatment centers and promotion of lifestyle change to decrease the risk associated with this horrendous infection. Remember, we are not just talking about HIV. We are talking about hepatitis B now that is a major epidemic in this group of people; we are talking about hepatitis C, we are talking about probably hepatitis D as well. So there are large areas besides HIV that these people are subjected to. Mr. Speaker, I think that we can have disagreements, and we know the scientific community has disagreements. There is no question. But we cannot ignore the two largest studies that have ever been done on this, both of which come to the same conclusion, that if one is in a needle exchange program, one is more likely to seroconvert than less likely. That is completely opposite of what we have heard here so far today. I would recommend that everybody read the study so that they actually know what the scientists have said in terms of their conclusions. Finally, there are other things that are associated with needle exchange programs that we ought to be concerned about. There is multiple reports that the needle traffickers there, what they do is they draw drug traffickers to the needle exchange program; that the crime rates in the areas where we have needle exchange programs actually go up, they do not go down. So there are all of these other consequences associated with needle exchange programs that have, in fact, not been addressed by any argument today. We have a problem with drug addiction, injection drug addiction in this country. This is fixing the wrong problem. We need to be fixing drug addiction, not enabling drug addicters and drug-addicted people to more easily use their illegal drug.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

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

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the pertinent comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and would say that many of his comment are accurate, and that given his comments being accurate, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, everyone knows what a racketeer is and what a racketeer-influenced corrupt organization is. These words refer to organized criminals, to people who form gangs for the purpose of hurting other people and stealing from them. Declaring people racketeers simply because they engage in activities and activism on behalf of a cause does something very serious to our form of self-government and our sense of civil liberties. It puts citizens at risk of losing everything they have if they support a cause that happens to not be popular in the eyes of some court. It frightens citizens against the kind of civil activism that has been a hallmark of our democracy. It undercuts the very foundations of our government by the people. This amendment has no effect on the prosecution of criminals. It affects only civil actions under RICO. It offers no loophole of any sort for those who would attempt to steal the property of others or for those who would hurt innocent people. There is only one class of people who benefit from this amendment: citizens lawfully exercising their rights to speak out on issues of public concern. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we can support this amendment.

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is a big deal to amend the Constitution, I agree. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about this issue from a little bit different level than what we have talked about it thus far. Why should we change the Constitution and make it hard to raise taxes? One simple reason: freedom, freedom, freedom. If we take someone's money, we take their freedom away. The more money we take, the more freedom we take away. It is inherent upon us to try to restore some of the freedoms that have been lost in the last 50 years in this country. Mr. Speaker, I can remember as a small boy and then as a young man and now here at 50 years of age, I can list the things I cannot do today as an American citizen that I could do at those times. So what I would want the American people to think, and for the Members of Congress to consider, is are they more free if we make it harder to raise Americans' taxes? Are Americans more free if we take less of their money, not more? That is what this is about. We are not amending the Constitution any more than we are amending the sixteenth amendment, which made it all too easy to raise taxes. We just heard about the five tax increases that have been passed. Not one of those balanced the budget. The budget is not balanced now. We have heard of surpluses. That is a joke. We are going to borrow $150 billion this year. There is no surplus. The tax increase never gave us a balanced budget. For every dollar we increased taxes out of the last five, the Members of this body have not had the determination, except to spend another $1.46 for every dollar we increased the taxes. So we should make it very difficult to raise taxes, because it is very important we return freedom to the people of this society.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I would like for the American public to know what was left on a voice mail in my office by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: ``Matt, this is Darryl Wilson with the Transportation Committee. I'm calling about the BESTEA bill, which is the transportation measure that is moving through the committee. We have a deal for you on the funding levels for that. I originally spoke to your office last September and we said there was $10 million in this bill for your boss. Well, we are upping that by $5 million, so now you have $15 million. I just want to know where your boss wants to spend that money.'' Mr. Chairman, I want to tell my colleagues that if we apply this logic that we get to dole out 5 percent of the transportation funds, then we should apply the same logic elsewhere. Let us dole out 5 percent of the Defense Department funds in our district. Let us dole out 5 percent of the funds for Medicare in our district, for Medicaid, for food stamps, where the Congressman could surely know how to control that. Mr. Chairman, this is a corrupt process that is used to extend the political careers and situations of Members of this body. It ought to stop. I support this amendment.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a matter of grave concern to me and many of my colleagues. I am in great hope that the American public is paying attention to what I am about to say. Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about transportation dollars and budget authority and busting the budget. The transportation dollars that are being handled in this country are being handled in a way that I believe does not support the best interests of the American public nor support the quality of this institution. Next week the House will be asked to vote on a transportation bill that could cost the American taxpayers $216 billion, money they have already paid into a taxpayers' fund. This will make this bill one of the largest public works bills in our history. The chairman of the Committee on the Budget has called the bill an ``abomination'' because it will bust the budget by at least $26 billion. That is $26 billion that we are going to pass on to our next generation. We have the assurances that this will be paid for in conference. Anybody that has been here for any length of time knows that that is not much in terms of assurance. This Congress has made important steps toward reversing the fiscal irresponsibility of its recent past, and we must stay that course. We must not lose our bearings when we are so close to making significant strides towards reducing our $5.5 trillion debt. I want to explain to the American people how transportation dollars are divided up in this country and where that process is corrupt and needs to be reformed. Every time Americans fill their cars up with gas, a few cents goes towards a massive Federal transportation fund. Congress has set up a committee to divide these funds. Each member of this committee exercises enormous influence over where these dollars are spent. Every Member of Congress has the authority to request special projects, based on the needs of their district and the recommendations of their respective State's Department of Transportation. Money should be awarded to these projects based solely on their merit, but this is often not the case, as anyone who has observed this process recently will admit. Instead of dividing transportation money according to the merit of projects, money is divided based on political favors and political expediency. Stories in today's Associated Press will help explain what I mean. The AP reports North Dakota and South Dakota are similar in size and population, but when it comes to the House's highway bill, they are nothing alike. The bill earmarks $60 million in special projects for South Dakota, six times as much as its neighbor to the north. Mr. Speaker, let me ask my colleagues and the American public a question. Is it likely that the projects in South Dakota have six times more merit as the projects in North Dakota, or is there some political motivation involved? In Minnesota, one district out of the eight congressional districts in that State received $80 million of the $140 million earmarked for projects in that State. Does that one district have such a disproportionate need for highway funds, or is there some other reason for this imbalance in funding? Is it a coincidence that an inordinately high proportion of transportation funds are targeted to districts represented by members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure? Is it a coincidence that this bill sends outrageous sums of money to members in both parties who will face difficult reelections? Also, if my colleagues examine this bill, they will find striking disparities in the amount of money one State receives over another, regardless of what they put into the trust fund. Mr. Speaker, I invite the public and the press to examine this bill and decide for themselves whether this money is being divided according to merit or to politics. This bill includes over 1,400 special projects. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a bill that had 150 such projects, which is just one-tenth the number in this bill. We should ask ourselves what the typical American thinks of this process. I think we know. The public finds that it is sick, dirty, and corrupt, and a throwback to the system of ``good ol' boys'' that we came here in 1994 to end. We have $5.5 trillion worth of debt in this country. We cannot afford to play games with the public's money and more importantly we cannot afford to play games with the public's trust. That is why I and several of my colleagues turned down funds in this year's highway transportation bill. I made a statement to the press that the committee had approached me in hopes of buying my vote. I stand by that statement. But this is not an issue of one Member against another Member or one Member against a committee. This issue is about whether Congress will continue to look the other way on a system that encourages Members to do the inappropriate and wrong things. This system not only wastes the public's money, it degrades the public's trust in this institution. It is difficult to put a dollar value on trust because it is invaluable. As legislators, the public's trust is our most precious and scarce resource. Once that trust is lost, we all know it is hard to earn it back. If this Congress and the class of 1994 is known for one thing, I hope it is for our unwavering crusade to regain the public trust. Without that trust, we are governed by suspicion, cynicism, and our society cannot be sustained for long with that foundation. We can blame the spread of this acidic public cynicism on a variety of familiar culprits: the liberal media, a debased entertainment industry, voter apathy, and Presidential scandal. All of these factors have played a role, but we are wise to first seek improvement among the group we can most directly effect--ourselves. The Congress has lost the confidence of the public, and it is our duty to do what we can to win it back. The typical American believes politicians are more concerned about preserving their position than the long-term consequences of their policies, and this system perpetuates that perception. Reforming this system will be an important step in that process. We should let the states make decisions about transportation funding and get it out the hands of Washington. We must do the right thing for the country on this issue before we throw away more of the public's money and trust. Today, I believe the greatest temptation facing legislators in our party is to postpone doing the right thing for the country until our position as the majority party is more secure. If we make this our practice, with every compromise, with every sellout, we will drain the lifeblood from the movement that brought us into Congress. Our souls will depart from us and we will become the hollow politicians the public expects us to be, but sent here to replace. I urge my colleagues to do what is necessary to reform this system when the House takes up the transportation bill next week.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, In conducting my end of the year of review this past month I discovered that without explanation, my vote was not recorded on Roll Call vote number 557, passage of H.R. 1270, Amendments to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. I was in fact present for this vote and did in fact vote Yea.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would like for the Members of this body and the American public to think about for a minute their children. If they have more than one child, if they lived in China today, it would not exist. Because of the oppressive practices of this Government, that if they had a Katie or a Sara, that I do, a second or third child, and unfortunate enough to be born in China, either they would be terminated against their will or strangled at birth. That is what this issue is about, whether or not they have the right to reproduce themselves and have offspring as a basic human choice. What is happening in China today? If their first child is born and happens to be a female, what happens? Oftentimes that child is strangled at birth. Why? Because a female in China is not as capable of caring for their parents at an advanced age as a male is because of their society. Regrettably, our country has separated human rights issues from economic issues under what I believe to be a very false pretense that, in fact, we can engage on an economic level and that we will change these horrendous practices. I do not believe that is what is going to change them. I think even though we cannot significantly effectively enforce what we are trying to do today, we have an obligation to say to the people who live in China they do have the basic right of reproducing themselves, they do have the right to have a second and a third child if they so choose, a God given right, and that no government anywhere in the world has the right to take that right away from them. It saddens me that we, as a nation, have such a diverse challenge when we look at Cuba and we say they have human rights abuses and we cannot trade with them, but because the economic potential is so much greater in China, that we abandon that principle. We should not abandon these people. We should enforce at every level that our Government interacts with China that they stop this practice. I would beg and plead with the Members of this body to think of their own children and the fact that, if they lived in China, only one of those children would exist.

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, this is not a medical procedure in my estimation. This is murder. This has nothing to do with medicine. It has to do with murder at the convenience of the abortionist.

Mr. COBURN. Postviability.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the body that the testimony before Congress is that over 80 percent of these that are performed were elective. That is the testimony before the committees of this Congress.