Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about Mike and Nancy Johnson from Muscogee, OK. I have delivered five babies for them. One of their babies had a tremendous anencephalic complicated cystic structure on its brain. Now, this procedure that is supposedly so important that it has to be there for the life and health of a woman could have been used on her. But I want to tell my colleagues what they chose to do. They chose to deliver that baby. And in the delivery room, as that baby was born, I placed it in the hands of the father, and over the next 2 hours that baby was comforted in its death. I want to contrast that with the idea of a child dying in its father's arms, with the idea of a physician ramming a hole in the back of a skull and sucking the brains out of a child. Tell me, my colleagues, which way is the right way to do it?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' Mr. Speaker, we have heard a whole lot about the American College of Surgeons and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. That is the same organization that refused to suggest that women who are pregnant get an HIV test, knowing that in fact it could prevent HIV infection from the baby, the same organization that ruled we should do that after this Congress stood up and morally said they should do it. So, they do not lead on what is right and wrong. They follow. They have already proven that they follow. We have a choice. The child just described by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], there was a choice there. There was a choice that the doctor could end a life early through a very gruesome and horrible procedure, or there was a choice that a baby could have been delivered and died in its mother's and father's arms. We do have choices. There is no question about it. Mr. Speaker, who is looking out for the infant girls that consume 85 percent of the elective abortions used on this procedure? The thing that saddens me most about this debate, and I am tired of the debate as well, is we will not be truthful about what we are talking about. The truth is that this is never needed. The truth is that we have a lot of people who believe, and are respected in their belief, that women ought to be able to abort any baby any time for any reason. The unfortunate thing is that there is not the integrity in this House, or the honesty, to stand up and say that is what I believe. So, therefore, we use disinformation, deceit, and untruth to cover what the real facts of the issues are. So, Mr. Speaker, when, in fact, Members decide on whether or not we ought to be involved in banning a procedure that the vast majority of physicians in this country know is not needed to accomplish the purpose, they should ask themselves whether we are leaders or we are followers. I do stand in the shoes every weekend and defend women and their rights and care for them and their problem pregnancies. I do know what I am talking about. It is a moral, ethical issue. It has nothing to do with the practice of medicine.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, what we just heard was a very unfortunate story, but the most unfortunate thing about the story is the woman was lied to by her physician, for in fact there is never a medical reason to care for any anomaly associated with pregnancy in this way. This debate is not going to be centered around truth. It has not been. There is never an indication to use this procedure to save the life of a woman. And if, in fact, that were not true, the bill still protects for that. So it is a specious argument to say that partial- birth abortion is required to save the life of a woman. It is just absolutely untrue. Now, why would I say that? I have cared for every imaginable type of anatomic, genetic defect in the over 3,200 babies that I have cared for, let alone the other 1,000 or so pregnancies that did not come to fruition. Why? Why do we have the partial-birth abortion? We have the partial-birth abortion as a convenience to abortionists. Now, it makes good rhetoric to say that this saves the life of a woman; it makes good rhetoric to say that this is the only way we can in fact allow that choice for that woman in a very unfortunate situation, but it is not medically true, it is not scientifically true. But it philosophically supports the idea that no matter what we want, if we want to terminate a life at any time, for any reason, for any cause, then we ought to do this. The argument ought to be on the basis of what people think, and if one really believes that, then one ought to stand up and say that. Some 80 percent of the babies that have been aborted this way were absolutely normal, nothing wrong with them. Look at Bergen County, NJ. Look at the data. It is truly representative of what goes across this country, it is truly representative of what happens in the reproductive field in this country. It is OK if in fact one believes that one ought to be able to terminate a life at any time, for any reason, in any way, but stand up and say that. Do not distort what the medical information is.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, absolutely.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, easy. The doctor would do the same thing in terms of preparing, if the life need to be terminated for the life of the woman, which in fact in this case I do not know the details, I cannot say.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, accepting that as a premise, that in fact if the life of the woman was in danger, could it have been done? Easy. It is called prostaglandin induction, and without putting the woman at risk. The other false statement is that this procedure is known to put the woman's fertility at risk, not ensure her future fertility. Every major obstetrical textbook says doctors should not forcefully dilate the cervix. This procedure forcefully dilates the cervix.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, spontaneous abortion that would have occurred without a puncture vacuum evacuation of the cranium.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not know, and the gentleman does not know. Many times babies have been born in my care that would not survive. We chose not to make the decision on what their survival would be. Physicians are not that accurate in terms of life and death. We obviously are human, and we make those mistakes. My point is, this woman, if in fact she needed to be evacuated, could be evacuated in many ways other than this method.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it would not. The gentleman is correct.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of knowing life or death; it is a matter of knowing techniques that are used. There is a very big difference in saying that we can use a procedure that is a convenience to the abortionist that is heinous, that is totally cruel and inhumane, versus the methods that are available that are not.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it was across the stage, most of them more than viable, greater than 22\1/2\ weeks.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is fairly straightforward. It is controversial to those who are receiving a subsidy from the Federal Government. It is not controversial in any other way. The purpose of this amendment is to further fund juvenile justice block grants. It is to make an additional impact for the youth in our country. There are very alarming statistics that we need to deal with in terms of our young people. We have heard some of those tonight. But one of the things that the statistics do bear out is that the intervention programs that we have across the board are underfunded. The statistics also bear out that the intervention programs we have are being successful. The FBI estimates that juvenile violent crimes will double by the year 2010. More than 260,000 juvenile arrests will be made. The growth in juvenile homicides and homicides involving juvenile offenders has surpassed that among adults. It is a very important concept. The number of juvenile homicides committed by juveniles has now exceeded the number of homicides that have been charged on adults. Between 1982 and 1992 juvenile arrests have increased 117 percent, which is another statistic reflecting the growing rise in juvenile crime. Why we should do this. More statistics. Juvenile arrests for aggravated assault, a 129-percent increase; juvenile arrests for murder, a 145-percent increase; juvenile arrests for forcible rape, predicted to increase 66 percent. We have good solutions for these problems. The juvenile justice block grant system has many programs that are not funded adequately. Where do we get the money from? We take the money to support the juvenile justice block grant, $74 million, from the Advanced Technology Program, a program that has had some good, a program that today has $444 million in the pipeline that is not spent, money that has not been spent, and we are going to send another $200 million-plus down that pipeline. Mr. Chairman, that may not be a good enough reason to oppose it. Then there is a reason to oppose it based on the people who have been getting the grants. International Business Machines, known as Big Blue, has received $111,279,000; General Motors, $82,134,000; General Electric, $75 million; Ford, $66 million; Sun Microsystems, $50 million, whose chief executive officer says they do not want this program. They do not believe that this is a program for established corporations. Mr. Chairman, why is it important? Because those very corporations that I just listed, here are their earnings last year in net profit. International Business Machines earned $5.4 billion. Why should we give them $50 million to do research when we cannot take care of the youth in our country? General Motors earned $4.9 billion net profit. Why should we give them $50 million to do research when they will do the research with their own profits? Why should we give money to General Electric, who earned $7.3 billion last year, and we cannot take care of the juvenile justice programs and problems in our country? Mr. Chairman, this is a contrast about choices. It is a choice about whether the wealthiest corporations we are going to subsidize for R&D, or we are going to take care of the disadvantaged youth we just got through hearing about, where we do not have enough money for the drug court programs, where we do not have enough money for the Challenge programs? Finally, I want to stop and discuss for a minute one of the programs that works, one of the programs that has been highly successful throughout this country called the Challenge program. The Challenge Program, there is one of them in Oklahoma. What it has done is taken young adults, juveniles, who have been in trouble with the law and have given them an opportunity to be self-sufficient, to win. That program has been trimmed. That program has been cut. We are now raising money at the local levels to support Thunderbird Academy in Pryor, OK, an academy that has had an impact now in over 500 young people's lives, who would be in prison but now are paying taxes, are supporting our infrastructure, are actually participating as viable members of our society. We have a choice to make. We are going to hear, this is a good program, that many things came about through this program. I do not deny that, that some positive research and benefits came. But when we have corporations like Ford Motor, who made $4.4 billion this last year, getting $1 million from the taxpayer to fund their research, or research they would not otherwise fund, we have to ask ourselves a question, are our youth worth it? Are we going to put corporate profits ahead of our youth? I do not think this body wants to do that.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, it is for new grants. So any of the programs that are presently funded by ATP and are forward funded in such a manner will not be affected whatsoever by any decrease in the amount of ATP funds through this appropriation; is that true?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the point is that we have a larger problem with juvenile justice and children and adolescents in this country where we are not addressing it. No matter what we have increased it, we have programs out there that are not going to be funded, like the Challenge Program.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a couple questions. It is true that new moneys for the ATP Program are for new grants, not for grants in the pipeline; is that correct?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that in the report language coming out of the committee of the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] that, in fact, what was said was ``In an era of scarce Federal research and development dollars, funding ATP is simply a low priority''? That's No. 1. No. 2, what was also said is that ``ATP can function for 2 years without receiving 1 additional dollar from the Federal Government.'' So why do we not just take this year and not fund the $74 million and give it to juvenile justice? It is not going to have an impact in terms of funding because the money is not in the pipeline. Why not do that?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 35.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, my friend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman] is not here and will be arriving on the floor shortly. This really is his amendment that I have agreed to introduce with him, and I want to give him credit for it. In 1995, the CDC was practicing what I believe to be an unconscionable practice, and that was blindly testing newborn infants' blood for the HIV virus, discovering who was positive, yet never telling the mother, never notifying the parents that in fact their children were positive for HIV, which also implied that the mother was positive for HIV. The tremendous amounts of moneys that have been spent by this country on research to treat this deadly virus have succeeded in bringing us very new, very good, very effective treatments in terms of delaying the ravages of this disease. Each day, approximately 20 infants in this country are born to HIV- positive mothers. Thanks to the new treatments and thanks to the ban that was agreed to by the CDC in terms of withdrawing this blind testing, most moms now are being identified during their pregnancy, they are being treated, and their children are not becoming infected with HIV. However, concerning to Mr. Ackerman, as well as myself, was an indication by the CDC in the last 3 months that they intended to resume blind testing. What I think is important is we would want the American public to know that we feel that this is a tremendously unethical practice to identify someone with a disease and have medicines available that could prevent that disease, first, second, markedly increase the quality of someone's life, and third, markedly prolong the quantity of that life, and then withhold it, we feel is unethical. Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the Record a letter that I received on September 9 of this year. I would like to read that and then submit it. This is from the Department of Health and Human Services, from Richard Tarplin, the Assistant Secretary for Legislation. Dear Congressman Coburn: Knowing of your continued concern regarding unlinked HIV testing of newborn blood specimens, I would like to inform you that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will pursue surveillance methodologies that do not include HIV serosurveys using any type of blood specimens of newborns without identification. CDC will continue discussion with HIV prevention partners to identify alternative approaches to monitor HIV trends in women of childbearing age. Dr. Satcher has recommended this approach, and the Department has concurred.

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I find the just previous comments rather strange. We have just supported title X, which is totally unauthorized, on the floor of this House, without any objection from Mr. Obey whatsoever that the authorizing committee did not do his work. There was no problem with him supporting that language. And to use an argument against a Member of this body, who has the right and privilege to offer any amendment under this bill, under the rules of this bill, is wrong, and it should not be allowed. The other thing that Mr. Obey brings up is that if you do this, business is going to have to learn something new. Well, I would put forward to Mr. Obey that HCFA changes the rules on Medicare every year, and every hospital in this country, every doctor's office, every health care agency that does anything, has to totally relearn the rules that HCFA puts out. It is a lame excuse that should not be used. The fact is, there has not been a growth to allow for inflation in the coverage of the NLRB. The NLRB does some very important things. But to waste their time in areas which is not well used and not wisely spent, I think is inappropriate. I will say again, and I will look forward to next year, Mr. Obey, when we bring these amendments to the floor, that you will support what you just said about nonauthorized programs should not be debated, should not be left up to the expertise of your subcommittee, where you voted for those unauthorized programs, but yet come to the floor and admit you do not have the expertise to do it. It is on both sides of the issue. * * * Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of confusing issues about the AIDS epidemic. I happen to be one of those that think that we have handled the epidemic in an incorrect fashion. We have done so for a very good reason, because there has been significant discrimination in this country with those who have had HIV. But there are some things that the American public ought to know about the concept of free needle exchanges. First of all, this prohibition will not limit the right of any State to do this. That is where most free needle exchange programs are going on. The other thing people should remember is a free needle exchange program is a free needle exchange for a felon, somebody who has already proven they do not respect our laws and who violates our laws. Now, yes, they are addicted, but nevertheless they are felons. Second, most people support their drug habit by selling drugs, IV drugs. So if they are addicted to heroin, what happens is, they become motivated to supply their habit by agreeing to sell more heroin for the person that they are buying it from to take care of their addiction. Third, it is not just heroin. In Oklahoma we have a significant problem with IV methamphetamine, something that is made in small labs throughout the State, and then people become addicted to IV methamphetamine. So for us to assume this is just a heroin problem is completely wrong. For us to assume this is just people who have been victimized by the drug culture is wrong. They are felons. They also are the very people we are going to be giving free needles to who are going to be encouraging people who are presently not drug addicted to become drug addicted, and we are going to give them some of the tools to help them do that. Now, is the goal worthy? There are six studies that I have read in North America that are associated with free needle exchange programs. The information on decreasing HIV transmission is mixed. Two of the studies show a marked increase in HIV transmission, as compared to those who were not in a free needle exchange program; four do not show that. So we do not know what the science says. We can get out here and say that we know that the science is absolute that it will do this, but we do not really know that. It is nice to claim that in a debate, but we do not know that. What we do know from the two most comprehensive studies that had the same people in the beginning of the study and the same people at the end of the study is that we see an increase in drug usage, one, and that we see an increase in the transmission of HIV among those groups. Another point: One of the concepts of drug treatment is not to enable people to continue their addiction. There are a large number of people who are very well involved in hard drug addiction who oppose the idea of enabling people or making it easier for people to pursue their addiction. It goes against some of the greatest concepts of addictive psychiatrists when we say we are going to give people an easier way to utilize their addiction. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] stated that of the various groups that have recommended that this be done, from the American Medical Association to the American Pediatric Society to the American Public Health Association, the Montreal and Vancouver studies were not available to them at the time they made those recommendations. So they are acting on information that is not the latest of information. I also want to share with my colleagues what is going on in Plano, TX. Plano, TX, is not in my district, but here is a community of 200,000 people who have lost six youths this year from IV drug overdose, six youth that are no longer here because they had access to drugs. It is debatable if this is a good way to slow HIV transmission. What is not debatable is that this is not a good way to slow drug addiction. This is not a good way to slow habits that are destructive to our society, and it certainly is not a good way to lessen the ability of those that are already addicted to, in fact, addict other people on the basis that now we have made it easier for them to promote their wares to support their habit.