Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. I take with some advice the gentleman's words and would agree with them to a great extent. But my main purpose for opposing this is to make us think about what we are doing. HIV-AIDS, except in very rare circumstances today, is an absolutely preventable disease. Absolutely preventable. As long as we fail to recognize that, as long as we ignore that, we will never solve this epidemic, no matter how much money we put at it, no matter how much money we put into drug research, into compassionate care in the latter stages of AIDS, we are not ever going to do enough.

Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, I was not referring to a vaccine at all. There is very substantive research in front of us today that says that we will be able to prolong significantly the occurrence from HIV to AIDS infection with some of the very, very new and miltidrug trials. The latest studies coming out say that that is so. Therefore, it is eminently important that people who have HIV be identified now.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would congratulate our chairman for the job he has done. I agree that they have done great work. But I think his point proves the point by his very own testimony. Last year they cut $1 billion. This year they cut another $500 million. Where did the $500 million come from? They cut $1 billion last year and they can cut $500 million more this year? Why not two pennies' worth? Why not 2 cents more? It is the same thing in every Government agency: There is so much waste, there is so much to get, that we will find more next year. There will be more next year. There will be more than this $500 million next year, because it is there. The question comes, it is like the guy on TV in Oklahoma says, ``What's the deal?'' The deal is we promised to balance this budget. We promised to live within our means and quit sacrificing the future of our children and grandchildren. We have to have the discipline to do that. The true fact of the matter is, as the gentleman from Wisconsin stated, we are spending $14 billion more than what we said we were going to spend a mere 9 months ago. It proves that there is not the discipline in this House to live up to its obligations in terms of the budget and in terms of spending. All we are saying is cut every additional appropriations program a minimum of $1.9 percent, 2 cents. Everyone knows we have 2 cents worth of waste in the Federal Government. We can, we should, and most of all, we owe that obligation to the future generations whose money we are spending today. It is easy for us to spend it because we are not going to pay it back. It is not easy for them to spend it and it is not easy for them to pay it back. They are going to pay it back by not owning a home, not being able to buy a car, having hyperinflation, and not achieving the living standard anywhere close to what we have.

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

Mr. COBURN. We certainly would have been happy to, had it come to the floor beforehand.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, the Defense appropriations bill was voted on at the time at which we voted on the budget resolution, the joint conference.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to something that the gentleman from Washington had to say. The question was asked whether or not we could afford this. Of course, we can afford this. But that is not the question. The question is: Can our children afford it? The ones that are going to pay back the debt? Even if there was nothing controversial within NEH, we should not spend money we do not have on a program that is not of human necessity, and that is the question. We lose sight of the fact that we are spending our children and grandchildren's money on something the majority of which, throughout the rest of this country, is done through philanthropy. Can we afford it? Absolutely we can afford it. Can we do it? Yes. Should we do it? Absolutely not. I support the amendment and would ask my colleagues to support it as their vote.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, due to circumstances beyond my control, I was not physically able to cast my vote for H.R. 3415, which repealed the 4.3 cent gasoline tax implemented in 1993. At this time, I would like to take this opportunity to submit my opinion on this issue for the record. Tax relief--in order to be truly effective--must do two things. First, it must be meaningful relief; people must be able to reap the benefits of Congress' actions. Second, it must be paid for with real dollars, not with creative bookkeeping or irresponsible offsets. I am committed to tax relief. The American people are overburdened with federal, state, and local taxes but don't see the returns for their investment. In fact, May 7, just two weeks ago, marked ``National Tax Freedom Day'' where people stopped handing over their paycheck to Uncle Sam and started working for themselves. Clearly, tax relief is important, necessary, and well deserved. I do not support the 1993 decision to raise gasoline taxes 4.3 cents a gallon to finance irresponsible government spending. Dollars collected from fuel taxes should be spent only on infrastructure, not on pet projects or wasteful, duplicative federal programs. It stand to reason that ideally, the gas tax should be repealed. But it troubles me that tax relief--in this case, repealing the gas tax--has become a political football. I do not believe people will truly benefit from this token gesture. I question the timing of the gas tax repeal: if gas taxes were too high, why didn't Congress attempt to repeal them six months ago, when the price of gasoline was at an all- time low? I find it curious that this issue has only been addressed during an election year . . . and if repeal of the tax is truly necessary, then why is it temporary? Shouldn't tax relief last beyond the 1996 elections? And how are we planning to address the loss of revenue to the federal treasury? Auctioning the spectrum is neither a real nor a responsible option. The criteria for tax cuts--meaningful relief which is paid for--have not been met. While I disagree with H.R. 3415, I am also opposed to the Administration's ``solution.'' Selling 12 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve won't lower gasoline prices--in fact, it will COST the American taxpayers $144 million dollars. The President's response to rising gasoline prices is politically motivated as well. This is a superficial, cosmetic action which will do nothing to truly lower gasoline prices. Furthermore, I strongly believe that neither Congress nor the President should be in the business of regulating gasoline prices, just like the federal government should not regulate the price of other commodities like wheat, corn, or sugar. Instead, the market should be allowed to function. History shows that fuel prices traditionally rise in the spring but fall and level out after a few weeks. 1996 is no different. Already, consumers are watching prices go down, although not as quickly as they might like. Mr. Speaker, had I been able to cast my vote on this piece of legislation, I would have voted ``no.'' I cannot support a politically motivated tax cut which will not significantly aid the American consumer. This is a tax cut package tied up with pretty ribbons--but when the taxpayers open it, they see an empty box, not the true savings Congress has promised. I feel this is another example of election-year politics, not genuine reform. I want to tell the people of Oklahoma's second district that Congress reduced their tax burden, but I want them to be able to see the difference in their bankbook at the end of the month. I cannot vote for a gimmick which makes politicians look good but doesn't actually help the people who put them in office. I don't believe that temporarily repealing the 1993 gasoline tax will do much to lift the tax burden from the shoulders of the American people; therefore I cannot support it.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one point. I have talked to hundreds of military doctors, and the fact is they do not care to perform abortions, they do not want to perform abortions. This is the practice today, that we do not do this in military hospitals. Military physicians do not wish to perform this procedure, and so it should be stopped there. People who perform abortions in this country do it because they so want to, and physicians as a group, the military physicians, have chosen not to perform this procedure.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, as a representative of 14 tribes from the Second District of Oklahoma, I rise in support of the Hayworth amendment. I would first like to thank Chairman Lazio and Congressman Hayworth for their tremendous effort and dedication in putting together the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. I rise in support of this legislation in large part because the second largest Native American tribe in the United States, the Cherokee, reside in my district respectively. The 14 tribes which I represent in Congress strongly support this landmark Indian housing reform bill. The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma has a tribal membership which currently numbers 170,000. Despite the large tribal size, the number of Indian housing units is ridiculously low. The Housing authority of the Cherokee Nation manages some 4,300 housing units under the Low Rent, Section 8 and Mutual Help Homeownership Opportunity Program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Development. But the tribe's need for housing is much, much greater. The Cherokee Nations Housing Authority budget has grown from $8 million to $30 million and its work force has increased from 65 to 250 employees. This growth is due, in part, to the Housing Authority's ability to leverage Federal dollars, to the extent HUD's program constraints allow. Still, most Cherokee tribal members live in crowded Indian housing units in conditions considerably more severe than those of the non-Indian populations. Mr. Chairman, Tribes and Indian Housing Authorities like those of the Cherokee Nation are prime examples of what is achievable in Indian management working with scarce resources. They have successfully leveraged Federal programs available for housing and other assistance to Native Americans with whatever other outside financing they can identify. Mr. Hayworth's amendment will advance this progress substantially by separating from public housing programs the Indian housing programs and moving toward deregulation of those Indian housing programs. Tribes and their housing authorities will be better able to leverage Federal dollars with private financing to construct new housing and renovate existing units in Indian country. The most important feature of this bill is the procedure of block granting the federal funds for Indian housing programs. The block grant approach is fully consistent with the concept of Indian self-determination and self- governance. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Hayworth's amendment, and adopting it as part of H.R. 2406.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee. We come here tonight happy that we have accomplished some things that are new, some things that are important, but, most of all, to provide support for those that need our support in terms of facing HIV infection. Some things have been added to this bill, which needed to be added a long time ago, and the first of those is a prohibition on discrimination based on either HIV status or the seeking of an HIV test. It is long overdue and I am glad to see it included. Spousal notification is something that is needed. It is right. It is proper. It is a part of this bill as well. And then, finally, putting in perspective where we have seen the best AIDS research come forward; that in terms of treating newborn infants and infants conceived to women who are HIV positive. The science is great, the science is very promising, and, hopefully, this science will lead to further discoveries and further breakthroughs that will treat those that are so ravaged by this disease. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] and those of the other side of the aisle who worked to help us forge out a compromise. I believe we have forged out a good one and I am hopeful we can get this money going straight away to help those who need it.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers on the part of the House may have until midnight tonight, April 30, 1996, to file the conference report on the Senate bill, S. 641, to reauthorize the Ryan White CARE Act of 1990, and for other purposes.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting coming from Oklahoma, being a new Member of this body, the arrogance of this body. What we hear tonight is arguments based on class envy. What we hear tonight is arguments that the people in the States are not adequate to make decisions about their own well-being. The very idea that our Framers of our Constitution had in mind was that we should send to the States to be decided amendments to the Constitution. By us precluding that, based on what we think, not with prudence, but based on what we think that they should not have the opportunity to decide that, that in the face that the vast majority of people in this country when asked, do you think we should change this system, do you think that we should make it more difficult to raise taxes, would agree. So once again Washington collectively, Washington in its arrogance, in its ego, has decided that we know better. Well, that is just not the truth. It is arrogant, it is careerism, it is elitism at its worst, and it is impossible for this country to survive with that kind of thinking continuing. The other thing that I hear tonight is that this bill would not allow tax reform. That is not true. It does allow tax reform. Finally, this is what this new Congress is all about, trying to put us back in a redirection, trying to reform this institution, trying to give it the self-discipline that it needs because it has obviously not had it over the past 30 years. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. The people of Oklahoma support this bill. This is something that we should and must do for the next generation.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have voted on the three main components of this bill already, regulatory reform, Social Security earnings limit increase, and a line-item veto. I think it is very important that the American public knows what this bill is. This is adding things to increase the debt for our children. What is wrong with the scenario to say that we are in debt, we have no figured-out way, no agreed-to plan, to solve that debt, and we are going back to the bank to borrow more money? Mr. Speaker, the Members of this Congress need to make sure they know what they are doing when they vote to extend the debt and jeopardize the future of our children by not doing the proper thing in terms of living within our means today. Consider what it will be like when we are 70 or 80 years of age. They will not, our children or grandchildren, be able to buy a home, will not be able to own a car. Their living standard will be halved, because we did the wrong thing today. This is not about the Social Security earnings limit, this is not about the line-item veto, this is not about reg reform, this is about not living up to the very hard responsibility that this Congress has been entrusted with, and that is not to live beyond our means. I would urge each Member of Congress to consider what the real issue is here today, and vote not to extend his debt limit until we have an agreement that gives us a plan on how we manage the finances of this country.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we talk about what this bill is and what it is not. The term abortion is used rather loosely around this body. Abortion, by definition, occurs before 20 weeks. This procedure is not used before 20 weeks. This procedure is used on viable infants, infants who are viable outside of the womb. So as we hear all the confusing dialogue tonight, it is important that everybody realize that infants, 22 weeks gestation, from the time of conception 22 weeks forward, which is actually less than 21 weeks, by normal count, those are viable infants by definition. Today if a baby is born at 22 weeks we do everything we can to save that baby. So this bill is not about abortion, this bill is about eliminating the murdering of infants who are otherwise viable outside of the womb. What is this bill? This bill eliminates a procedure that has been designed to be of benefit only to the abortionist. Every complicated pregnancy that might have an adverse outcome in terms of an indication under the present utilization of this procedure can in fact be delivered in a much more humane, much less traumatic, and much more beneficial way to both the infant and the mother. What this bill provides is the respect that a viable fetus deserves, an infant of 22 weeks. Let us make no mistake about this, this procedure is utilized to terminate otherwise normal infants the vast majority of the time. We are going to hear otherwise on that, but if you think an infant with a cleft palate is someone who needs to be terminated, if you think adolescent females, because they are pregnant. should qualify under this bill, as the President would have us say, because of their adolescence or because of their age, should otherwise be an exception under this bill, then you do not in fact understand what this procedure is all about. I would urge my colleagues to think about what this bill really is. This is not an abortion. This procedure is a convenient method for some practitioners to terminate the lives of otherwise viable infants.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment. I, too, want to support this bill, but I think that there is a balance that has been drafted very carefully by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] to balance what we need to do and, at the same time, protect individual rights and liberties. Terrorism in this country obviously poses a serious threat to us as a free society. It generates fear. But there is a far greater fear that is present in this country, and that is fear of our own Government. We should not further that fear. We should not do anything to promote further lack of confidence in our own Government. Public officials must recognize that our citizens fear not only terrorism, but our Government as well. A recent Gallup Poll found that an astounding 52 percent of the people believe the Federal Government has become so large and powerful that it poses a threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Four out of ten thought that this danger was imminent. We can ill afford to pass legislation in the name of antiterrorism that is seen by many law-abiding citizens of this country as a threat to their freedoms. The Barr amendment deletes provisions of the bill that I feel are essential to protect individual rights. I believe this bill violates constitutional rights without the Barr amendment, and it takes away personal liberties which are so precious, and we should not sacrifice them for any cause. For that reason I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the amendment. The Barr amendment protects our precious individual liberty.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago this month, this country put the lives of thousands of young Americans at risk in the Persian Gulf war. The war with Iraq was fought to restore Kuwait's independence, but it was also fought to preserve and protect the energy security of this country. Five years later, we are still dependent on foreign oil for our energy needs--in fact far more dependent than we were 5 years ago. Last year, for the first time in our Nation's history, we imported more than 50 percent of the oil consumed in this country. Meanwhile, I have domestic producers in my home State of Oklahoma who are capping marginal wells every day--burying oil and gas that will never again be recovered. It is putting Americans out of work and it is threatening our national security. What can this Congress do to revive our domestic oil and gas industry? The first step is to allow domestic producers to compete on a level playing field. In a few days, we will be voting on this floor on a bill to reform the regulatory process in this country. Excessive regulations have strangled domestic oil and gas producers, raising their cost of production and diminishing their chances to compete. A vote for regulatory reform is a vote for the health of our domestic oil and gas industry. I urge this Congress to release the domestic oil and gas industry from the excessive taxes and regulations that threaten our domestic energy supply and our national security.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. The other thing that we ought to pay attention to is, this is the beginning. It is not just going to be on environmental laws. It is going to be on every other law that this Congress has passed that the World Trade Organization is going to try to subvert and undermine the laws that this very Congress passed for the well-being and benefit of this country. We should stop it now before it continues, and we should appeal. And we should force, through a resolution of this Congress, the President to ask for an appeal of this ruling. Should we not get that, then we should do the legislatively responsible thing to reverse our participation in the World Trade Organization.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the gentleman that just spoke on the Republicans not wanting to get to a balanced budget and not negotiating, the very gentleman that spoke voted against the first balanced budget act this country has seen in 30 years. Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to me that the first ruling of the World Trade Organization in enforcement of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was against the United States. Many people had predicted that that would happen if we in fact gave up our sovereignty to the World Trade Organization as far as our international trade is concerned. The World Trade Organization argued that the Clean Air Act, one of the most important environmental laws that we have, unfairly discriminated against foreign oil refiners whose fuel cannot meet our clean air standards. It was predicted that this was going to happen, but everyone ignored this prediction saying it would not happen. It has happened now. Everyone said it could not, but it has. Rather than target the harsh and blatantly protectionist regulatory regimes of our major competitors, the World Trade Organization has now predictably chosen to target U.S. environmental laws. This ruling gives major competitors against the United States a huge bonus while overturning U.S. laws written to protect the health of our citizens in one fell swoop. And as unbelievable as all this sounds, our executive branch of Government, the President, has not decided whether to appeal this ruling. It is outrageous. This decision should be appealed immediately and, further, we should withdraw from the World Trade Organization, and we should use our contributions to reduce our deficit. We should give significant and clear consideration to a repudiation of the last GATT treaty. Congress and the American public have clearly and consistently supported clean air standards and set an example for the world of the importance of the clean air environment. Are we now going to let the World Trade Organization thwart the will of the American people and overturn American laws? Are we going to let foreign arbiters of the World Trade Organization now dictate to this Congress, to the U.S. Congress what laws we can and cannot pass? I for one will not stand by while foreign judges of the World Trade Organization rule on the validity of the American environmental and labor laws. I will not surrender our sovereignty to the World Trade Organization, nor should we. American business and manufacturers have invested billions of dollars in complying with the Clean Air Act. It is not correct, it is not right, it is not fair for foreign competitors that have not been faced with the kind of investment that our businesses have been faced with to import into the United States to the disadvantage of U.S. companies who have complied with our laws. I say that we should not have any special breaks for foreign oil companies, if they cannot meet our environmental requirements, and that we should say no to the World Trade Organization or to any foreign organization telling this government what we will or will not do.

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to weather delays in my return from Oklahoma, I was unable to cast my vote on House Joint Resolution 132, the resolution supporting a balanced budget in 7 years. I have made clear since January that balancing the budget is our highest priority if we are to secure a bright future for our children and grandchildren. Therefore, had I been here, I would have voted ``aye'' on House Joint Resolution 132.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, if one were to take the time to explain the current controversy over taxpayer-subsidized lobbying to the average American, I have no doubt that the Istook-McIntosh-Ehrlich language would win easy approval. Most of my constituents are flabbergasted to learn that taxpayer- subsidized lobbying occurs at all. They do not believe it is an appropriate use of their tax dollars. It is only inside the beltway that it is considered normal for groups to receive Federal grants that enable those same groups to lobby for more Federal grants. Mr. Speaker, this pernicious practice must end. A few weeks ago, the House voted to retain the Istook language in an appropriations bill. Now, it is doubtful that that bill will ever make it to the Senate floor. And Senate conferences on a different vehicle have refused to add it to that bill. Mr. Speaker, the instincts of the average American are right. No one can plausibly justify the continuation of taxpayer-subsidized lobbying as we have come to know it. Mr. Speaker, let us say no to business as usual and at the same time stand up for the taxpayer. Yes to the Istook-McIntosh language on Treasury--Postal.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we have just had a medical lesson from a Member of this body that is totally inaccurate. Late-term abortions can be performed in a number of ways. This, least of which, is mostly convenient for the abortionist, has nothing to do with safety of the mother. Other methods are far safer than this method, where the uterus itself is never instrumented, the risk of bleeding, the risk of incompetent cervix, and the risk of fertility is avoided by the other methods.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, again to correct the medical facts, infants under this procedure who have received an anesthetic from their mother are not dead. They are not dead. They are as alive as my colleagues or I. The anesthetic required to terminate a fetus in utero would put the mother at great risk and it is never performed.