Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I unavoidably missed several votes on Tuesday, May 23, due to family reasons--my daughter's high school graduation. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on passage of H. Res. 155 (Roll Call Vote 347) and the Brownback Amendment to H.R. 1561 (Roll Call Vote 348).

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at the rhetoric. As somebody who provides health care in this country and takes care of Medicare patients, to say that we cannot do considerably better is poppycock. The fact is, we do have a good health care system in this country. It can become a lot better when we get the 15 percent of fraud out of Medicare. This bill increases spending for health care 25 percent over the next 4 years. To say that we cannot provide quality health care to our senior citizens for those kind of dollars is not true. It is untrue. We need to be about efficiency and caring and compassion with our senior citizens. And this budget is short on none of that.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I have sat and listened to my colleagues say the things that need to be said, and to recognize both the tragedy as well as the compassion that came about through this land as a result of the bombing in Oklahoma City. I would reinforce what has been said in terms of our reaction, that it should be measured and based on facts and not on emotion. But I think most of all what we should recognize is what has happened to us with this bombing. One of the things we have done is we have devalued life in this country and we have brought it to a point where we no longer will value the lives of the very people that worked to make this country great. Those that brought about this tragedy will be found and punished. But we should all reflect and have some introspection on what has happened to us as a society as we have devalued life both at the beginning and at the end. Oklahoma will recover. Hearts will be scared and lives will be lived out in the memory of these individuals. But let it not be for naught. Let this be a turning point where we recognize that these people are no longer with us because of the loss of respect for human life.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a peculiar position as a physician, and also as a scientist. I am very much interested in accurate data collection, and I think it is imperative that we have that. I also am very much concerned about the lack of parenting in our country, and what has come about through that lack of parenting. My worry, and I rise to support the Souder amendment, because I think, No. 1, it does put some burden back on parents which we have been trying, through many of the bills that we have passed in the last weeks, to force more direction on parenting, and I think we should do that. But I also have a greater problem with the arguments that are used against this. I guess, No. 1, is scientifically I do not buy the fact that if we have a parent's permission we are going to, No. 1, make the cost too great or, No. 2, make the scientific data to where it is not accurate. That is spurious logic. Because we do that all the time in the medical field in terms of informed consent on testing, on data and on information. So I find that. I think the other thing is that even though this was not a federally funded questionnaire I think it shows significantly what the opportunity for abuse is in terms of what can happen. Again, I would not necessarily say that some of the questions to this survey would not be good information as a physician and one who treats adolescents and has delivered over 2,000 teenage mothers, very much interested in the results of information from that. But I am not more interested in that information if it means I violate a parent's right to parent. I think that is the real issue. I do not think that we will have spurious data. I think the Government has an obligation to go beyond a reasonable doubt to make sure that parents are informed about what their children are asked. I would just urge those that oppose this amendment to ask what questions they would like their children asked. And is there any extent to which they might go that you would find a point in time when you thought that you might want to give permission before those questions are asked? I think that is the real issue. I do not find fault with your desire to limit. I do not want to limit the Government's ability to collect data, but I think the Government can already collect data and still fulfill the rights of informing the parents about what questions we are going to ask. Finally, I think that we certainly would not want the questions as outlined in this survey given to 12-year-olds throughout this country without their parents' permission. I am not saying that the Federal Government has done that, but there is not anything wrong with saying that parents ought to have the right to say yes or no to that kind of questioning.

Mr. COBURN. There should be written consent, but we have already seen that the Department of Health and Human Services has already asked questions similar to this in one of their own surveys. So all we are saying with the Souder amendment is that they should have written consent to ask this of adolescents.

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

Mr. COBURN. Reclamining my time, I have a great deal of difficulty in my own experience in surveys similar to this in this very delicate area of teenage sexuality in ascertaining whether or not we have parents' consent without written parents' consent. Because in my experience the majority of the time we do not have parents' consent, even though we have a recognition that we did. I think this is a very definable addition to this bill, and I think written consent is the least that we can do if we are going to ask these types of questions of children.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis]. I come from the Second District of Oklahoma. Oklahoma has not dumbed- down. They have asked for term limits, they have passed term limits, and they know what they are doing. My support for term limits goes beyond my obligation to support the will of my constituents. I truly believe that the only way to restore the integrity to Congress is to renew our belief that this House should be a citizen legislature, not a safe haven for permanent professional politicians. Although I have committed to vote for any term limit measure that will come through this House, I strongly believe that 12 years is too long. Proponents of the 12-year limit and those who oppose term limits will argue that Congress needs Members with experience. I present to my colleagues that I bring a body of experience to this institution and that I plan on leaving here 6 yeras from now, if I am so fortunate to be reelected, but I think, more importantly, the experience is not needed within the hallowed halls of this institution, but out in the real world. As my colleagues know, we hear lots of criticism about the lack of bipartisanship in this Congress. Well, there is one source of bipartisanship. It is the arrogance of career political elitism that we have heard today in this House. I say to the gentleman, ``Mr. Inglis, I support your bill, and I urge my comrades and constituents to do the same.''

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. If there is an emotional issue, it is that the money that we spend to help those who need it should go for what we intend it to do. This amendment goes very far in that regard. I would urge all to support this amendment.

Mr. COBURN. If the gentleman will yield, what we are requiring is the States to be responsible for how they spend the money in terms of using the available technology that is available to them at any one period of time. It is our intention, and if you will see in the rest of the bill, that there is no mandate on States other than having the call. They can use any one they want, the cheapest one or the most expensive. The most expensive happens to be retinal images presently. If they want to use that, they can. They are just required if they want to have block-granted food stamps that within a 2-year period, if the technology is available, which we think it will be, that they are going to use a system that secures it for the very purpose that the food stamp was intended for, that supplement.

Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, that is entirely possible with this system and States could do that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].

Mr. COBURN. We have not tried to make that a focus of this amendment and that has not been addressed. We were specifically addressing food stamps because of the significant amount of fraud that is seen and used with food stamps, both on the black market, the use of purchasing even cars or drugs. The whole goal of the amendment is to eliminate the fraud in the Food Stamp Program and not address the other issues, although it is entirely possible that it could be used in that manner.

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

Mr. COBURN. I would very much agree with the gentleman on that. I think that is a good way to make sure those benefits are intended and spent, and intended in a direction. They cannot be spent on things we would not want, our support dollars going to support. That is not part of this amendment and I think it is a wonderful suggestion. If the gentleman would bring that up when we do go to conference, we could do that.

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

Mr. COBURN. That is my intent, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. COBURN. This amendment does not address that, but it could be used in that fashion if a State wanted to use it. But it would be under a completely different set of circumstances. But this

Mr. COBURN. That is correct.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would just remind the gentleman 10 days ago using the system in Houston, several gentleman were found through the use of the EBT securities system and will be making restitution of some $300,000 to $500,000 because we can now with the EBT system track for fraud and individual abusers. And the technology is there. There is technology to eliminate this fraud and abuse, even to eliminate willing providers because the computer chip will be hard to beat.

Mr. COBURN. That is correct.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume. After listening to the discussion that we just had, I think it is important that we bear in mind that the objectives of the gentleman from Ohio and my objectives are the same. That is, to try to return integrity to the Food Stamp Program at the point at which food stamps are used. Several gentlemen have shown their congressional voting card here today that does have a photo ID on it. This amendment will allow that if a State so chooses to have a photo ID. The Food Stamp Program was established to provide a level of nutritional sustenance for people who cannot afford to feed themselves. Oftentimes this does not seem to be the case when we observe how food stamps are used. Everyone knows that the current system has loopholes that have allowed fraud, waste, and abuse to become rampant. Many States, including my home State of Oklahoma, are looking at electronic benefit transfer systems as an alternative way which have proven to be effective at saving administrative costs and cutting down on waste, fraud, and abuse. H.R. 4 encourages States to establish EBT systems for distributing food stamp benefits. For this reason I wholeheartedly agree. My amendment is intended to further help States make the transition to an EBT system while strengthening the ability of States to cut out the waste in the system. The first part of the amendment addresses a concern that many States have voiced in setting up an EBT system. Current law states that an EBT system must demonstrate lower administrative cost than paper coupons in any one year. Although costs have been shown to be considerably lower with EBT systems over time, the first-year cost may be higher in order to set up this new system. The amendment drops the ``any one year'' phrase to give States the flexibility to set up a system that works properly while still keeping administrative costs far lower than the current system. The second part of the amendment addresses one of the most common forms of food stamp abuse, their use by unauthorized persons. With paper coupons or even EBT cards, there is danger that someone could steal the benefits we have provided. There is also nothing to prevent a recipient from giving his coupons or EBT card to a noneligible person. We should ensure that the person to whom we have given the food stamp benefits is the only person who can use those benefits. The Traficant amendment addresses this in one fashion, although the State should be allowed to determine how best to achieve security in their system, whether it is a photo ID, a PIN number, a fingerprint or a retinal scan, all of which companies are readily available to provide. The State can determine how to do it. But the system must be secure. The most important part of the amendment, however, addresses the most visible problem people have with the current Food Stamp Program--people using food stamps for things other than food. I cannot tell you how many times I have had people in my district talk to me about the abuse of food stamps. The whole purpose of this program is to make sure food stamps are used for their intended purpose, for nutrition and support, and not for items other than that. Current law provides certain guidelines as to what can and cannot be provided. This system is intended to electronically and through computer technology force that into happening. It has a wide range of time on it, up to 2 years, and we will have a discussion about the benefits associated with this. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. COBURN

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