Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I think that is very true. I think with a problem comes opportunity. And we have a problem. The trust fund is going broke, but the opportunity that we have is to not only preserve what we have, but to strengthen it and improve it. I have seniors in my district that choose between eating supper and taking a pill. And to have them have an option that would take away that burden, where they will not have to make a choice between a medicine and supper, is something that many of them would welcome. I talked to a lady today on the phone and she said, ``I do not think that is possible. I think that is a scam.'' But the fact is, there are going to be options out these where seniors can choose to go into a program that will offer them their medications.

Mr. COBURN. I appreciate that very much. Mr. Speaker, I bring a somewhat different perspective to this debate. Many of the people in my district know that I am a practicing family practice physician. I get a unique perspective because not only have I been a provider in the Medicare system and I have hundreds and hundreds and near thousands of patients who are on Medicare, I get to see what they say and what they like about Medicare, and the security they have in knowing that their health care is going to be there, and at the same time the obligation of being a physician is to offer yourself to solve the problem. It just strikes me that of the group of people that are talking here tonight, what the election in 1994 was all about. There is not a career politician among any of the group that has stood up here tonight to talk. Many of us have already signed commitments that we do not want to be here. I have no plans to be here 6 years from now. Therefore, what is our goal? Is our goal self-aggrandizement? Is our goal to elevate ourselves? Or is our goal, do we really come here with the best interests of everybody in our district, the best interests of the senior citizens in this country, to solve the problem? I want people to know that there is no patent on caring. I would not have left a medical practice, other people would not have left other great careers to come and do what we are doing if in fact we did not want to solve the problems. We have lots of input on how to solve this. The one thing that we should all ask is are we getting value for what we are paying for? Therein lies the problem with Medicare. And the seniors know the answers. The seniors know where the problems are, whether it is fraud, whether it is waste, whether it is a lack of comprehension of how the system works and how we have excluded seniors from the payment of bills so they will not know what they cost and how we have allowed a system to be overused and abused. It just strikes me that the way we solve this problem is that we are honest. We are going to make some mistakes. We are not going to have a perfect solution for Medicare. But what we are going to do is work hard, listen and try to do the right thing. You cannot take that away from me. I can sleep every night knowing that my interest is best in watching for my district and the seniors, and also the taxpayers in our district. We can solve Medicare. We are going to solve Medicare. We are going to make a viable, optionable, quality-oriented health care system that every senior in this country can depend on and can count on and they are not going to have to go to bed at night worrying about whether or not it is going to be there in the future.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, it is fast approaching the time in this country when we will reauthorize a very important health care act known as the Ryan White Care Act. This act does tremendous amounts of good in terms of offering health care for those afflicted with this dreadful disease. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman] for his efforts to raise the awareness of this body, as well as this country, as to the former testing practices of the CDC, and we also owe a debt of gratitude to him for making us aware of the failed policies of the ethicists that have advised the CDC, for over this past year we have been blindly testing mothers and children for this disease, without their knowledge, and when finding positive cases we have refused to identify those positive cases and offer treatment for both newborn children and their mothers, this all at the advice of a group of ethicists that told our CDC that this was an appropriate practice. The other disturbing thing about that is that the CDC thought it was an appropriate practice, that newborn children infected with a deadly virus and knowledge of that by our own Centers for Disease Control should not have the opportunity for the best treatment that we have available, and also their mothers should not have the knowledge or opportunity that they in fact could be treated, their quality of life could be prolonged, and complications arising from this disease could be prevented. That, however, has not been the full story of what has happened. Because of the awareness that has come to light through the efforts of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman], we will be proposing, with the new Ryan White authorization, an opportunity for children to have a future. There is no place today where we have and can make an impact on the HIV epidemic in this country like that associated with women of reproductive age. Today the fastest growing segment in this epidemic is women in the reproductive age category. It is growing 8 times faster in this group than in any other group in our country. We also have the opportunity to truly impact newborn babies, because now we have a treatment that prevents, two-thirds of the time, infection in the baby from a woman who might be carrying the HIV virus. The opportunity that will be coming before us will be shadowed in many debates, a debate on confidentiality, a debate on the rights of women not to be tested, but the ultimate debate that will come about as we reauthorize Ryan White will be the debate of how we have handled this epidemic in our country. In 1981, the first case was diagnosed, and today we have 2.5 million people in our country with this virus. We should ask if we are proud of the job that this country has done in facing this disease, in the way that our Government agencies have handled the epidemic and their approach to it. But, most importantly, where we have an opportunity to make a difference, to prevent infection in newborn children, we should not shrink back from that. We should stand up and make the difference, the difference that not only will save several thousand babies' lives each year but also, in this time of scarce resources, will add a quarter of a billion dollars in saved health care costs just from testing mothers during their first trimester of pregnancy. It is my hope and my wish that we will step aside from the politically correct positions of our country and look at the real harm that this infection has caused, not to make callous judgments on those who have unfortunately acquired this disease but all work together to make a new and improved effort at making a difference, saving lives and controlling this epidemic.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the committee. (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns]. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, this is another one of the debates in the House where everybody wants to accomplish the same purpose. The discussion, Mr. Chairman, is about how we go about doing that, and whether or not we violate principles that have dealt us well since we have been a Nation. This amendment is a worthwhile alternative to the V-chip. It puts parents, not the Federal Government, in the driver's seat on the subject of television program viewing choices. The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] assumes only that a congressionally mandated board will know best. The Markey amendment calls on Government to choose one technology over another, not the marketplace. I thought that was what this was all about, the marketplace deciding how we make these decisions. His amendment calls on the Government to mandate a single technology and develop rating systems and require the transmission of those ratings. Whether it is a Government agency or a Government-mandated board, it is still the same. My amendment says that the market knows best. With dozens of devices alreadly on the market and dozens more in the development stage, the Federal Government should not be in the business of forcing a single solution on consumers. A statutory mandate will develop much more advanced, better technologies that will empower parents better and further. There is no question that television is a powerful influence in our society. That is one of the very important reasons why it sould be parents' decision, not the Government. The parents should be making the decisions based on individual family values, not a politically balanced advisory committee. Broadcasters, too, have a responsibility to assess the impact of their work, and understand the damage that it causes to our youth and our society. This industry must continue to take actual tangible steps towards addressing violence and sexual illicitness. This amendment, this substitute amendment, will drive that change to empower parents with the latest technology, with the broadest technology to exclude what they decide is inappropriate. The provisions in my amendment are real, they are tangible steps that will allow the industry and the families through free enterprise and competition to decide what is best for their children. My amendment would call on the broadcast television cable satellite syndication and other video programming distributors and related industries to, one, establish a technology that empowers parents, not the Government to block programming they deem inappropriate; to establish and promote effective procedures for informing the viewing public as to the affordability and the development of blocking technology; and to evaluate no later than 1 year after date of enactment of this act industry-wide procedures, standards, and advisories or other mechnanisms to inform the viewers regarding available blocking devices. I am pleased to announce that this fund has been developed and that we will see in the very near future and we do have now technology available to do this on any old or on any new TV, any old or any new TV. Every TV in the home, not just the new one. Let me be clear. I am not opposed to providing parents with the ability to block programs that they deem inappropriate. Everyone that knows me knows that that is true. I think they should have the responsibility, but it should be the parents' responsibility, not a Government agency, not a Government mandate. I urge Members to support the Coburn-Tauzin amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/4\ minutes. (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White].

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the majority leader.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that the gentleman from Indiana referred to the Senate because here is what the Senate bill does. It establishes five commission members appointed by the President at salaries of $115,000 a year. It will be an executive branch commission. It may hire staff without regard to Civil Service laws. The salaries are not to exceed $108,000 a year. They can appoint additional personnel as may be necessary to do the 105,000 television shows per year. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Frisa].

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the most important points is to recognize that this technology is available today, it is being encouraged. But here is the technology that is not going to be [[Page H 8493]] available if in fact we have the Markey V-chip. We are not going to have interactive television listings. We are not going to use other devices and technologies. We are not going to have set top technology. We are not going to allow the marketplace to come and bring a better method than a government-designed method.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert the following article about a crisis pregnancy center in Rockville, MD, into the Record. [From Family Voice, Aug. 1995] Making A Difference (By Candy Berkebile) Negative advertising campaigns have targeted pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in an attempt to marginalize the role they play in young women's lives. These centers, they say, are deceptive; only care about the baby before it's born; and don't care about women. To counteract these accusations, Family Voice interviewed two young women who have made life and death decisions. Millions of women have gone through similar experiences. Their stories demonstrate the vast difference between an abortion clinic and a pregnancy center. More importantly, they help us see beyond the rhetoric to the heart of the issue. We are dealing with real women faced with crises that they don't know how to handle. Anna, a young unwed Christian entered a Planned Parenthood clinic in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1985. What happened to me that day changed my life forever. The day I walked into the clinic was a muggy August afternoon. I was seventeen years old and I was eight weeks pregnant. I can't tell you step by step what happened, because I remember that day in snapshots. I went into the room, a quiet and rather serious teenager; I left a silent, deeply hurt young woman. I sat and talked to the counselor in a room that, like most others at the clinic, was clean but shabby in appearance. It was bright and cold-- there was no comfort, no luxury, just the tools to change life. I'm sure the counselor told me her name, but I don't remember it. She tried to put me at ease, to let me know it was alright, and to explain what was about to happen to me. She told me about the procedure, about the qualified medical resident who would be carrying it out. Then she asked, ``Anna, is this what you really want? Are you sure you have no other options?'' My voice quavered as I said, ``I have to do this. My parents would never understand. They expect so much out of me and my future. I can't let them down.'' My mind was made up. I had to do this. There was no other way out. I hated myself for what I was about to do. But I could do nothing else. She ushered me to another room, a room which will stay vivid in my imagination forever. She gave me a smock to change into and left me alone with my thoughts and fears for a few moments. When she returned, I was sitting on the padded table-top wearing the flowered smock. She gave me a cotton blanket to wrap around my waist as I waited. ``Do you want to know the funniest thing about this whole situation?'' I laughed nervously as tears brimmed my eyes. ``What's that?'' she asked. ``I never believed that this could happen to me. Even when I thought I might be pregnant. I prayed to God it wasn't true. But I was still pregnant.'' The resident dressed in surgical green entered the room. The counselor placed her hand over mine to calm my fingers, which had been nervously fraying the edge of the wax-like tissue paper I sat on. She said, ``Anna, scoot down here to the end of the table. Put your heels in these holes--these are called stirrups.'' She pointed to the shiny pieces of metal protruding from the end of the table. ``Now, lie back and relax. Let your knees fall to the sides. It's okay. That's right. Now relax,'' she said. ``I'll be here with you. I'll talk to you, we'll go through this together. I knew that while in some respects this was the truth, that nothing could be further from it. She would hold my hand, but I would experience this alone. I stared at the ceiling and counted the watermarks as the resident opened the cold steel speculum inside me. I tried to block out the discomfort and humiliation I was feeling. I was scared. She tried to divert my attention. ``Anna, what do you have planned now that you have graduated?'' ``I'm going to college,'' I answered bravely. ``I leave in to weeks.'' I clamped my mouth shut quickly as the pressure began to build in my lower abdomen. ``Do you know what you want to do?'' She tried to speak softly, reassuringly. She knew the pain was quickly approaching. ``I want to be a lawyer,'' I stated in an anguished voice. One tear sprang to the corner of my eye, She squeezed my hand, I experienced the pain--at least some of it--when the eight-week-old fetus was scraped from the inside of my womb. This, I was prepared for. But what I was not prepared for was the pain that followed in the next few seconds. ``We need more women as lawyers,'' she continued talking. I think she wanted to drown out any other sound I would hear. But her voice was barely a whisper to me now; I was not focusing on her. She asked me if I knew the area of law I wanted to pursue but I barely heard her, and I didn't answer. I only heard one sound; a sound which was, for me, amplified to a deafening crescendo. I flinched as I heard the hollow splash of the sopping sponge-like tissue when it bounced off the bottom of the awaiting utility bucket. I began to move my head back and forth slowly, my swollen eyes were closed, but the tears crept out. ``No. no,'' I repeated. The medical resident left the room, but I didn't notice. I must have been in shock. The counselor helped me dress. Then she took me to a recovery room to lie down. I curled up on one of the many grey cots which lined the room. She sat in a chair by my side. I turned my back on her and faced the blank wall my knees were pulled almost to my chest. My body was quivering. Wave after wave of cramping pain clawed at my insides--the pain of a womb hysterically trying to readjust to its recent loss. I know she probably wanted to help, but what could she do? Five hours later, I walked out the door. The counselor must have given me a reassuring hug as I walked out, but I can't remember anything beyond the recovery room. She [[Page E 1613]] has faded from my memory, I can barely remember her face. But what I do remember is that, there in that clinic, I alone experienced pain and death. But, that was my choice. Vena a young 24-year-old college student walked into a crisis pregnancy center in Rockville, Maryland in 1994. I walked into the center in October. I'd taken a home pregnancy test and wanted to verify it. I was scared. I was still in college. I wasn't married. So I looked through the yellow pages. But I didn't want to go to an abortion clinic. I didn't wan to make a drastic choice right away. And if I hadn't finally seen the ad for the Pregnancy Center, I may not have kept my baby--because I wouldn't have known who to turn to. I was so confused and scared. I couldn't tell my parents. I knew they wouldn't be supportive. And I didn't think I could handle the responsibility of a baby right then. I needed someone to talk to, someone to help me get through this. And I needed support. When my boyfriend and I went into the center, that's when I met Sylvia. She confirmed that the pregnancy test was positive. I was about six weeks pregnant. At first Joe was excited about the baby. But the more we talked about it, the more I knew it was a bad time to have a baby. I was in my junior year at the University of Maryland. I knew I didn't want to have an abortion. I wanted to give the child life. But I needed someone's support. Joe was not supportive at the time. He was so confused. His parents had died when he was a teenager, so he couldn't go to them for advice. My parents were divorced. And I had a difficult time figuring out how to tell them because they were very strict. Besides, they believed in getting married before you have kids. I ended up telling my mother I was pregnant a few weeks after visiting the center. She said, ``It's your responsibility. You got pregnant; you have to deal with it.'' She also told me to get married. I was afraid to tell my father. We hadn't had a good relationship up to that point so I didn't tell him until the eighth month. It was late December. I was having trouble with one of my roommates at school. Joe's attitude at that point was, ``It's your baby, and you're the one who has to deal with it.'' I was depressed and crying. I didn't think I could do well in school. I was working a job. I didn't have any support--and I wanted to scream. It was 11:45 at night. I called Sylvia and woke her up. I didn't think I could deal with anything anymore. I asked her, ``What should I do about the pregnancy?'' Sylvia was great. I don't think she realizes how important she was to me. ``You're going to be okay, Just take one day at a time. Don't worry about anything right now,'' she said. ``You don't want to jeopardize your health. You need to calm down and think rationally.'' Sylvia encouraged me, ``Talk to me as long as you want to.'' I talked for about an hour. She got me through the night. Sylvia isn't the only counselor I talked to. I called a couple of times and spoke to some others. Especially when I needed things I didn't have money for--like maternity clothes. The counselors gave them to me. It was wonderful to be able to use the resources of the center. Then in January, I called Sylvia again for emergency counseling. I had just moved from one dorm to another. Here I was moving in January and I was about five months pregnant. At least my old roommates knew the situation and I was close to them. I had no transportation. Money was tight. Everything I had was going towards transportation and food. I was providing for myself. It was difficult. No one was giving me money. I needed to talk to someone, so I called Sylvia. ``I don't have any money, and I don't know what to do.'' I told her. ``I need to go to a doctor, but I don't have any money to get there. I want to take care of this baby. I can't make it to my doctor appointments. And no one can give me a ride there. I really need to talk to you.'' She said okay. She met me after work. She reassured me that even though it was difficult, I had to understand that I might be the only one who could take care of this baby. She reminded me that I couldn't always depend on someone else to do it. ``You can't blame someone else or feel sorry for yourself because other people aren't helping you. You can't dwell on that,'' Sylvia said. ``You have to think positively. Think about what you can do.'' She was always concerned about how I was doing financially. Sylvia was very good about talking to Joe too. She helped him understand that he was going through a difficult situation as well. And she really let him know that she was there for him. There were a couple of sessions where she helped Joe and me communicate. Before that, we fought all the time. Sylvia helped us cope with our feelings. In late January, we went to visit Joe's relatives. When he took me to visit them, he was very confident. I felt secure because he was very sure of what he wanted to do. He wanted this baby. He told them I was pregnant a few weeks afterwards. ``We're happy for you,'' said his aunt and uncle. ``This baby will be really special.'' They also hoped we would get married if we really loved each other. It was important to Joe that we have family support. Soon after that we started to talk about getting married. But we were both nervous and kept putting it off. In April, Joe and Sylvia convinced me to tell my dad. I had wanted to wait until I had a plan to tell him. But his response surprised me. He encouraged us to get married. Then he invited us to move in with him. So we did. He helped us with groceries. And after I had the baby--when I couldn't walk--he was a great help. Joe and I married on May 18, two days before the baby's due date. Six days later, I delivered a beautiful baby boy-- Benjamin Cleveland. Everyone was at the hospital--Sylvia, Joe, my Mom and my Dad. I told Sylvia she was welcome to watch the delivery because I couldn't have done it without her. She was really my constant, main support during my pregnancy. Clearly both situations were hard. But, in Vena's case, the strengths of the modern-day crisis pregnancy movement are in full evidence. So, the next time you hear someone say these centers are deceptive or that they don't care--remember Sylvia and the thousands of other counselors who are out there helping the Venas of this world make it through another night.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would make a correction. I am trained as a family practice resident and obstetrician. As many of my colleagues know, I am an actively practicing obstetrician, and this past weekend I spent a great deal of time and had great pleasure delivering a number of newborn Oklahoma babies. Therefore, the subject I am going to talk about is based upon profound, prolonged, and years of experience. I cared for over 5,000 women, delivered in excess of 3,000 babies, and, yes, have had the unfortunate circumstances of having had to perform abortions to save the life of women. But I think it is interesting that we should talk about what the issues really are. Many people have said that the Government should not be involved in this issue. The fact that we are involved in this issue is because a government-ordained accrediting agency has stepped outside the bounds of medicine and into the bounds of political expediency and political correctness. That is why it is being addressed in this legislation. The action of the Congress in this bill is appropriate to see that the organizations stay within the bounds of their charter, and that is our oversight responsibility. Now the other issue: The ACGME argument is a fallacious argument. Any doctor trained to handle the first or second trimester of pregnancy is already trained to do a induced abortion. The argument is specious. They already have all the skills that are necessary to perform an induced abortion. So, if the basis of this argument from ACGME is not based on medical need, what could it possibly be based on? For such an accrediting body to act in such an irresponsible fashion the reason is very simple. It is very sly, but it is very simple. It is based on desensitization and coercion in order to obtain a certain desired political result. Mr. Chairman, there is a shortage of abortionists in this country, not because they lack training, but because most physicians abhor the procedure of abortion and refuse to do that procedure. The way they would have us fix this is to coerce training for every resident physician. Those who object? Yes, they can opt out, but the real fact of being in a residency program is, if someone tries to opt out, they are going to be coerced in a number of ways that will make it very difficult for them to be in that residency. So, the real result of the policy is to coerce a certain action. This is an accreditation for quality medical care. This is about increasing the supply of abortionists, and this is an area of active responsibility by this Congress to confront those who have shirked their delegated responsibility and have abused it for political purposes. Let us call it what it is. It is social and political engineering. It has nothing to do with quality medical care or quality medical training, and it has nothing to do with quality resident training.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Greenwood amendment. I think what we need to ask ourselves is, everybody has made a lot of claims about what title X has and has not done. There is not a scientific study that will evaluate it. But there is a retrospective study based on economics. Mr. Chairman, what we do know is since 1970, we have had a rise in teenage pregnancies, a rise in abortion. We now have a sexually transmitted disease epidemic that is out of control and unheard of anywhere in the western world. What we also are told is that there has not been a study of effectiveness. We have one study that we can look at that will tell us what is going on, and it is a study that will be published next month out of the University of California by a Ph.D. economist. It says the following things: That those States which spend less money on family planning have less of those three things. They have less teenage pregnancy, less abortion, less sexually transmitted disease. It also says that the States with the highest amount of money will have the most abortion, will have the most teenage pregnancy, and the most sexually transmitted disease. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members' support for the Livingston-Smith amendment. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. I think the FDA is an example of a Government agency totally out of control, with lack of responsiveness to the oversight functions of Congress. We do not get appropriate answers. We do not get answers to the questions we ask when we inquire of them, and I am part of a faction, a group of new freshmen who plan to see a completely different FDA in the next 2 or 3 years. It is ridiculous to spend money on a building that we are never going to allow the FDA to occupy, and I stand to oppose this. I think it is important that we look at what the FDA is going to look like after this time.

Mr. COBURN

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

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, there is no one in this House who is more committed than I to cutting unnecessary spending and balancing the budget. I strongly support streamlining programs and cutting the bureaucracy in Washington. However, as written, this bill cuts more than just bureaucracy in the Office of Indian Education. It guts grant money for schools and for children. My amendment does not restore the Office of Indian Education. However, it sends money directly to those schools who depend on it for educating their students. Again, the Coburn amendment restores money for schools, not for bureaucracy. Although the amendment does not restore the Office of Indian Education, I am willing to work with the Department of Education to see and to assure that the grant money is administered. The Coburn amendment pays for these school grants by reducing an offsetting amount from the general administration accounts within the Forest Service, an amount for that general administration account in excess of $1.3 billion. Balancing the budget includes balancing priorities. If money for schoolchildren is more important than money for bureaucracy, then you should vote for the Coburn amendment. We must as we bring this budget down and control the spending not throw babies out with the bath water. In educating our children, there cannot be a higher priority for this country. We must spend the dollars wisely, we must spend it on the children, not on bureaucracies. It is my hope that the Congress will honor this amendment and will make the necessary correction in this appropriations bill so that school children throughout this country will receive the appropriate dollars required to educate themselves.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered as modified and reported in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. In our amendment we restored the $52.5 million that goes for actual education, we eliminate the bureaucracy associated with the Indian education department, but maintain the funds to the school districts where the actual Indian education takes place, and, if I may continue in answer to that, in supporting my amendment in lieu of the amendment that we are now considering of Mr. Obey's what my colleague will find is that we will be taking that from a source that is more readily available to us with less disconcerting changes for everyone, and so we were more likely to restore the funds for Indian education.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make the point in closing on the discussion on this amendment that first of all the real issue is Indian children and their education. That is what we are talking about. That is what we are talking about restoring. There is, in fact, $10 million spent on administration associated with this program. There are no ands, ifs, or buts about that, so therefore the choice is not $52 million or $80 million. The choice is $52 million or no money, and what I want, and I come from the third most populous native American district in this Congress, I want the people in my district to receive the funds for the children who are going to need this money. Mr. Chairman, I very well understand how important this money is, but I also understand what our priorities are, and this debate is about priorities, and it is about lessening the cost of government and still delivering the product of government, and I would urge that we would defeat the Obey amendment so that we can consider my amendment.

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