Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. Much of that has been shifted to the States who have received that clearance from OSHA; is that correct?

Mr. COBURN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, it is important that that is not the limited number of people who are inspecting the workplace.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if that figure includes State OSHA inspectors, as well?

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is not eliminating OSHA. We are asking OSHA to do it better, more efficiently, and properly, and to do it with some common sense that really enhances workplace safety. Instead of giving OSHA this kind of increase, let us spend the money on putting people in the workplace.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thought that the gentleman might have one.

Mr. COBURN. I stand corrected.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, just to finalize this, the contrast here is not to hurt people who are working. The contrast here is to fund a program that we have mandated to the States to allow local people to decide what they are doing, to take and force efficiency on bureaucracies and move money from Washington to the local school districts. That is what this debate is about. There is not any ill intention on anyone's side. It is saying let us do the right thing. Let us move direction from Washington to the local community, from bureaucrats to local school districts and parents. That is what this debate is all about.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to answer that as somebody who voted against the B-2 bomber, who voted against the budget, who voted for minimum wage, as my colleagues know, I think $4.3 million does a whole lot in Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Texas, and all the other States, and I think a whole lot less is accomplished with $4.3 million run out of Washington, DC. And to say that $4.3 million does nothing is an example of what the problem is in Washington. It is because we perceive that $4.3 million is a small amount. And when that amount of money goes to any school district, and I want to finish my point, and it is not my time I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], when that amount of money leaves Washington, two things happen: No. 1 is it is not wasted in Washington, and No. 2 is it has an opportunity to be put to excellent use in the various States. And IDEA is a program that we have mandated that is underfunded, without a doubt, across this country, and just the other point that I was going to mention to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is we have several other amendments to try to increase IDEA to make that impact much greater.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I want to stand in support of this amendment, but more importantly, I want to ask about the premises, the premise under which we are going to decide that we cannot become more efficient in Washington. The fact is with the wage increase that President Clinton has put through that the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, the assumption is that they will have to lay off people rather than to achieve an efficiency to become more proficient or to figure out a way to get the same job done with less dollars or more dollars that would go to employees with less dollars in other areas. Having spent about 3 weeks this past year in different Government offices and Government agencies, and looking at how those problems are broached, I find two very different areas. I went through the VA regional office in Muskogee, OK, which has led the Nation multiple times now in terms of efficiency because they team-work, they have gone to innovative structures. Their costs are down. Their costs per claim are down. Their costs for handling the case are down. They have led because they decided that they were not going to be behind and just do what Congress said. They were going to try to be more efficient with the American dollar. Then I have gone to the VA hospital and had my staff study the VA hospital and the opposite thing has happened. In fact, we spend more money because more money was made available, not because we were efficient. So the question I would ask is, Is it wrong to try to send money to the local school districts to handle a program that we have mandated on them; and if, in fact, we are spending $1 billion to support the IDEA program, my question is, that is not near enough to the mandates that we are putting out there. And Chairman Goodling said last night on this floor that that was not enough money. He was disappointed that he could only ask for $25 million more. That is not enough money to care for this. We are mandating things must be done even though, in a reform fashion on IDEA, but we are still not sending the dollars there to accomplish it. So, yes, this is a small amount. It does accomplish two things that I would like to see: It drives efficiency and the bureaucracy in Washington and mandates it. There is less money for you to get the job done. Think about innovation, do it in a different way. And second, it does send money to the local school district so that they can meet the mandate that we have placed on them even though, well-intentioned, that costs them far more than we ever send; that would come close to providing for the cost associated even with a revised IDEA. I would support this amendment. I would ask the gentleman about his points of order. Can I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] what the point of order that he would raise on this amendment would be, so that I might know.

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the implication is not punishment. The implication is how do we drive efficiency within the bureaucracy of our Government. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if in fact there is less money, we will drive invention to get the job done in a more efficient way. We have done that throughout our entire history as a country. I agree with the gentleman, there are a lot of bureaucracies in the State of Oklahoma within the Education Department of the State of Oklahoma. But where do we start drawing that line? Oklahoma should clean up its bureaucracies. But we should not clean up bureaucracies in Washington because Oklahoma has failed to do it? I am not saying they have, but should they have failed to do it, that should not limit what we do.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would concur with that, but remember, not all the cost of the Department of Labor is salary and benefits, although that is a large portion of it. There is a large area that is not. So when we say we increase a total number, it is not all going for salaries and benefits. In fact, they could hold their other costs even and meet those equally well, meet the demands of a salary increase.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman has plenty of time to answer that. Mr. Chairman, I would even propose that we might increase those funds. But I think we ought to be very careful about what we want and what the truth is in terms of what really happens in international family planning. I will support the will of this House, regardless of how this vote comes out, because I think it is important that women do have this service.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], and I thank the gentleman for taking this time and opportunity to discuss the funding for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman and I are both aware, the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program operates through the State Department with funding from 15 different Federal agencies. Despite the fact that this program is 100-percent taxpayer funded, it has never been authorized by Congress. And in fiscal year 1996, the last year for which figures are available, the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Peace Corps contributed through interagency transfers over $311,000 to the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program. Almost a third of that total was funds appropriated under the Foreign Operation Appropriations Act. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to ask whether the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations had appropriated such funds for or supports such interagency transfers for the U.S. Man and the Biosphere in the fiscal year 1998 appropriations.

Mr. COBURN. I yield to the gentleman from California. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment a little bit on what we have heard here today. First of all, I would like to make clear, as a practicing physician and obstetrician, I believe in family planning. I believe that women should be counseled and offered the opportunity. But I also do not believe that one of those options ought to be the termination of the life. And as the gentleman from California just alluded to, it is his hope we would prevent further abortions, that is not really what happens. Oftentimes they come and get talked into an abortion; and then they are very upset about that after the fact. So if we, as a country, truly are concerned about women in the Third World and their ability to have a choice of not reproducing, then what we ought to do is do the best we can and, at the same time, offer real concern that this body has had for a long period of time that this other option, with which we have much difficulty ourselves in terms of our debate in this body. I would agree with what Mr. Campbell said. The real problem is unintended pregnancy. It is not abortion. It is a shame that our body continues to get hung up on this issue. But we have to be truly honest about what the real issue is. It is like Ms. Pelosi's amendment. Is it a straightforward amendment that addresses the issue that we are talking about, or is it an amendment that is somewhat less than straightforward so we can cloud the issue? We all want the same thing. We just disagree on how we get there. And I have the utmost respect for Ms. Pelosi and her views, and she represents a very different part of the country than I do. But we ought to keep in mind that we do want the same thing, and that there is a large body in this country and in this House that says this is a worrisome area to us, this idea of abortion. So let us be very, very honest about what we are doing and not try to trick the American public. The fact is, there are some disagreements on how we do it. Let us vote to make sure we get family planning money there.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for that clarification. As the Members of this body are aware, the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program has raised a number of questions ranging from violations of private property rights to misuse of tax dollars. Without specific congressional authorization that defines the role of the Biosphere Program and without congressional oversight, it is impossible to answer any of these questions. I can guarantee my colleagues that it is reassuring to my constituents and those of many other Western States to know that their tax dollars will not be used in support of a program which is not accountable to Congress. On behalf of myself, our colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Peterson], the gentlewoman from Missouri [Mrs. Emerson], the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], all of whom have assisted in bringing this program to light and assuring the proper use of Federal funds, I would like to thank the gentleman for providing this guidance to the agencies funded under this act.

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

Mr. COBURN. I would just like to finish my point, and if I have any time left, I will be happy to. I think the gentlewoman controls some time on her side.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand what it is for.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] might answer a few questions about this amendment for me. I know it has been accepted, but I think it is important to clarify. The money and the goal I fully agree with. I think it is worthwhile. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman from Wisconsin explain to me again where this money is coming from and why we chose to take it from those various programs?

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