Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. But they are not paying it.

Mr. COBURN. Will be the excess plus the interest payment that is due on the $550 billion?

Mr. COBURN. Plus another $35 or $40 billion in interest payments?

Mr. COBURN. It is a great vision and one we ought to leave the American public with is that it is doable to balance the budget, we can meet the commitments to those that we have made commitments to and still balance the budget. We cannot have everything we want and balance the budget, but we can have everything that we need. As we close this out, what I would want the American public to know is that, as we spend $1.6 trillion, sometimes that is hard to figure out how much money that is, and the best way I know to know how much a trillion dollars is is, if you spent a million dollars a day every day for 2,600 years, you would have spent your first trillion dollars. So as we think about the magnitude of the size of our Federal Government and how that impacts how each one of us can relate to a million dollars a day being spent, it shows you that the magnitude is there that we can make the changes. All we have to do is be determined to do it.

Mr. COBURN. What does it take to do that? What is required to do that?

Mr. COBURN. That is why it is so important for people of courage to stand up and do the right thing as far as the budget is concerned. The fact is, is we can balance the budget. We can make the hard decisions. The question is whether or not we will. The only way I am convinced that is going to happen is if the people of this country demand that their representatives make the hard choices that secure the future not only for the seniors and those 50 years of age, my age, and older, for their Social Security but also secure the future for our children and our grandchildren. Because in fact if we do not do these things now, the burden on them and the percentage of their life that they are working just to fund the Federal Government is going to be far in excess of 50 percent and probably close to 70 or 75 percent. The problem is not unfixable, although that is what we hear. The reason it is unfixable is people are not willing to make the tough decisions about the programs. The thing I would want the American public to know is we cannot continue to do what we are doing and that everybody, everyone, everywhere is going to have to experience some pain in some way if we are going to balance the budget. Sometimes that pain is just a change in a program, but still the delivery of the service. Sometimes that pain is not a Government subsidy to oversee sales for some corporation. Sometimes that pain is making sure that we have an efficient food stamp program, or getting rid of the fraud in Medicare. It is something that we can do.

Mr. COBURN. With IOU's.

Mr. COBURN. Let me ask the gentleman a question. Of the money that the Federal Government has borrowed, the internal debt to the Social Security, has the Federal Government paid any interest on that debt?

Mr. COBURN. So in essence none of the money that is supposed to be set aside for Social Security trust fund purposes nor the interest actually has ever been paid, and we continue to send a piece of paper to cover the interest and the additional moneys that we will take this year. What is the estimate this year of the amount of moneys that will be taken from excess Social Security funds, payments over disbursements?

Mr. COBURN. It is a matter of making judgments as to what our priorities are and how do we best benefit ourself, and once we assume and know we can balance the budget, that is the hard work of Congress, and as it should be. I want to thank you for joining me in this today, and I would want the American public to leave this discussion knowing that it is possible to balance the budget, it is possible to pay off the debt, it is possible to live up to the commitments that we have made in Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and welfare and at the same time secure the future for the next generation.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. As a matter of fact, we can do it putting that money into investments that will enhance the Social Security; is that not true?

Mr. COBURN. But the answer to the question is we can meet the needs and commitments we have made in this country, and we can balance the budget and we can pay off the debt; is that correct?

Mr. COBURN. So let me ask the gentleman a question, if I might. Is it possible to balance our budget and pay off the debt; and can we do that and meet the obligations that we have made to the people in this country that depend on us?

Mr. COBURN. The principle is, if the underlying purpose of the CPI increment, cost of living adjustment, was to reflect that, then what we ought to have is that it reflects the cost of living. If it is overstated, it ought to be lowered; and if it is understated, it ought to be raised. I have not found any senior in my district that disagrees with that once they understand what the issue is with it. It is not a political fix, it is doing the right thing. So, again, what we should be saying is that that CPI should accurately reflect, and we have large numbers of people as far as economists and other statisticians that tell us today that that is not accurate. Now, how we solve that is to ask them to do their job and to do it correctly and bring us and the American public that number. If they will do that, that will not be an issue anymore. But it also brings us back to what our problems are, is we are not demanding excellence in large areas in our Nation. And the first place we should demand excellence is in our Government, and we should demand excellence in the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Mr. COBURN. I think we should.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the position of the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and will be supporting his position on the House floor. I wanted to take a minute to address those in our country who are interested in our budget. If in fact they do not believe that a balanced budget is important, then they should not pay attention to anything that I am about to say. But if in fact they think we ought to live within our means, then I think consideration of some of the information that I am about to relate to them they will find interesting. In 1972, our entire budget was $241 billion. This year we will spend $17 billion more than that on interest on the national debt alone. So what we are really faced with in our country is a threat. The threat is not very popular to talk about. The threat is not easy to focus on. But, nevertheless, the threat is great, and the threat is this: If the people who work and vote in this body fail to recognize the importance of not balancing the budget, what in fact they have done is ruined the future for our children and our grandchildren. To the seniors who would be listening who suffered through the Great Depression, who were the valiant men and women who allowed us to win World War II, they are the ones who hold this debate in their hands, the fate of a balanced budget. For what will really happen to our children as they pay out the $200,000 each that they now owe, both in terms of debt and interest, which does not begin to recognize the internal debt that we owe the Social Security System, from which we borrowed, actually stole, $69 billion last year to run the Government, their living standard will be nowhere close to what we experience today. Their opportunity to have an education, to own a home, will vanish in the midst of our irresponsibility. How big is the threat? The threat is the largest threat we have faced since the end of World War II. It is a very subtle threat. It is one that is hard for people to get excited about, yet it will undermine the essence and the greatness of the American dream. What do we have to do to win this battle? The first thing we have to do is recognize that career politicians from both parties are not necessarily interested in doing the right thing. Martin Luther King said in his last speech, his last major speech before he was assassinated, that cowardice asks the question: Is it expedient? And vanity asks the question: Is it popular? But conscience asks the question: Is it right? Washington has a way of avoiding the last question and running to the first two: Is it expedient? Is it popular? It will not be popular to balance the budget. It will not be expedient to balance the budget. But it is right to balance the budget. What is the psychology of the rationalization that we have in our country today that says we will balance the budget sometime in the future? How did we get to the psychology of saying we do not have enough money to pay our bills and it is fine to jeopardize and mortgage the future of our children because we do not have the courage to make the hard decisions that are required to eliminate that threat for our children? What I would ask my fellow Americans to do is to think, as a grandparent or a parent, what are the most important things in their lives, and usually we will answer, our children or our grandchildren. I have an 18-month-old grandchild, and as I look at her, I look to see what possible future can she have if we fail to do the right thing, the thing that our conscience would dictate, which is not taking away their future for us now. We hear from organizations like AARP that we should dare not touch the cost of living index, the CPI, regardless of the fact that most economists would agree that it overstates the incremental increase in the cost of living. The idea of selfishness has now displaced the concern for our children and our grandchildren. The same thing for special interests that get funded by the Federal Government every year. There is going to be a debate in not too long on the National Endowment for the Arts. Regardless of what our feeling is on that, how can we spend money in that area when we know that our children will pay back that $90 million three or four times what it cost because we do not have the money to pay for it? How in the world do we justify and rationalize our ability to not do what is right? We cannot. We cannot face our problem; we cannot stand up and do the hard thing. And, unfortunately, the reason that we will not is, many people in this body are more interested in getting reelected, and their careers and their decisions about coming back to a place of power have become more important than their children and their grandchildren. So we see greed and selfishness for ourselves is starting to displace the very unique qualities that made America great. Alex de Tocqueville said of the American people that America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. I would put forth to the American public today that the way we measure our goodness, the way we measure our compassion, is by doing the right thing and doing the right thing now. We will hear a lot of people scream and say we cannot cut certain programs, that we cannot balance the budget, that we cannot do it today. But I would put forward the belief that if we faced an external threat in this country, not an internal one but an external threat to this country, that we as Americans would rally around, we would come together and say: What do we have to do to defeat this threat? And if it required sacrifice of us all, we would make that sacrifice, we would pull together, we would demand that every aspect of our Government become much more efficient, that they would accomplish the same task with less cost and more efficiency. The fact is, we have a subtle threat. We are not willing to address this threat, and so, consequently, we are not about to do that. I do not hold much hope for a balanced budget because I do not hold much hope that people will make a decision based on the right things, their conscience. And I do, unfortunately, feel that too many of the Members of this body will make a decision based on cowardice and vanity, much as Martin Luther King talked about. The only way we balance the budget is if the people of this country say we must balance the budget. So those that hear what I am saying today have to become an active part, a participant in this process. They have to demand that those that represent them make the hard choices, the difficult choices, the choices that are morally right. It is immoral to steal from our grandchildren and our unborn grandchildren. The only way we solve this problem is for the American public, the citizens of this Nation, to demand the courage and the proper representation of their Members of Congress to accomplish this task.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, first of all, having delivered greater than 3,100 babies and cared for over 10,000 women in my medical experience, I want to again reemphasize, there is no medical indication ever for this procedure. To answer the gentleman from Massachusetts' question, why would you, if in fact there is a reason to do this procedure, why would you do it to a live baby? Why would not the doctor kill the baby first, which in fact is what they do. The very false arguments, false arguments that are put forward is that the baby, with the encephalocele or the externalized brain, the people that do this procedure actually kill the children first. There is no reason to use that as an argument. That sets up my second point. This argument is about whether or not we are going to talk about the truth of the procedure. You will not find in any medical textbook, you will not find in any residency training program where they teach doctors to care for women's health, you will never find where this procedure is taught or is shown as an indicated procedure. Why not? Very simple reason: It is not ever indicated. It is not indicated in the medical literature. It has been abhorred. There was a statement earlier that said that the ACOG was worried about this because it had the potential of inhibiting. They said, they do not like this procedure either. What they said is the Congress dealing with these issues have the potential of inhibiting care. Potential is very much different than changing or affecting care. We were told that this was done on a small number of infants and that it was always done or most always done on infants with severe deformities. That was an out-and-out lie. I stood on this floor last year and said that was untrue. I will tell Members today, it is untrue, absolutely, without question that this is ever needed to take care of a woman's health. Second point, it was said that a woman's fertility can only be protected sometimes by using this. That is exactly the opposite of the truth. I can give you cases where women's fertility because of this procedure has been ruined forever. It goes against everything we are taught in the medical community to preserve fertility and to preserve a woman's health.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, we once again deal with deception. There is no serious adverse long-term physical health consequence to the mother that can be best treated by this procedure. It does not exist, it has never existed, it will never exist. It is a falsehood, it is an untruth. Partial-birth abortion, D&E on the live baby is done for the convenience of an abortionist. It is never done for any other reason. It is done for the convenience of an abortionist. This is a deceptive way to confuse the issue. There is no truth that this allowance needs to be there, because it never exists. It is a falsehood. It is something that was set up so that we can create a false climate. I will repeat. It never happens. It never is indicated.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think the point is there is not ever a case, never a case where this procedure is needed to protect the life of a woman.

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, permit me to take a moment to clarify a statement that I issued yesterday criticizing NBC's broadcast of ``Schindler's List'' last Sunday evening which was broadcast during prime time viewing hours. I would want my colleagues of this body as well as this country to not have any mistake that I believe that this movie is a landmark movie, a remarkable movie that profoundly affected me as well as my wife and our family as we watched it. Indeed I instructed my daughters to view this movie and I have had many discussions with friends and neighbors alike about the atrocities of the Holocaust that were made aware to us and made apparent to us through this movie. I feel terrible that my criticism of NBC for airing this movie has been misinterpreted as a criticism of ``Schindler's List'' or the millions of Jewish people who died senselessly during the Holocaust. To all those that I have offended I offer an apology, and I personally apologize for appearing insensitive to the worst atrocities known to human kind. As many of you know I am a practicing physician dealing with life and death issues almost every day. I have devoted most of my adult life to working with religious groups across the spectrum. Religious tolerance is the hallmark of my professional and personal life. However I continue to be disturbed by the new television program rating system recently implemented by the broadcast and cable television network. Mr. Speaker, I have been the leader on this issue since I arrived in Congress. As many of you will recall I offered an amendment on the floor of this House to the Telecommunication Reform Act of 1996, an amendment that would encourage parental responsibility for what their children watch on television. My amendment which passed the House would have accelerated new TV program blocking technologies that were coming to the marketplace. I did not support the V chip technologies because it was an abdication for parents responsibility for what their parents watch. The bottom line is that parents need enough information to make good decisions for their children. Our children in our country are in trouble, and part of it is because of parental failure. We must have parental guidance, but we also must protect those children who have no parental guidance.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Well, thank goodness for our health care system, because in fact we have increased longevity to a tremendous amount, and that has been a detriment on the Social Security trust fund in terms of how they calculated what was going to be needed. But we should not get tied up in that issue. The issue is, is it ethical to say that our deficit is $107 billion when in fact it is $172 billion. That is why people lack confidence in this body, is because we do not have the courage to oftentimes make the tough decisions because we will not face up to the facts. The American public needs to know that the deficit is much larger than what they have been taught and it is much larger because of moneys borrowed from payments into the Social Security system. It needs to stop. It needs to stop because we owe that honesty to the American public. And I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for allowing me to participate.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here with you gentlemen. I just wanted to add a quote that was made in, I believe 1935, a Senator James Wadsworth asked, when they were contemplating the Social Security System, he said, ``In what kind of country are our grandchildren going to live? Shall it be a free country, or one in which the citizen is taught to be dependent upon the Government?'' We need to ask that question today, but we also need to ask another question. How can we continue to meet the current obligations of the Social Security system and the current obligations of the Federal Government as long as we continue to mask what the real problem is? We have to get back to being honest about our problems before we can ever hope to solve them. The people in my district know we did not have a budget deficit of $104 billion last year. We had a budget deficit of $170 billion. We said that the entire time. First of all, one of the problems with the Congress is a crisis of confidence because we have not spoken the truth. The fact is we spent $170 billion more last year than we took in. Part of that money was revenue that was raised and was supposed to be raised so at some point in the future we would be able to make the obligations under the Social Security system. People in my district believe there should have been a trust fund established. Now, whether there was or not, we know there was not a trust fund established, but the expectation is that money should have been there and it should have been invested wisely. And the corollary, along with all the other moneys, had we invested them properly, we would not have this problem. So the most important thing about your bill is the fact that we honestly deal with our problems. We owe it to the people of this country who are dependent on Social Security, we owe it to the children who are not yet born who will be paying into this system to not mask our Federal deficit any longer by confusing the issue and not accounting for the money that we borrow, sometimes steal, that should have been allocated for the Social Security system. So I want to encourage you. I think we have to have this as part of the solution to the problems on Social Security, but also part of the problem in solving the problem with our budget deficit and spending more than what we actually have.

Mr. COBURN. One other thing that I think is important that I would want the American public to know, is we cannot let chairmen of committees not speak truthfully about this problem. It is important that they ask the question of their elected representative of the truth about whether or not the deficit is really $107 billion or is it more than that. It is also important that they ask their representative when they go to vote on the budget whether or not we took that into consideration as we considered that budget, and not allow the politics as usual, the careerism, to wave this off and say this is a nonissue. This is at the heart of the issue: being honest about what our real problems are so we can attack and solve them, not just for us and not just for those seniors today, but for the children and the young people who are going to be seniors tomorrow.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a brief colloquy with Congressman Lightfoot chairman of the Treasury, Postal Service Appropriations Subcommittee, concerning funding for the proposed relocation of the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Speaker, I understand that at the request of GSA, a provision that would allow the Administrator of the General Services Administration to pay a portion of the costs associated with a proposed relocation of the FCC was included in the Senate committee report accompanying the fiscal year 1997 Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill, and during consideration of the bill in the fall this Senate provision was converted to statutory language. It is my understanding that this provision has been deleted from the Omnibus bill before us today. I thank the Speaker. This plan calls for the FCC to nearly double the amount of space it occupies at the very time Congress is considering legislation to reduce the size of the agency, and it is extraordinarily expensive. Mr. Speaker, by specifically deleting the language allowing the GSA Administrator to pay for the relocation of the FCC, is it intended that the GSA Administrator specifically not be authorized to provide any funding for the proposed FCC relocation? I thank the Speaker.