Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, due to travel delays on Tuesday, March 14, I unavoidably missed several votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the passage of the following bills: H.R. 531, H.R. 694, H.R. 562, H.R. 536, and H.R. 517.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that this IEI raises some very disturbing questions. With all the attention and action we have had this last few weeks in terms of sending block grants and returning responsibilities and accountability to the States, I am concerned that that document could well throw out the efforts that we have had in trying to return this and allow Federal bureaucrats to block and restrain individual States. I am concerned this will block our ability to allow States to develop programs for their own eligible citizens. Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the intent contained in the legislation that we are talking about now is that the Federal Government is prohibited from doing anything that would stand in the way of States creating and implementing their own EBT systems. Section 556 of this bill states: (B) Subject to paragraph (2), a State is authorized to procure and implement an on-line electronic benefit transfer system under the terms, conditions, and design that the State deems appropriate.

Mr. COBURN

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

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for bringing this up for in fact that is a misconception on the case against the Playtex. And under this bill, they would be fully liable. They would not be excluded under this amendment from full prosecution, and they would have been exposed to FDA clearance and punitive damages. This bill would not have excluded that agreement from punitive damages. Because, in fact, they have knowledge or did have knowledge of the worsening condition which was required to be reported to the FDA.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, something I learned a long time ago from my father that I think would do us all well and that is his definition of a good lawyer. And a good lawyer is somebody who solves problems rather than creates them. The legislation that we are considering has in fact addressed an issue before us that is causing and wreaking havoc with a large number of America's most consistent job-providing industries. I believe the American people are sick and tired of those who feed off of our system and weaken American competitiveness. They are sick of the unscrupulous few who make a mockery of our concept of justice by exploiting the legal system for their own personal gain. Mr. Chairman, a glitch in the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, called rule 10 B-5, created a new group of parasites known as professional plaintiffs. These professional plaintiffs are recruited by those who figured out how to exploit our judicial system by filing frivolous lawsuits. Currently, exploitation of rule 10 B-5 allows these clever few to sue companies through the use of professional plaintiffs for fraud whenever the price of a stock drops. These professional plaintiffs, or parasites, if you will, who hold only a tiny share of stock, launch fishing expeditions and rack up formidable discovery fees to force the defendants to settle out of court rather than to pay the costs of defending themselves. The result has been a threefold explosion of securities fraud suits over the last 5 years. One out of every eight companies on the New York Stock Exchange has been hit with this type of suit. I believe America's economic growth is stifled by such a perversion of our legal system by a small handful of lawyers that file the lion's share of suits, hitting one in every four high-technology firms in our country today. Just nine law firms in this country have accounted for two-thirds of the 1,400 class suits filed between 1988 and 1993. The threat that exploitation of rule 10 B-5 poses to our time, our peace of mind, and our pocketbooks, the pocketbooks of the average American, is immoral and should be illegal. I am supporting the Securities Reform Act because it will free American Businesses from the ever-present threat of baseless and expensive lawsuits. This bill will deter the practice of frivolous lawsuits that serve only to line the pockets of those who rob our corporations of investment capital and rob them of the resource for competitive research and development and ultimately rob us of an increased standard of living and high-wage jobs. I therefore urge passage of H.R. 1058. gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to consider the characteristics that should be present in any individual nominated to the position of Surgeon General of the United States. As a physician whose entire medical career has dealt with adolescent sexual activity, teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, I know that we have had exactly the wrong leadership over the past 2 years from Washington. The underlying assumptions of the safe sex policy are flat wrong and the statistics bear out this fallacy. The predicate of the safe sex policy is that our children cannot and will not act responsibly if given correct and factual information. In other words, our children are incapable of reason. We have not assumed this predicate in any other area of risk presented to our children. Look at the basis for our educational efforts on alcohol, tobacco, and drugs for example. The basis for our illogical predicate of safe sex is to rationalize our own lack of self control and sexual promiscuity and our children end up paying the price. If you have ever been faced with telling the parents of a 19-year-old female that their daughter is dying of AIDS you would truly understand my lack of comprehension with a vision that says to a teenager we know you cannot control yourself and that you are unable to make a reasoned choice so here is a condom. Mr. Speaker, we currently have a sexually transmitted disease epidemic that is out of control and studies now tell us that over 40 million Americans are carrying some type of viral sexually transmitted disease. In my practice alone, one in three sexually active teenagers is carrying a sexually transmitted disease. Now what principles should a Surgeon General nominee possess in regard to the present epidemic of sexually transmitted disease and illegitimacy? I believe that at a minimum the candidate should: First, be dedicated to the future of our children by supporting their positive attributes and discouraging dangerous behavior. The foundation of a condom clinic is that we have failed to teach the benefits of abstinence and consequently we have given up; Second, recognize the failure of the present ``safe sex'' message; Third, recognize that the growth of the current AIDS epidemic is secondary to a failed public health policy and is directly related to substituting political correctness and its irrationality for a rational public health policy based on medical facts and the current epidemiology of the human immunodeficiency virus; Fourth, recognize that abortion is a poor alternative for any unwanted pregnancy; Fifth, recognize that all life is valuable, even when unintended, and that the consequences of abortion, even though legal, seriously impairs us as a society; and Sixth, recognize that illegitimacy is born out of a society which does not value life and consequently our costs for supporting such a society are a direct result of illicit sexual activity outside of a monogamous married relationship, that is, the traditional American family. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would like to say that it is high time that our Surgeon General represents the traditional American family and the values that the majority of Americans hold and voted for on November 8, 1994. I plead with our President to nominate such a person.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment for the very clear reason that had this bill been in fact in force, the problems with asbestos removal as we know today would not be there. We have in fact come close to $100 billion in the costs associated with asbestos removal. There are some very significant studies now coming forth in the medical community that would say that we have in fact increased the risks to the children through our removal programs with asbestos rather than decreased their risks. As a physician, my concern is for the children in the schools and the results of that.