William Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I thank the Senator for yielding. I would like to discuss the broader issue involved here. Since this particular bill is said to be the first wave of an oncoming assault on all affirmative action programs, I would like to discuss the subject in a broader context. First, commenting on the statement of the Senator from New York, we are trying to provide very much needed relief to the self-employed, a tax benefit that had expired last year for self-employed individuals who need to purchase health insurance. That deduction expired last year. It needs to be restored. In my own opinion, we need to expand it as we try to reform our health care system. Many of us would like to see the self-employed put on the very same footing as the employers who now claim a 100-percent deduction. Obviously, that will involve a revenue loss and we will have to find ways to pay for it. That, of course, is the second component of what we are talking about here today, finding ways to pay for the restoration of a tax benefit that we would like to see not only restored but increased. I think what is remarkable from my perspective, in reading today's Washington Post front page story about the mood that is sweeping the country, one that the polls tell us is overwhelming, that is the rejection of the whole notion of affirmative action. Many people assert today that we are living in a color-blind society. I feel that is a flagrant falsehood. I do not for one moment believe that we live in a color-blind society. I think, quite to the contrary, perhaps we are more color conscious than ever by virtue of the social developments that have taken place in the past 10, 20, 30 years. There is also a notion that not one of us should ever be held responsible for past discrimination. In other words, you could have what you call 2 centuries or 4 centuries of absolutely reprehensible conduct and its impact on the minority groups, and there should be no curative or restorative responsibility borne by today's generation. That is a sentiment which apparently is very widely held. Another widely held view is that unqualified blacks and minorities are taking jobs away from more qualified white males, and some would even argue genetically intellectually superior individuals. They refer to ``The Bell Curve.'' It has also been stated that reverse discrimination--which, I think, is a misnomer, reverse discrimination, because discrimination really means you have the power to discriminate, to hold someone down or back. For most people who fall into the category of minority, they do not have power. But, nonetheless, assuming you accept the phrase ``reverse discrimination,'' some have said it is an evil equal to slavery. I find that to be more than a mild exaggeration, given the history of what has taken place in this country. And, of course, most people believe, and all of us here share in that belief, that we are fundamentally opposed to discrimination. On one hand, we are fundamentally opposed to discrimination; namely, basing our decisions and judgments of people on the color of their skin or the texture of their hair, their gender. We are all opposed to that, but we also reject any affirmative programs to rectify discrimination where, in fact, it exists. I would like to say, respectfully, to my colleagues that we have yet to fully and honestly confront the fact that racism is an evil that is not simply a stained chapter in our history books. It still flourishes in many overt and, I would suggest, even more subtle ways. We tell ourselves that we practice our religious teachings in terms of loving our fellow man, until a controversy arrives or a conflict in our emotions or our loyalties, and then the darker angels of our nature surface and they lash out and they blame or condemn those whose race or gender is different from our own. I recall during the Iran-Contra hearings--those were chaired by our distinguished colleague from Hawaii--by virtue of the fact that we had a very popular lieutenant colonel testifying before that committee, the hate mail started to pour in, hate mail directed at Senator Inouye--a floodtide of nasty, negative epithets directed toward a man who had given his limb, offered his life in defense of this country. And yet, because he had the audacity to question a Marine, a popular Marine, suddenly the hate surfaced and was directed at him. I thank our colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Rudman, who spoke out vocally and strongly against that, condemning the indulgence of racial hatred. Because, suddenly, the poisonous emotions started to bubble up, and the hate-mongerers said, ``Ah-ha, there is a minority. How dare he challenge one of us.'' And so, this has been our past and I think it will continue to be our future unless there are major changes that will take place, hopefully during our lifetime, but I doubt that. So we have to go back and ask what was the basis for affirmative action. The Senator from Oregon, gave a very perceptive analysis of its birth. part. And with reference to the Philadelphia story, so to speak, the Philadelphia plan, some saw it as partly political expediency. The guilt came about because we had recognized that we had perpetrated a monstrous evil, that we had enslaved a people, that we had called them only three-fifths human, that we had destroyed their families, their dignity, their pride, and that we had deprived them of opportunity. We had prohibited them from learning to read or write or vote. And then we insisted that they should be willing to fight and die for America, but they could not sleep in the same barracks, they could not eat in the same dining halls, they could not drink from the same fountains. I do not know whether the Senator from Oregon saw the article that appeared in the Washington Post about a week or two ago about the Tuskegee airmen. It was a poignant story. It was a reunion of the Tuskegee airmen, a group of black pilots who flew back in World War II. It was a very emotional reunion for them. There were tears welling up in their eyes as they were telling their stories. They had to fight two wars. They had to fight a war against Hitler and they had to fight one against an inner rage that was burning inside them toward a society that said they could be equal only on the fields of slaughter. We recall not too long ago in our history that we were turning German shepherd dogs on blacks who were marching or sitting in, hoping to enjoy the equal rights and privileges that we have under the Constitution. We blasted them with fire hoses. It was in the wake of the marches and the sit-ins and, I might suggest, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., that we, as a society, finally recognized and admitted that we had not measured up to our professed ideals, either as individuals or as a nation. That gave birth to the affirmative action programs to break down the barriers in the worlds of construction and housing and corporate finance and banking and, yes, even eventually in the communications world. The purpose, as the Senator from Oregon has suggested, was not to give unqualified people special preferential rights, but rather to give people who were, in fact, qualified and eager and ambitious the opportunity to enter into fields that had been denied them solely by virtue of the color of their skin or their gender. That was the purpose of the affirmative action program. The Senator from Oregon said it was inevitable--quoting those who were the formulators of the program--inevitable that the affirmative action programs would lead to quotas--inescapable. All of us are opposed to quotas, because it is just the reverse of what we are trying to do; namely, not give any group preferential treatment by virtue of the color of their skin or the nature of their gender who are unqualified, but rather to use some affirmative action to allow those who are, in fact, gifted and willing and able to break through barriers that may be made of glass or concrete. I mentioned expedience, by the way. The Senator from Oregon pointed to the Philadelphia plan. It has been written that Richard Nixon seized upon the plan back in the seventies, to get at the Democrats, to break through the trade and contruction unions who had at that point, and to this day, I suspect, still basically support the Democratic Party. That this was a way to really drive a wedge into the Democratic Party by opening up that particular marketplace, so to speak, to blacks who had been denied that opportunity. So the question is, have we been successful? I suggest only partly. The Senator from Oregon rightly talks about stereotypes. What happens to Arab-Americans in this country? We immediately see the stereotype of a terrorist. How unfair, as he has pointed out. The same thing is true for African-Americans in this country. We see them, do we not, as athletes? We are witnessing the return of Michael Jordan and a tremendous outpouring of pride and near hysteria at his returning. We see them as entertainers. But do we see them as entrepreneurs, as such? Not really. As a matter of fact, there have been stories about the problem out in L.A. right now. All of us--not all of us, but many millions of people in this country--are mesmerized by the trial going on in Los Angeles right now. Why is it, as the trial attorney Jerry Spence suggests, that African-Americans look through a different lens than we do because they have had a different experience than we have had. That experience has not been a pleasant one, apparently, in Los Angeles. Story after story starts to emerge about prominent actors or athletes who have been followed right to their homes, to their doorsteps because they happen to be driving a Mercedes or another expensive car, and immediately, of course, what do the police suspect? ``Must be a stolen car.'' Either that or, ``He is a drug dealer. Let's arrest him or stop him. Let's see the identification and make him prove ownership.'' So there are still stereotypes which exist to this very day. Talking about affirmative action programs, I think the Senator from Oregon pointed out the CRS study was at least deficient in one respect. It had not analyzed television. I was going to ask the Senator from Oregon or the Senator from New York as to whether or not there is any relationship between minority ownership in programming, whether he has ever watched Black Entertainment Television? That is minority owned. There is a great story involved in that particular television station. The owner, Robert Johnson, when he was applying to college, Princeton, was initially denied admission, except that he was then allowed to enter through a minority admissions program. He ended up finishing sixth in his class. What he gained from that entry into Princeton was access to other Princetonians, access to capital, access to influence. And had he not had that opportunity to break through that barrier that initially had been denied him, he would not be in the position that he is today. So he started Black Entertainment Television about 20 years ago with a personal investement of--I do not know-- $25,000, $30,000, $40,000, whatever it was. Today, that station is probably worth $300 or $400 million. I challenge anyone to watch the program. Is it different than CBS programming or NBC or CNN? I suggest to you the programming is quite different. It is quite different. And I suggest that that relationship between the ownership and his status has a great deal to do with that programming. The Senator from Oregon asked the question: Do we want to grant preferential treatment to groups where there is no evidence of past discrimination? But there is another question I think we can also ask: How do those who have been victims of past or present discrimination ever acquire that access to the capital that is necessary for them to be in a position to acquire radio stations or television stations? In other words, if you take the position that you have historically denied education to a group, let us say African-Americans, equal to that of another group, namely, white Americans, and then you, as an employer, say, ``I can't find any qualified blacks,'' that is the circular argument that those who are struggling to break through the barriers find themselves confronting. I come back to the issue of stereotypes. All of us recall the Clarence Thomas hearings and the Anita Hill testimony. What was really remarkable to me is the reaction of the people to those hearings. They said, ``Isn't it amazing there were so many articulate blacks testifying during the course of that hearing?'' Now, why should that be so stunning? The word associated with those blacks being ``articulate,'' as if we expected them to be inarticulate. Again, another stereotype that they have to confront. We expect them to not be as educated or articulate as those in the white community. Mr. President, I ask the question: Should we discontinue preferential treatment to veterans in this country? I see the Senator from New York is rising quickly on his feet, having been a noble sailor in his youth. But we grant preferential treatment to veterans. Why? Because of the sacrifice they have made in serving their country as a group. Not every one of them served in the Persian Gulf or in Korea on Pork Chop Some stayed right here in the United States. Some sat behind a desk, never facing the threat of a bullet or a bayonet or a bomb. But we as a society say, nonetheless in hiring practices, we give preferences to our veterans, and we decide that. When the Senator from Oregon says it is dangerous whenever a Government decides to determine who is in and who is out, well, we are the Government. We are the elected officials. We decide. We are held accountable by our constituents, and we have decided that there is merit in that particular case. So I think this is just the beginning of a debate that needs to be approached, as the Senator from Oregon has said, with great sensitivity, with a recognition that this is a very powerful issue in this country; that it has the potential to become not only a wedge issue but a very damaging, polarizing issue in our society. We have to look to see whether or not everything should be scrapped in dealing with affirmative action. Let us say, for example, we have abuses in the Food Stamp Program, do we not? We have abuses in the welfare program, do we not? We have abuses in the Federal procurement programs, do we not? We have abuses in the workman's compensation programs and in the disability insurance programs. Has our answer been to terminate them, just kill the programs, they do not work. Or to stop feeding people and let them fend for themselves? We say, wait a minute, let us see if we cannot modify them. Maybe the States have a better idea. Maybe there are ingenious Governors, creative individuals at the State and local level, that can do a better job than we have done. But the answer has not been, let us just terminate it, it is not working. That is my fear, as we begin this debate, not on this issue specifically, but on the broader discussion of affirmative action, because if we simply go by what the polls say, there is no contest. But I think we have a higher duty than to simply read the polls and to really examine what is at stake here. The stereotypes continue, as I have said. I recall reading an article by columnist Michael Wilbon, a Washington Post sports writer. He described an incident where he and five friends, an investment banker, a venture capitalist, a manufacturing executive, a lawyer, and an international marketing director for a large company, went down to the Super Bowl. They were dining in a restaurant and the waitress kept coming over to the table saying, ``Who do you play for?'' Well, he is a noted sports writer, and he was in the company of a reputable lawyer and, as I recall, an accountant, and an investment banker. But the waitress would not take that for an answer. ``No, no, no, who do you play for?'' So we have to deal with the issue of the stereotypes and what that means and what they continue to mean for individuals who try to break out of the stereotypes, who are trying to get into occupations and positions and to start a on a level playing field, which has not existed to date. Whatever failures have been in affirmative action programs, let us look at them carefully and let us try to see if we cannot change them. If there is no evidence of past discrimination in the field of communications, that is one thing. If this is indeed a system which has been exploited and abused by white corporate owners and not really serving the minority community, then it is time for a change and indeed maybe in this case even a termination. But I hope, Mr. President, as we begin this debate on affirmative action, that we approach it in the concluding words and with the concluding sentiments expressed by my friend from Oregon--with a sense of responsibility, not with a sense of hate or malice, or vindictiveness, or a simple urge to purge our laws as such of their preferential treatment to groups that historically have been discriminated against and continue to be discriminated against every day--every day of their lives. So I commend my colleague from Oregon and also my friend from New York. I hope that we can begin this process of fixing those programs that have been misused or abused. But I hope we will refrain from playing the wedge issue, which I know the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from New York would never do, because those wedge issues can become polarizing, divisive issues that will not serve this country well. I wanted to take the floor to express those sentiments. I know that is not the fashion in which you have proceeded. I commend the Senator for his comments as he expressed them.

Mr. COHEN. Here is another example of the problems confronting minorities in this city. Many years ago--almost more than 20 now--I had a problem with a car. I purchased a used car. I had a problem with it and took it over to a dealer, which will remain unnamed. The dealer told me the cost for fixing that particular automobile would be $1,800. I said, ``$1,800? That is more than I paid for the car.'' I then came back to Capitol Hill and inquired, ``Does anybody know a good mechanic?'' which is hard to find in any city. They gave me the name of Clarence Davis. I went to see Clarence and I said, ``Can you fix this car?'' He said, ``Well, let me look around.'' He kind of tapped it here and there. He said, ``I can fix it.'' I said, ``How much?'' He said, ``Do not worry about the money.'' I said, ``No, no, how much?'' He said, ``I am telling you do not worry about the money.'' So I, with my trusting soul, car.'' Do you know what the bill was? It was $68. I will repeat that. It was $68. Behold, I had found a man, an honest mechanic. And sooner will a camel pass through the eye of a needle than you will find a mechanic that will charge you $68 for something somebody else wanted $1,800 for. I have maintained a relationship with this individual. He ended up working for another station on the hill, owned by a Korean family. He was their real source of income, because everybody wanted to go to Clarence in order to have their automobiles fixed. He is really a genius in fixing automobiles. Then it occurred to him that he is working for somebody else, and would he like to go into business for himself? The answer was: Of course he would. He had a clientele of mostly Senators and Congressmen. But guess what? He could not get a loan. No matter that he had his eye an a piece of property that was prime territory; it was a great bargain and it was an old Exxon station; it was closed down. He had a list of clients at least 75 long of Members of Congress and executive branch, who testified to his competence, and he showed a stream of income that would have more than paid for the mortgage. He could not get a loan. I sent him to every bank in Washington. He could not get a loan. So then I contacted a wealthy, white friend of mine, whom I had never asked a favor from in my life. I said, ``Here is a person who is talented, brilliant, and he cannot get a loan in this city.'' And the individual made the loan, and the business is there and is flourishing today. It shows the barriers that people are up against. Now here we are, in a predominantly black city, with a predominantly black clientele. Suppose now that individual, with a great record, history, clientele could not get a loan. That is what I am talking about when I say ``access to capital.'' Give a person the access to capital and they can perform and prevail as anyone else. But that has been the history of denial in this country. I say to my friend that I do not have the answer to it. I think the affirmative action programs were designed to achieve that. If they have gone astray, we ought to try to modify them as best we can. If it becomes the collective judgment of the people in this country, this Congress, that they no longer serve a socially useful goal, then obviously they will be terminated. I must say that we have not yet reached our ideal of a colorblind society. There are still many, many, racial stereotypes that exist today. They will not be easily eliminated. So we still have an obligation, I think, to help those who have the talent and the ambition and the desire to share fully in the real benefits and bounty of this country, who have been denied that opportunity.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend for yielding. I would like to offer a couple of comments to put this line-item veto proposal in perspective. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the ``power of the purse.'' But, every President since Thomas Jefferson has asserted the executive branch's discretion and right to hold back moneys appropriated by Congress. This tug- system of government: The balance of powers between the executive and the legislative branches of government. The conflict between the power of the purse and the power of impoundment dates back to the earliest days of our Republic. The first significant impoundment of appropriated funds was made by Thomas Jefferson who, back in 1803, refused to spend $50,000 appropriated by Congress to provide gunboats to operate on the Mississippi River. The conflict between the legislative and executive branches has been going on now for over 150 years. You may recall, Mr. President, it was back in the early 1970's when this really came to a head. President Nixon challenged Congress' power and withheld over $12 billion in highway funds. This resulted in an attempt to impeach President Nixon because he had trespassed upon the powers of Congress. Congress did not impeach the President--appropriately so--but it did pass the Budget and Impoundment Control Act back in 1974. This act imposed many new restrictions on the President's ability to impound budget authority. Twenty years have transpired since this act was passed and the tenor of the debate has shifted dramatically. We have gone from a sense of urgency to restrict an imperial President to a sense that the President needs to restrict, if not an imperial Congress, at least a spendthrift one. I support strengthening the President's ability to veto wasteful spending. In fact, I introduced legislation along with Senator Domenici to accomplish this last Congress and did so again this year. But, I think we ought to be clear about one thing. No matter what type of line-item veto authority is given to the President, assuming it will be given, the overall impact on the deficit is not going to live up to the high expectations of the American people. Giving the President more power to rescind or veto spending can achieve some positive results. To be able to surgically remove wasteful spending items would be a service to the taxpayers and, in turn, improve the public image of Congress. Every report about a $700 toilet seat or a Lawrence Welk Museum sends the message that Congress is either intoxicated with power or powerless to overcome its spending addiction. But there should be no expectation that the line-item veto authority can do the heavy lifting in terms of reducing the deficit. Many of the items listed by various watchdog groups in their annual so-called pork lists are astonishing, and would never be supported if they were not embedded in large appropriations bills that are presented to the President on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I do not suggest that any amount of waste ought to be tolerated, but purging these items, while important, will not alone take us far in reducing the deficit. I support giving the President more authority to line out wasteful spending. But, it should be clear that we have not yet been able to confront the much more difficult task, and more difficult challenge, of getting our deficit under control. At this point it is not clear, Mr. President, whether there is going to be a filibuster on this measure or whether we will be able to overcome that filibuster. I hope that we can. In the meantime, if this measure is not approved and sent to the President for his signature, there is another way to achieve our goal. Every request made of the Appropriations Committee ought to be made public. Those of us who request that specific items be included in the appropriations bills ought to have those requests published in the Congressional Record. That would bring some light to this process. If we are unable or unwilling to stand behind the requests that we make to the Appropriations Committee, then obviously we would be unwilling to take to the floor to try to defend them. Unfortunately, I think we have reached the point of ``Stop us before we spend again.'' The power of the purse is already ours. It is a power we have abused too often, and too often, I might add, to the applause of our constituents. For too long, we have been rewarded for bringing home the bacon while condemning the presence and prevalence of trichinosis in the Congress. We cannot continue to have it both ways. This measure will indeed force us to defend our requests in the bright light of day. It will make us more responsible if we may be called upon to defend here on the Senate floor what we demand. This measure leads us to a sense of congressional responsibility. I support the efforts of my colleagues, Senator McCain of Arizona and Senator Coats of Indiana. I support the measure we have brought to the floor. But, I again want to reemphasize the point that, assuming it passes and the President signs it, this measure will not do the heavy lifting required to reduce the deficit. But, it will be a step forward. It is a measure that has become necessary by virtue of the fact that we have engaged in wasteful spending.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, once again, let me say we could have avoided all of this had we not indulged ourselves in the notion that we can bring home the bacon to our constituents and they will applaud us. We know one person's bacon is someone else's pork. It all depends on who is looking at it. It seems to me we should at least be willing to stand on the Senate floor and identify and defend those requests we have made of the appropriations or authorization committees. If we cannot bring ourselves to do that, the projects are not worthy of support by our colleagues and should not be in the appropriations process. In closing, I hope this measure does in fact receive the endorsement of enough of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle to cut off any filibuster. Absent that, one way we can accomplish the same result is to have these requests published as a matter of record in the Congressional Record. I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding me this time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COHEN. May I have an additional 30 seconds?

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs, will hold a hearing on Tuesday, March 28, 1995, on reducing the cost of Pentagon travel processing. The hearing will be at 9:30

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I have been planning to take the floor for some time this week and have not been able to do so, given the Senate's schedule prior to this time. I was not aware that Senator Dole would be taking the floor to talk about affirmative action. First, let me say that I have the highest regard and respect for Senator Dole and I agree completely with what he said earlier that no one--no one--can criticize his position on civil rights or on policies that would benefit those who suffer from any sort of affliction or disability. Especially in the field of civil rights, he has been a leader. No one can question his motivations. I think he is correct to start calling attention to some revisions that may be necessary in dealing with affirmative action. Having said that, I want to point out that affirmative action has moved apparently to the center stage of this country's political agenda. Critics of programs designed to address centuries' old discrimination range all the way from Presidential contenders to syndicated columnists. Some argue that our Nation is or should be colorblind and our laws race and gender neutral. Some have argued--and I am paraphrasing, but I think correctly--that reverse discrimination is as bad as slavery. I want to repeat they believe that reverse discrimination is as bad as slavery. I suggest, perhaps, a reading of Alex Haley or James Baldwin or Gordon Parks might be beneficial in dismissing such a preposterous notion. One writer has written that, ``Compensatory opportunity is advocated by those who want to remedy the presumed victimization of certain groups in the past.'' Mr. President, since victimization has only been presumed, apparently like the Holocaust, it has to be proven in the present and in the future time and time again. It is also said that preferential treatment based on race, gender or ethnicity is inherently anti-American and contributes to the polarization of the American people. Finally, some say that 30 years is long enough to compensate for the four centuries of our fathers' sins. Mr. President, I should point out that these critics of affirmative action are not confined to angry white males. There are a number of prominent blacks, some of whom have no doubt been the beneficiaries of affirmative action programs, who now denounce the programs because of the so-called Faustian bargain that they had to strike. They resent the fact that they now have scarlet letters ``AA'' stamped on their brow, which, they believe, forever identifies them as social and intellectual inferiors who could not make it on merit. Let me say, Mr. President, as a strong supporter of programs designed to help women and African Americans and other minorities break through glass ceilings and concrete walls, I believe, as I said earlier, that no program, however well-intentioned, should be excluded from review, revision, even elimination if circumstances warrant. There is no doubt in my mind that some programs have been used and abused in ways that many of us who are the authors and supporters of affirmative action never anticipated. The Viacom deal, which is about to come before the Senate in the next week or two, is perhaps a classic case of a program that has long since outlived its usefulness. Maybe it needs to be rejected and repealed. But I say to those who argue that we should not consider any preferential treatment on the basis of group membership, I think we have to look back into our history and look deep into our hearts and remind ourselves that we have a great deal to account for and correct based on discriminatory policies of the past--policies that continue to this very day. Judgments and jobs are not, as we would like to believe, based on the content of our character. They are, in fact, in many, many cases still based on the color of one's skin, gender or ethnic background. I know that affirmative action is said to be a politically defining issue, a wedge issue, one that is going to drive the middle-class white voters fully into the arms of the Republican Party, leaving the minorities and women and other liberals floating in the backwash of the Democratic Party. The polls actually confirm that this wedge is politically powerful and popular as a force that will, in fact, succeed in dividing segments of our society into clearly defined political camps. Mr. President, let me say I believe any short-term political success is going to prove to be a long-term policy disaster, because what is truly at stake in the coming debate is not wedges but values. There are two values that lie deep within the American hearts and minds. One is that every person should be given a fair chance to compete in the classroom, on the athletic fields and in the workplace. Every person under our Constitution should enjoy equal privileges and protections of the law. Second, there should be no special privileges, no favoritism, no artificial or arbitrary rules that give something to someone that has not been earned. There should be no quotas, no rules of thumb. We want rules of reason instead. they are in complete harmony. But let us suppose that the world is less than ideal. Let us suppose that all the people are not treated equally over a long period of time. Suppose there are laws that discriminate against people because of their race or sex. Suppose that some people are treated as slaves or pack mules or objects of hatred and violence or as simple reproductive vessels. And suppose that some people cannot buy a home or obtain a mortgage or get a job or break through that so-called glass ceiling just because of the color of their skin. Is there anything more un- American than to deny a human being the chance to be the best that he or she can be on equal terms? Is there anything more un-American than to isolate people in a ghetto, to put up invisible barriers by denying them jobs, opportunity, and any hope of breaking out of that prison of poverty, and then to watch in horror and outrage as their children go fatherless and the streets go white with drugs and run red with the blood of mindless violence? Is there anything more un-American than to rob people of equal opportunity because of the pigment of their skin, the texture of their hair, the composition of their chromosomes, all while we proudly proclaim that our policies are colorblind and gender neutral? And is there anything more hypocritical than to say that racism or sexism is a thing of the past? Mr. President, a book I read some years ago, ``Native Son,'' written by Richard Wright 55 years ago, told the story of what it means to be black in this country. There are many memorable scenes, but one that has stayed with me over the years is one where there are two young boys, one named Bigger and one named Gus. They look up at a pilot who is skywriting on a lazy summer day. The passage goes: ``Looks like a little bird,'' Bigger breathed with childlike wonder. ``Them white boys sure can fly,'' Gus said. ``Yeah,'' Bigger said wistfully. ``They get a chance to do everything. I could fly a plane if I had a chance.'' ``If you wasn't black and if you had some money and they'd let you go to the aviation school, you could fly a plane,'' Gus said. . . . Then Bigger said: Every time I think about it, I feel like somebody's poking a red-hot iron down my throat. . . . It's just like living in jail. Half the time I feel like I'm on the outside of the world peeping in through the knot-hole in the fence. . . .'' Mr. President, that scene was memorable for me not just because it depicts innocence in a novel that is filled with horror, but because it says so much about the human spirit, about the significance of hope, and about the utter destructiveness of knowing in advance that hope can never be realized. Well, ``Native Son'' is fiction. It was written more than 50 years ago now, and we know that a lot of things have changed since that time. We know that we have Michael Jordan who may be, once again, skywriting in Chicago. We know that you can turn on your television set and watch Bryant Gumbel or Oprah Winfrey. We know we have Justice Thomas on the Court. We know that we have Colin Powell, who may be the most popular non-Presidential candidate to date on the American political scene. There are powerful women as well, Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Ginsburg, to name a few. Let me just say that for every Michael Jordan, for every Colin Powell, for every athlete, musician, business-person who has succeeded, there are millions of people locked away from opportunity to this very day. One of the things that struck me several years ago was a program I watched, I think it was on ``ABC PrimeTime.'' The producers of that show took two attractive articulate male college graduates, one was white, one was black, and sent them out into the world followed by a hidden camera. How was the black man treated? In a store, he was regarded with great suspicion by a security guard who followed him wherever he went. At an auto dealership he was ignored for not just minutes but nearly a half- hour or more. He went to look for an apartment and was told, ``Just happened to miss it. The last one went just a few minutes ago.'' Then they followed the white college graduate. Needless to say, he was treated quite differently. When he went to the store, he was welcomed with open arms. When he went to the auto dealership, he was given preferential treatment and terms. When he went to look for an apartment, the same building at which the black man had just been turned down, they said, ``We have an apartment for you.'' Well, the camera never blinked, not once, not twice. And not one of the participants in the film blinked. They either denied they were engaged in acts of racism or discrimination or they reacted with anger at the exposure of their behavior. So for those today who say that racism is all a thing of the past, that we do not have to worry about it anymore, that 30 years has really leveled the playing field--it isn't true. And for those who say that affirmative action is being used to deny qualified white males their opportunity--Mr. President--that was never the goal of affirmative action. It was never the goal of affirmative action to give preference to unqualified people over qualified ones, be it in college, in graduate schools or the management level of business. We are not discriminating in favor of unqualified blacks and unqualified women. Affirmative action is really about finding qualified people. They are out there in abundance. But either through inadvertence or deliberate neglect and rejection, they have been ignored. The pursuit has not been for mediocrity, it has been for opportunity, to give everyone a chance to be the best that they can be. Justice Holmes, one of my favorite Justices in the history of this country, said at one time that the tragedy that filled the old world's literature was really about people who were taxed beyond their abilities. We know the story of Sisyphus forever rolling the rock up the hill and it kept rolling back down. We know about those with the water that kept coming up to their necks but could never drink. This theme was really part of the myths and the tragedies of the ancient Greeks. Holmes said that in modern times there is a different type of hell, a much deeper abyss, that occurs when people who are conscious of their powers are denied their chance. That is what affirmative action really has been all about, when people conscious of their power have been denied their chance. Affirmative action has provided an opportunity for the U.S. Congress and the administration to work together to help bring people who have the talent and the ability, who have been held down over the centuries--not just 30 years, over the centuries--to give them a chance to break through the barriers. Now we are suddenly saying that society is all level, we are gender neutral, we are race neutral, we do not have to worry about affirmative action anymore. But we have not been fully successful. A recent Time magazine article shows that affirmative action has not had as positive an effect as the critics claim or supporters hope. The article cites a Bureau of Labor Statistics study from 1994 noting that whites now hold 88.8 percent of managerial professional positions, down only slightly from 91.6 percent in 1983. In that same period, blacks increased their presence in the managerial professional ranks only marginally--from 5.6 to 7.1 percent. So there have not been these great strides that the critics of the programs have now cited. Mr. President, I say it again, I have no doubt that there are some who might use either their race or gender as an excuse for failure. The vast majority of people, however, have found that others have used their race or gender as a reason to keep them from success. So let us remove programs that are no longer necessary, let us revise ones that are not working, but let us not indulge in the delusion that the field of dreams is equal and level for all of our people. We still have a long, long way to go. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed in morning business for a period of time not to exceed 15 minutes.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Special Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on Tuesday, March 21, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. The subject of the hearing is health care fraud.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of this important legislation, I am pleased that the Senate will soon pass the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. I am a longtime supporter of the Paperwork Reduction Act which seeks to reduce the Federal paperwork burdens imposed on the public. I have been particularly concerned about the effects of the Federal regulatory burden on small businesses throughout my years in Congress. Americans spend billions of hours a year filling out forms, surveys, questionnaires, and other information requests for the Federal Government at a cost of several hundred billions dollars. Increasing paperwork burdens force small businesses to redirect scarce resources away from activities that might otherwise allow them to provide better services to their customers or provide additional jobs. America's small businesses are the backbone of our economy and, as such we need to ensure that they are not crippled by regulatory burdens that hinder their ability to compete in the increasingly competitive global marketplace. I am also pleased to cosponsor an amendment offered by Senator Levin to eliminate or modify over 200 statutory reporting requirements that have outlived their usefulness. This is an issue that Senator Levin and I have worked on for a number of years in our capacity as chairman and ranking minority member of the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management. The Levin amendment is consistent with efforts by the administration and the Congress to reinvent Government and make it more efficient. It is based on a bill Senator Levin and I introduced last Congress which CBO estimated would reduce agencies' reporting costs by $5 to $10 million annually. The legislation was the product of more than a year's worth of discussions with Government agencies and congressional committees. Examples of the types of reports that the amendment will eliminate or modify include a provision to eliminate an annual Department of Energy reporting requirement on naval petroleum and oil shale reserves production. The same data included in this report is included in the naval petroleum reserves annual report. Another provision would modify the Department of Labor's annual report to include the Department's audited financial statements and, thereby, eliminate the need for a separate annual report for all money received and disbursed by the Department. The Levin amendment is consistent with the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act. It is intended to reduce the paperwork burdens placed on Federal agencies and streamline the information that flows from these agencies to the Congress. Mr. President, I would now like to make a few statements about the overall legislation. The bill before us contains provisions to maximize the use of information collected by the Federal Government and keep in place the 1980 act's goal of reducing the paperwork burdens imposed on the public through percent. It reauthorizes the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs [OIRA], within the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], which implements the act and requires each Federal agency to thoroughly review proposed paperwork requirements to make sure they are truly needed and have a practical utility. It also enhances public participation in reviewing paperwork requirements. The bill clarifies that the act applies to all Government-sponsored paperwork, eliminating any confusion over the coverage of so-called third party burdens--those imposed by one private party on another due to a Federal regulation--caused by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Dole versus United Steelworkers of America. This decision created a loophole for agencies to avoid public comment and OMB review. Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles, who authorized the Paperwork Reduction Act when he was in the Senate, filed on amicus brief with the Supreme Court arguing that no such exemption for third party paperwork burdens where intended when the act was created. Unfortunately, the Court held that the plain meaning of the statute could not support such a finding. Finally, I am pleased that the Governmental Affairs Committee accepted an amendment I offered in committee to make changes to the information technology provisions of the bill and allow the opportunity for information technology reform later this Congress. This is an important issue that warrants separate legislative consideration. In closing, I want to commend Senators Roth, Glenn, and Nunn for their work in this area. The bill enjoys broad bipartisan support and I hope my colleagues will move expeditiously to vote on final passage.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, yesterday the majority leader gave a very important speech at the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom and outlined what he called the five global realities that affect our vital interest and dictate what it will take to maintain leadership throughout the world. First, the golden age of capitalism. From India and Latin America to China and Russia, 4 billion people formerly under some form of socialism are striving to establish market economies. This offers great opportunities for America and American business, but requires American leadership to protect our interests and ensure adherence to the rules of the international trading system. Second, the new world energy order. Senator Dole correctly noted that the security of the world's oil and gas supplies will remain a vital national interest. At the same time, Iran and Iraq remain hostile threats in the oil-rich gulf, while other energy rich areas in Eurasia are subject to disorder. He makes the insightful observation that ``in this new energy order, many of the most important geopolitical decisions--ones on which a nation's sovereignty can depend--will deal with the location and routes for oil and gas pipelines.'' I would add that we are already seeing in the case of Azerbaijan, over which Moscow is trying to regain effective control in order to determine the route through which Azeri oil will flow. Senator Dole concluded that ``our strategy, our diplomacy and our forward military presence need readjusting'' to meet this reality. Third, the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The majority leader issued a clarion call yesterday that ``we must prepare now for the future,'' in which weapons of mass destruction will become more widespread, greatly affecting our vital security interests. He wisely asked ``what would we have done--or not done--if Iraq had one or two nuclear weapons in 1990? A chilling question and one which we could face in just a few years as a real, not a hypothetical question, with regard to Iran or North Korea. In response to this threat, Senator Dole quite rightly focused on the possibility of preventive military action and the need for missile defenses to protect America and our allies. Fourth, increase in extremist religious and ethnic movements. The majority leader highlighted the many areas in which religious or ethnic passions have led to conflicts and identified those that pose a threat to American interests. America cannot become complacent he wisely warned his audience. Fifth, rivalry with Russia. In perhaps in most important observations, Senator Dole warned that ``geopolitical rivalry with Russia did not end with the demise of Soviet communism.'' Quoting Henry Kissinger, he noted that the Soviet threat was one of both communism and imperialism, and while communism was defeated the trend toward imperialism remains. While an early supporter of President Yeltsin, Senator Dole warned against ``the Clinton administration's misguided devotion to a ``Russia First'' policy, which has turned into a ``Yeltsin First'' policy, and he quoted President Nixon who told the Duma ``when we have differences, we should not assume they will be overcome by a good personal relationship even at the highest level.'' To buttress his case, the majority leader listed numerous examples of how Moscow has taken actions in recent months that are in conflict with U.S. interests. To address this situation, Senator Dole prescribed a ``new realism'' about Russia. This would not mean a return to the cold war past, he noted, but would require ``developing a more honest relationship, one that does not paper over important policy differences with an appeal to personal ties.'' In conclusion, Senator Dole reaffirmed the need for American leadership to secure peace and freedom for future generations of Americans. In an article just published in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Senator Dole builds on these themes and defines his vision for the future American role in the world and 10 principles to guide our international relations. He also provides an incisive critique of the Clinton administration's foreign policy and how and why it has, in Senator Dole's view, failed in various respects. I will merely quote the final paragraph of his article: As the United States approaches the next century, two principles should remain constant: protecting American interests and providing American leadership. The end of the Cold War has provided us with a historic opportunity. Such an opportunity should not be forfeited in favor of the pursuit of utopian multilateralism or abandoned through intentional isolationism. We have seen the danger to America's interests, prestige, and influence posed by both of these approaches. Instead, we must look to the lessons of the Cold War to guide our future foreign policy: Put American interests first and lead the way. The future will not wait for America, but it can be shaped by an America second to none. Mr. President, I think that in yesterday's speech and this new article with the majority leader has provided us with a clear vision and practical proposals for guiding American foreign policy. I would urge my colleagues to give the most careful attention to both these documents, and I would ask unanimous consent to insert them in the Record.

Mr. COHEN. In his speech yesterday, President Clinton also reaffirmed that he gives very high priority to ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Mr. President, there have been many supporters on this side of the aisle for efforts to control and ban chemical weapons--Senator Dole, Senator Kassebaum, Senator Hatfield, Senator McCain and others come to mind, and I have been pleased to work with them on different measures to achieve that goal. During the 1980's, I supported replacement of our aging chemical stocks with binary weapons, a necessary step to get Moscow to negotiate seriously. Exhibit 1 Foreign Policy--Winning the Peace: American Leadership and Commitment (By Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole) I can't help but think back to the day in January of 1994, when President Nixon made his last visit to the United States Capitol. The occasion was the 25th anniversary of his inauguration as President. And over 100 past and present Senators and Congressmen--Republicans and Democrats alike--attended a lunch honoring President Nixon that Bob Michel and I hosted. At the conclusion of the lunch, President Nixon stood--and without a note in his hand--delivered one of the most compelling speeches many of us could remember. As always, he talked politics, and he also shared some personal reflections on his life and career. But the majority of his remarks policy. President Nixon served as our guide, leading us on an around-the-world tour, offering his unique perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of our allies and adversaries, and on the future as he saw it. In his remarks, he repeated a statement that he made again and again during the last year of his life. He said, ``The Soviets have lost the Cold War, but the United States has not yet won it.'' Those words were true then--and are just as true today. And while the title of this conference--``After Victory''--has a nice ring to it, I believe the declaration may be a bit premature. It is, after all, possible to win the war and lose the peace--as the years between World War I and World War II demonstrate. world still uncertain Don't get me wrong. The stage is set. We are the world's only superpower. And the words spoken by Nikita Khrushchev in that famous ``kitchen debate'' were dead wrong. Not only will America's children never live under communism--neither will Russia's children. Still, there are far too many gains to consolidate, and far too many uncertainties in the world to say that a final peace has been won. For example, there is a resurgent Russia, asserting its position around the globe. China has international ambitions of its own, and is in the midst of a leadership transition. There are international terrorists--often state-supported. There are global crime syndicates. There are extremist movements based on religion or ethnic origin. While none of these compare to the challenge of the Soviet empire, each of these can pose threats to important American interests. five global realities affect america's interests It seems to me these multifaceted threats should be viewed in the context of five clear global realities which affect America's fundamental interests. Only by recognizing these realities--and dealing with them with the same commitment which led to the defeat of Soviet Communism--will America truly be able to claim victory. reality no. 1: the ``golden age of capitalism'' The first new reality is that the whole world is plunging headlong into what David Hale of the Kemper Organization in Chicago has termed a ``new golden age of capitalism.'' I remember when Lech Walesa told me that the definition of a communist economy was ``100 workers standing around one shovel.'' Now, in places like Poland, Russia, India, Latin America, and even China--four billion people formerly under some form of socialism are now fighting with everything they can lay hands on to not just grab a shovel--but to build shovel factories. There are now more than 30 stock markets in the developing world, and capitalization of the four-year-old Shanghai securities exchange has reached $30 billion. Deng Xiaoping himself has said that no one cares any more what color the cat is, as long as it catches mice. The bottom line is that everyone wants to trade, and everyone wants to create and use capital on a world-wide basis. While this new ``golden age of capitalism'' offers great opportunity for America, we must remember that many of the countries so eager to enjoy the benefits of membership in the world trading system may not fully understand or accept the rules and discipline that go with it. A trade war was averted with China, but other threats to U.S. commercial interests will surely arise in the coming months and years, and our continued vigilance and leadership will be required. reality no. 2: the ``new world energy order'' The second inescapable reality of the post-20th century world is that the security of the world's oil and gas supplies will remain a vital national interest of the United States and of the other industrial powers. The Persian Gulf--the heartland of world energy for half a century--is still a region of many uncertainties. Saudi Arabia has been weakened financially. Iran and Iraq continue to exhibit great hostility to the West and pose threats to their neighbors. And the boundaries of the oil and gas heartland are being redrawn to the north, to include the great hydrocarbon deposits of the Caucasus, Siberia, and Kazakhstan. In this ``new energy order,'' many of the most important geopolitical decisions--ones on which a nation's sovereignty can depend--will deal with the location and routes for oil and gas pipelines. In response, our strategy, our diplomacy and our forward military presence need readjusting. reality no. 3: spread of weapons of mass destruction The third inevitable reality for America--and for the world--is the fact that while the Berlin Wall may have crumbled, weapons of mass destruction haven't. Listen to just a partial roll call of countries and groups that already possess nuclear, biological or chemical weapons: North Korea. Iraq. Iran. Libya. Have any of these nations earned our trust? And given their past behavior, is it any surprise that there are startling signs that a world wide black market in nuclear weapons has emerged? All this is taking place as talks to review the global treaty limiting the spread of nuclear weapons will soon begin. Even if the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty is extended indefinitely, however, we must avoid falling into a false sense of security. We must prepare now for the future. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea all illustrate the failures of traditional non-proliferation efforts, which depend largely on the cooperation of other states. Only after Desert Storm did the West learn just how far Iraqi nuclear ambitions had progressed. And instead of announcing that the United States will veto any efforts to ease or end U.N. sanctions on Iraq, the administration dispatches an envoy to plead with the Europeans for cooperation. Where would such timidity have gotten us in the Cold War? Iran also appears poised for a great leap forward in its nuclear program--thanks to a cash-hungry Russia doing for Iran what the Clinton Administration has done for North Korea. And make no mistake about it, the Agreed Framework with North Korea has little prospect of successfully addressing the North Korean threat, and apparently, has already been violated by Pyongyang. American leadership in addressing these non-proliferation challenges is essential if additional states are not to choose the nuclear option. It's worth asking: What would we have done--or not done--if Iraq had one or two nuclear weapons in 1990? Preventive military action as a non- proliferation policy tool cannot be ruled out. There are defensive options, however, that could provide the United States and our allies with protection against accidental and limited ballistic missile strikes. Pursuing an effective ballistic missile defense capability should be a top priority for U.S. defense policy now and for the foreseeable future. reality no. 4: increase in extremist religious and ethnic movements The fourth new global reality is the increase in violence due to extremist religious and ethnic movements in many parts of the globe. Some of these movements, like the tribal warfare in Rwanda, or conflicts in Burma or West Africa have little direct impact on American interests. However, some of the instability and turmoil due to ethnic and religious violence is important for American interests-- and could lead to the disintegration of key states. Serbian genocidal aggression in the Balkans, for example, threatens to spill over to Macedonia, Albania, and beyond. American and European inaction in the face of that aggression cannot help but embolden other radical ``ethno-nationalists'' by giving them a green light for ethnic cleansing. The Indian rebellion in Mexico coupled with financial uncertainty has resulted in genuine security concerns on our southern border--and make no mistake that illegal immigration is a security threat. A key NATO ally in Turkey faces Islamic extremism and a separatist ethnic movement. Violent Islamic fundamentalists threaten the government in Algeria, and have launched an assault on Egypt. How long would the Camp David Treaty be honored if fundamentalists took power in Egypt? Islamic terrorists seek to destroy the peace process between Israel and the PLO--and may be having some success. With support from Iran and others, Islamic terrorists also demonstrated at the World Trade Center that America is not immune from attack. And ethnic turmoil in the former Soviet Union cannot be ignored, as warfare has occurred in five former republics. And the Chechens may be just one of many ethnic groups willing to use violence to alter boundaries originally set by Joseph Stalin. In short, the list of world ``hot spots'' is far too lengthy for anyone to conclude that America can become complacent. reality no. 5: rivalry with russia And this leads to the fifth global reality we must face: the fact that geopolitical rivalry with Russia did not end with the demise of Soviet Communism. On his last trip abroad, President Nixon spoke before the Russian State Duma, and he foreshadowed a change in Russian- American relations, saying: ``Russia is a great power, and Russia as a great power must chart its own course in foreign policy * * * When we have differences, we should not assume they will be overcome by a good personal relationship even at the highest level.'' And as we have seen time and time again, the foreign policy course that Russia is charting, is one that is often in conflict with American interests. For example: Russia stepped in the middle of the North Korea agreement by offering to provide nuclear reactors--which would have the clear effect of killing the U.S. brokered deal. Russia continues to threaten prospective NATO members over alliance expansion, thereby confirming the need to enlarge NATO sooner rather than later. In December 1994, Russia vetoed a sanctions resolution on Serbia in the U.N. Security Council, its first substantive veto since the height of the Cold War in 1985. Russia persists in supplying weapons and nuclear technology to the rogue regime in Iran. Russia continues to maintain an intelligence facility and support personnel in Cuba, thereby prolonging Castro's oppression. intimidation of the sovereign states in the ``Near Abroad'' follows a historical pattern set long before the Bolsheviks took power in 1917. As Dr. Kissinger said last month before the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``* * * what we dealt with in the Cold War was both communism and imperialism, and while communism was defeated, the trend toward imperialism still exists.'' Let me be clear in saying that no one has been more supportive of President Yeltsin than I. In June 1991, I went to Andrews Air Force Base to meet President Yeltsin virtually alone, since the United States State Department believed Gorvachev was the ``only game in town.'' But just as it was wrong to place too much focus on Gorbachev in 1991, it is wrong in 1995 to ignore that fact that President Yeltsin has made serious errors, has moved toward authoritarian rule, and has lost the political support of virtually all reform-minded Russians. The Clinton Administration's misguided devotion to a ``Russia First'' policy--which has turned into a ``Yeltsin first'' policy--resulted in the loss of a tremendous opportunity to state American concerns forcefully before thousands were slaughtered in Chechnya. new realism about russia A ``new realism'' about Russia and its prospects for the future does not mean a return to the Cold War past. It does mean developing a more honest relationship, one that does not paper over important policy differences with an appeal to personal ties. New realism means emphasizing the significance of Russia's 1996 elections, and of the pivotal importance of a peaceful, democratic transition of power. And new realism means that developments like arms sales to Iran, violence in Chechnya, and U.N. vetoes on behalf of aggressors should not be excused, ignored and minimized. Our differences with Russia should be identified--they should be negotiated when possible and condemned when necessary. Such an approach would ultimately serve both the Russian and the American people better than defending, denying and rationalizing Russian misdeeds. tests for american leadership Let me conclude by sharing with you words that Richard Nixon spoke at the announcement of the creation of the Center for Peace and Freedom in January 1994. ``Some are tired of leadership. They say (America) carried that burden long enough. But if we do not provide leadership, who will? The Germans? The Japanese? The Russians? The Chinese? Only the United States has the potential . . . to lead in the era beyond peace. It is a great challenge for a great people.'' Ladies and gentlemen, President Nixon was right. Leadership does come with a price tag. But it is a price worth paying. Dealing with the five realities I have outlined will test America's resolve and her leadership. If we fail those tests--if we refuse the mantle of leadership--any declaration of victory will be a long time coming. But I am an optimist. Like Richard Nixon, I believe in America and In American leadership. I believe we will pass our tests, and in doing so, we can claim the biggest victory of all--we will have secured the future of our great republic, and of peace and freedom, for generations to come.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, as if in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:15 p.m. the Senate go into executive session to consider the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, Executive Calendar Nos. 12 through 17, and the nomination of Major General Robles, en bloc under the following time limitation: 30 minutes equally divided between the majority leader and Senator Nunn; further, that at the conclusion or yielding back of time, with no intervening debate or action, the Senate immediately vote on the confirmation of the nominations en bloc.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, today I am filing the committee rules of the Senate Special Committee on Aging. I ask that the rules be printed in the Record. The rules follow: Special Committee on Aging--Jurisdiction and Authority (S. Res. 4 Sec. 104, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977)\1\ \1\As amended by S. Res. 78, 95th Cong., lst Sess. (1977), S. Res. 376, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978), S. Res. 274, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. (1979), S. Res. 389, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (a)(1) There is established a Special Committee on Aging (hereafter in this section referred to as the ``special committee'') which shall consist of nineteen Members. The Members and chairman of the special committee shall be appointed in the same manner and at the same time as the Members and chairman of a standing committee of the Senate. After the date on which the majority and minority Members of the special committee are initially appointed on or after the effective date of title I of the Committee System Reorganization Amendments of 1977, each time a vacancy occurs in the Membership of the special committee, the number of Members of the special committee shall be reduced by one until the number of Members of the special committee consists of nine Senators. (2) For purposes of paragraph 1 of rule XXV; paragraphs 1, 7(a)(1)-(2), 9, and 10(a) of and (d) of rule XXVII of the Standing Rules of the Senate; and for purposes of section 202 (i) and (j) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the special committee shall be treated as a standing committee of the Senate. (b)(1) It shall be the duty of the special committee to conduct a continuing study of any and all matters pertaining to problems and opportunities of older people, including, but not limited to, problems and opportunities of maintaining health, of assuring adequate income, of finding employment, of engaging in productive and rewarding activity, of securing proper housing, and when necessary, of obtaining care or assistance. No proposed legislation shall be referred to such committee, and such committee shall not have power to report by bill, or otherwise have legislative jurisdiction. (2) The special committee shall, from time to time (but not less often than once each year), report to the Senate the results of the study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1), together with such recommendation as it considers appropriate. (c)(1) For the purposes of this section, the special committee is authorized, in its discretion, (A) to make investigations into any matter within its jurisdiction, (B) to make expenditures from the contingent fund of the Senate, (C) to employ personnel, (D) to hold hearings, (E) to sit and act at any time or place during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Senate, (F) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance of witnesses and the production of correspondence, books, papers, and documents, (G) to take depositions and other testimony, (H) to procure the services of individual consultations or organizations thereof, in accordance with the provisions of section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, and (I) with the prior consent of the Government department or agency concerned and the Committee on Rules and Administration, to use on a reimbursable basis the services of personnel of any such department or agency. (2) The chairman of the special committee or any Member thereof may administer oaths to witnesses. (3) Subpoenas authorized by the special committee may be issued over the signature of the chairman, or any Member of the special committee designated by the chairman, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman or the Member signing the subpoena. (d) All records and papers of the temporary Special Committee on Aging established by Senate Resolution 33, Eighty-seventh Congress, are transferred to the special committee. Rules of Procedure (139 Cong. Rec. S1929 (Daily ed. Feb. 18, 1993)) I. Convening of Meetings and Hearings 1. Meetings. The Committee shall meet to conduct Committee business at the call of the Chairman. 2. Special Meetings. The Members of the Committee may call additional meetings as provided in Senate Rule XXVI (3). 3. Notice and Agenda: (a) Hearings. The Committee shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing at least one week before its commencement. (b) Meetings. The Chairman shall give the Members written notice of any Committee meeting, accompanied by an agenda enumerating the items of business to be considered, at least 5 days in advance of such meeting. (c) Shortened Notice. A hearing or meeting may be called on not less than 24 hours notice if the Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member, determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing or meeting on shortened notice. An agenda will be furnished prior to such a meeting. 4. Presiding Officer. The Chairman shall preside when present. If the Chairman is not present at any meeting or hearing, the Ranking Majority Member present shall preside. Any Member of the Committee may preside over the conduct of a hearing. II. Closed Sessions and Confidential Materials 1. Procedure. All meetings and hearings shall be open to the public unless closed. To close a meting or hearing or portion thereof, a motion shall be made and seconded to go into closed discussion of whether the meeting or hearing will concern the matters enumerated in Rule II.3. Immediately after such discussion, the meeting or hearing may be closed by a vote in open session of a majority of the Members of the Committee present. 2. Witness Request. Any witness called for a hearing may submit a written request to the Chairman no later than twenty-four hours in advance for his examination to be in closed or open session. The Chairman shall inform the Committee of any such request. 3. Closed Session Subjects. A meeting or hearing or portion thereof may be closed if the matters to be discussed concern: (1) national security; (2) Committee staff personnel or internal staff management or procedure; (3) matters tending to reflect adversely on the character or reputation or to invade the privacy of the individuals; (4) Committee investigations; (5) other matters enumerated in Senate Rule XXVI (5)(b). 4. Confidential Matter. No record made of a closed session, or material declared confidential by a majority of the Committee, or report of the proceedings of a closed session, shall be made public, in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless specifically authorized by the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member. 5. Broadcasting. (a) Control. Any meeting or hearing open to the public may be covered by television, radio, or still photography. Such coverage must be conducted in an orderly and unobtrusive manner, and the Chairman may for good cause terminate such coverage in whole or in part, or take such other action to control it as the circumstances may warrant. (b) Request. A witness may request of the Chairman, on grounds of distraction, harassment, personal safety, or physical discomfort, that during his testimony cameras, media microphones, and lights shall not be directed at him. iii. Quorums and voting 1. Reporting. A majority shall constitute a quorum for reporting a resolution, recommendation or report to the Senate. 2. Committee Business. A third shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of Committee business, other than a final vote on reporting, providing a minority Member is present. One Member shall constitute a quorum for the receipt of evidence, the swearing of witnesses, and the taking of testimony at hearings. 3. Polling. (a) Subjects. The Committee may poll (1) internal Committee matters including those concerning the Committee's staff, records, and budget; (2) other Committee business which has been designated for polling at a meeting. (b) Procedure. The Chairman shall circulate polling sheets to each member specifying the matter being polled and the time limit for completion of the poll. If any Member so requests in advance of the meeting, the matter shall be held for meeting rather than being polled. The clerk shall keep a record of polls; if the Chairman determines that the polled matter is one of the areas enumerated in Rule II.3, the record of the poll shall be confidential. Any Member may move at the Committee meeting following a poll for a vote on the polled decision. iv. investigations 1. Authorization for Investigations. All investigations shall be conducted on a bipartisan basis by Committee Staff. Investigations may be initiated by the Committee staff upon the approval of the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. Staff shall keep the Committee fully informed of the progress of continuing investigations, except where the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member agree that there exists temporary cause for more limited knowledge. 2. Subpoenas. Subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses or the production of memoranda, documents, records, or any other materials shall be issued by the Chairman, or by any other Member of the Committee designated by him. Prior to the issuance of each subpoena, the Ranking Minority Member, and any other Member so requesting, shall be notified regarding the identity of the person to whom the subpoena will be issued and the nature of the information sought, and its relationship to the investigation. 3. Investigative Reports. All reports containing findings or recommendations stemming from Committee investigations shall be printed only with the approval of a majority of the Members of the Committee. v. hearings 1. Notice. Witnesses called before the Committee shall be given, absent extraordinary circumstances, at least forty- eight hours' notice, and all witnesses called shall be furnished with a copy of these rules upon request. 2. Oath. All witnesses who testify to matters of fact shall be sworn unless the Committee waives the oath. The Chairman, or any Member, may request and administer the oath. 3. Statement. Any witness desiring to make an introductory statement shall file 50 copies of such statement with the Chairman or clerk of the Committee 24 hours in advance of his appearance, unless the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member determine that there is good cause for a witness's failure to do so. A witness shall be allowed no more than ten minutes to orally summarize his prepared statement. 4. Counsel: (a) A witness's counsel shall be permitted to be present during his testimony at any public or closed hearing or depositions or staff interview to advise such witness of his rights, provided, however, that in the case of any witness who is an officer or employee of the government, or of a corporation or association, the Chairman may rule that representation by counsel from the government, corporation, or association creates a conflict of interest, and that the witness shall be represented by personal counsel not from the government, corporation, or association. (b) A witness who is unable for economic reasons to obtain counsel may inform the Committee at least 48 hours prior to the witness's appearance, and it will endeavor to obtain volunteer counsel for the witness. Such counsel shall be subject solely to the control of the witness and not the Committee. Failure to obtain counsel will not excuse the witness from appearing and testifying. 5. Transcript. An accurate electronic or stenographic record shall be kept of the testimony of all witnesses in executive and public hearings. Any witness shall be afforded, upon request, the right to review that portion of such record, and for this purpose, a copy of a witness's testimony in public or witness. Upon inspecting his transcript, within a time limit set by the committee clerk, a witness may request changes in testimony to correct errors of transcription, grammatical errors, and obvious errors of fact; the Chairman or a staff officer designated by him shall rule on such request. 6. Impugned Persons. Any person who believes that evidence presented, or comment made by a Member or staff, at a public hearing or at a closed hearing concerning which there have been public reports, tends to impugn his character or adversely affect his reputation may: (a) file a sworn statement of facts relevant to the evidence or comment, which shall be placed in the hearing record; (b) request the opportunity to appear personally before the Committee to testify in his own behalf; and (c) submit questions in writing which he requests be used for the cross-examination of other witnesses called by the Committee. The Chairman shall inform the Committee of such requests for appearance or cross-examination. If the Committee so decides, the requested questions, or paraphrased versions or portions of them, shall be put to the other witness by a Member of by staff. 7. Minority Witnesses. Whenever any hearing is conducted by the Committee, the minority on the Committee shall be entitled, upon request made by a majority of the minority Members to the Chairman, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify or produce documents with respect to the measure or matter under consideration during at least one day of the hearing. Such request must be made before the completion of the hearing or, if subpoenas are required to call the minority witnesses, no later than three days before the completion of the hearing. 8. Conduct of Witnesses, Counsel and Members of the Audience. If, during public or executive sessions, a witness, his counsel, or any spectator conducts himself in such a manner as to prevent, impede, disrupt, obstruct, or interfere with the orderly administration of such hearing the Chairman or presiding Member of the Committee present during such hearing may request the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, his representative or any law enforcement official to eject said person from the hearing room. vi. depositions and commissions 1. Notice. Notices for the taking of depositions in an investigation authorized by the Committee shall be authorized and issued by the Chairman or by a staff officer designated by him. Such notices shall specify a time and place for examination, and the name of the staff officer or officers who will take the deposition. Unless otherwise specified, the deposition shall be in private. The Committee shall not initiate procedures leading to criminal or civil enforcement proceedings for a witness's failure to appear unless the deposition notice was accompanied by a Committee subpoena. 2. Counsel. Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel to advise them of their rights, subject to the provisions of Rule V.4. 3. Procedure. Witnesses shall be examined upon oath administered by an individual authorized by local law to administer oaths. Questions shall be propounded orally by Committee staff. Objections by the witnesses as to the form of questions shall be noted by the record. If a witness objects to a question and refuses to testify on the basis of relevance or privilege, the Committee staff may proceed with the deposition, or may at that time or at a subsequent time, seek a ruling by telephone or otherwise on the objection from a Member of the Committee. If the Member overrules the objection, he may refer the matter to the Committee or he may order and direct the witness to answer the question, but the Committee shall not initiate the procedures leading to civil or criminal enforcement unless the witness refuses to testify after he has been ordered and directed to answer by a Member of the Committee. 4. Filing. The Committee staff shall see that the testimony is transcribed or electronically recorded. If it is transcribed, the witness shall be furnished with a copy for review. No later than five days thereafter, the witness shall return a signed copy, and the staff shall enter the changes, if any, requested by the witness in accordance with Rule V.6. If the witness fails to return a signed copy, the staff shall note on the transcript the date a copy was provided and the failure to return it. The individual administering the oath shall certify on the transcript that the witness was duly sworn in his presence, the transcriber shall certify that the transcript is a true record to the testimony, and the transcript shall then be filed with the Committee clerk. Committee staff may stipulate with the witness to changes in this procedure; deviations from the procedure which do not substantially impair the reliability of the record shall not relieve the witness from his obligation to testify truthfully. 5. Commissions. The Committee may authorize the staff, by issuance of commissions, to fill in prepared subpoenas, conduct field hearings, inspect locations, facilities, or systems of records, or otherwise act on behalf of the Committee. Commissions shall be accompanied by instructions from the Committee regulating their use. vii. subcommittees 1. Establishment. The Committee will operate as a Committee of the Whole, reserving to itself the right to establish temporary subcommittees at any time by majority vote. The Chairman of the full Committee and the Ranking Minority Member shall be ex-officio Members of all subcommittees. 2. Jurisdiction. Within its jurisdiction, as described in the Standing Rules of the Senate, each subcommittee is authorized to conduct investigations, including use of subpoenas, depositions, and commissions. 3. Rules. A subcommittee shall be governed by the Committee rules, except that its quorum for all business shall be one- third of the subcommittee Membership, and for hearings shall be one Member. viii. reports Committee reports incorporating Committee findings and recommendations shall be printed only with the prior approval of the Committee, after an adequate period for review and comment. The printing, as Committee documents, of materials prepared by staff for informational purposes, or the printing of materials not originating with the Committee or staff, shall require prior consultation with the minority staff; these publications shall have the following language printed on the cover of the document: ``Note: This document has been printed for informational purposes. It does not represent either findings or recommendations formally adopted by the Committee.'' ix. amendment of rules The rules of the Committee may be amended or revised at any time, provided that not less than a majority of the Committee present so determine at a Committee meeting preceded by at least 3 days notice of the amendments or revisions proposed.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, last week I introduced legislation aimed at improving access to affordable long-term care services. This bill allows families with exorbitant health care bills to deduct long- term care costs as medical expenses, creates incentives for older Americans and their families to plan for future long-term care expenses, and removes tax barriers that stifle the private long-term care insurance market. Henry David Thoreau once wrote that ``If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.'' Each day Americans, quite unknowingly, heed Thoreau's advice as they work to safeguard their families, their homes, and their dreams from the precarious circumstances life may hand them from time to time. As he suggests, we work not only to build our castles, but strive to protect them once they are built. Unfortunately, most of us have not adequately protected ourselves and our families from one of the most devastating financial risks that could face us in our entire lifetime--the need for long-term care services. While approximately 38 million people lack basic health insurance, almost every American family is exposed to the catastrophic costs of long-term care. In fact, less than 3 percent of all Americans have insurance to cover long-term care. With average nursing home costs nearing $40,000 per year and home health care costing from $50 to $200 per day, long-term care expenses can quickly wipe out the lifetime savings of a disabled individual and his or her family. Sadly, many families erroneously assume that their current insurance or Medicare will cover long-term care expenses. It is only when a loved-one becomes disabled that they discover coverage is limited to acute medical care and that long nursing home stays and extended home care services must be paid for out-of-pocket. In fact, a 1994 public opinion poll conducted for the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that 45 percent of all respondents believe that Medicare pays for long-term care, when in fact it does not. And despite what many of us believe, the chance of needing long-term care is significant and increasing as life expectancies increase. In 1990 for example, people age 65 or older faced a 43-percent risk of entering a nursing home. About 1 in 5 of those seniors are estimated to be in a nursing home stay over 1 year, about 1 in 10 would be in a facility for 5 years or longer and many more would receive caregiving from friends, families, and home care workers. As chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I know the obstacles many disabled older Americans and their families face paying for necessary long-term care. Despite heroic caregiving efforts by spouses, children, and friends, many disabled Americans do not receive the appropriate medical and social services they desperately need. Families are literally torn apart or pushed to the brink of financial disaster due to the overwhelming costs of long-term care. This lack of protection pulls the rug out from under hard working families at a time when they are in their greatest need. Growing frail or learning to function with severe disabilities is a formidable task in itself. Yet this is only half the battle for an uninsured older American--since at the same time they must face huge financial burdens posed by long-term care. The legislation levels the playing field between acute and long-term care services, and provides all Americans with incentives to purchase protection against the risk of catastrophic long-term care expenses. As healthy and as independent as we may want to stay, We are all vulnerable to diseases such as Alzheimer's Parkinson's, and osteoporosis that can leave us mentally or physically disabled. We must accept the risk of needing long-term care and consider it in our normal retirement planning. This bill encourages personal responsibility and makes it easier for individuals to plan for their future long-term care needs. It provides important tax incentives for the purchase of long-term care insurance and places consumer protections on long-term care insurance policies so quality products will be affordable and accessible to more Americans. It allows States to develop programs under which individuals can keep more of their assets and still qualify for Medicaid if they take steps to finance their own long-term care needs, allows individuals to make tax free withdrawals from their individual retirement accounts without penalty if they purchase private long-term care insurance, and provides for consumer education to help families decide how to best plan for their own particular circumstances. Stimulating the private market through tax incentives and asset protection programs is a long-term investment in reducing Americans' reliance on Medicaid, and other Federal and State entitlements. Just as employer-sponsored health insurance got a boost after Congress exempted employers' payments for health insurance from corporate taxes, the long-term care market needs a major boost if we are seriously going to encourage individuals to provide for their own long-term care needs. Last year Congress was involved in an exhausting debate over how to reform our entire health care system. To my great disappointment, that debate did not yield legislation that could be passed on a bipartisan basis. Instead we fought an all or nothing battle for health care reform that left the American public no better off than when we began. Long-term care reform was one of the victims of this all or nothing strategy. Several bills contained provisions to establish a non-means- tested long-term care program that would have cost taxpayers over $48 billion. While the program would have certainly provided necessary long-term care services to many families, it was simply unrealistic to build a large publicly funded program at a time when we were trying to balance the budget. Furthermore, creating a non-means-tested program would have only strengthened the misconception that the Government will pay for long-term care and that there is little need to purchase protection. As Abraham Lincoln once cautioned, ``We must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot.'' The provisions included in the long-term care reform bill I am introducing today are not only reasonable, but enjoy strong bipartisan support. They were included in almost every health care bill introduced last year and are an important part of the Senior's Equity Act in the House Republican Contract With America. A strong private long-term care market will not only give individuals greater financial security for their future, but will ease the financial burden on the Federal Government for years to come, as our population ages and more elderly persons require long-term care. I strongly urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation which will improve the financial security of older Americans and their families both now and in the future.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record. Section-by-Section Summary of the Private Long-Term Care Protection Act of 1995 Purpose: The Cohen legislation is designed to provide improved access to long term care services. An emphasis is placed on removing tax barriers and creating incentives which encourage individuals and their families to finance their future long term care needs. for long term care insurance, and provides incentives and public education to encourage the purchase of private long term care insurance. title i--tax treatment of long term care insurance Sec. 101. Qualified long term care services treated as medical expenses Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code is clarified to allow qualified individuals to deduct out-of-pocket long term care services as medical expenses subject to a floor of 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. Qualified long term care services include necessary diagnostic, preventive, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance and personal care performed in either a residential or nonresidential setting. Qualified individuals must be determined by a licensed professional or qualified community case manager to be unable to perform without substantial assistance at least two activities of daily living (ADLs) or suffer from a moderate cognitive impairment. Sec. 102. Treatment of long term care insurance Section 213 is also amended to allow qualified long term care insurance premiums to be deducted as medical insurance subject to the 7.5 percent-of-adjusted-gross-income-floor. Qualified long term care insurance premiums are also deductible as a business expense and employer-provided long term care insurance is excluded from an employee's taxable income. A qualified long term care insurance policy must meet the regulatory standards as established in Title II. Sec. 103. Treatment of qualified long term care policies Benefits paid under qualified long term care insurance policies would be excluded from income under section 105(c) ``Payments Unrelated to Absence from Work'', and employer- paid long term care insurance would be a tax free employee fringe benefit. The daily benefit cap for all long term care policies would be established at $200 per day and indexed for inflation. There is no ``cliff'' on per diem distributions, meaning that only payments above the established cap are treated as income. Private long-term care insurance is exempt from the continuation of coverage requirements created by COBRA. In addition, long-term care will be considered a ``qualified benefit'' that may be included in a cafeteria plan. Sec. 105. Tax treatment of accelerated death benefits under life insurance contracts Clarifies that an accelerated death benefit received by an individual on the life of an insured who is terminally ill individual (expected to die within 12 months) is excluded from taxable income as payment by reason of death. title ii. standards for long-term care insurance Sec. 201. National Long-Term Care Insurance Advisory Panel Establishes a national advisory board to help implement the long-term care consumer protection standards, and educate the public, insurers, providers and other regulatory bodies of issues related to long-term care insurance. Sec. 202. Policy requirements Insurers are required to meet the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) January 1, 1993 standards for long-term insurance. Additional federal requirements include: a mandatory offer of nonforfeiture benefits, rate stabilization, minimum rate guarantees, limits and notification of increases on premiums and reimbursement mechanisms for long-term care policies. Policies that do not meet these consumer protection standards would be denied the favorable tax treatment described in Section I. Sec. 203. Additional requirements for issuers of long-term care insurance policies A penalty of $100 per day per policy shall be imposed on long-term care issuers failing to meet the minimum federal standards as outlined in this section. The civil monetary penalty per policy may not exceed $25,000 against carriers, and may not exceed $15,000 per policy against insurance agents. Sec. 204. Coordination with State requirements A State retains the authority to apply additional standards or regulations that provide greater protection of policyholders of long-term care insurance. Sec. 205. Uniform language and definitions The National Advisory Council shall issue standards for the use of uniform language and definitions in long-term care insurance policies, with permissible variations to take into account differences in State licensing requirements for long- term care providers. title iii--incentives to encourage the purchase of private insurance Sec. 301. Public information and education programs The Secretary of Health and Human Services is directed to establish a program designed to educate individuals on the risks of incurring catastrophic long-term care costs and the coverage options available to insure against this risk. Education should increase consumers knowledge of the lack of coverage for long-term care in Medicare, Medigap and most private health insurance policies and explain the various benefits and features of private long-term care insurance. Sec. 302. Assets or resources disregarded under the Medicaid program Amends Section 1917(b) of the Social Security Act, related to Medicaid Estate Recoveries, to allow for States to establish asset protection programs for individuals who purchase qualified long-term care insurance policies, without requiring States to recover such assets upon a beneficiaries death. This provision is aimed at encouraging more middle- income persons to purchase long-term care insurance by allowing individuals to keep a limited amount of assets and still qualify for Medicaid, if they have purchased long-term care insurance. States that develop asset protection programs to encourage private insurance purchase are required to conform with uniform reporting and documentation requirements established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Sec. 303. Distributions from individual retirement accounts for the purchase of long-term care insurance coverage Individuals above 59\1/2\ are allowed tax-free distributions from an IRA or an individual retirement annuity for the purchase of a long-term policy. This provision also allows individuals below the age of 59\1/2\ to withdraw from their individual retirement account without penalty in order to purchase a qualified long-term care plan. Individuals who obtain tax-free distributions from their IRA or individual retirement annuity would be restricted from deducting their long-term care insurance premium as a medical expense under Title I of this act.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, today to introduce legislation that will help to ensure public safety and consumer confidence. More and more Americans are drinking bottled water every day. Companies in recent years. Unfortunately, because of a jurisdictional quirk, all too common in our Federal Government, bottled water is not currently required to meet the same safety standards that we have placed on tap water. Tap water is regulated by the Environmental Protection Administration, which sets rigorous and comprehensive standards to ensure the safety of our Nation's drinking water. Bottled water is considered a food item and is therefore regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. In carrying out its responsibility to regulate bottled water, the FDA has failed, for whatever reason, to keep pace with EPA's detailed tap water regulations. Consequently, tap water must meet higher standards than bottled water. I want to make it clear that the bottled water industry firmly believes that their product is as safe, if not safer than tap water. But because bottled water is not required to meet tap water standards, the industry cannot adequately defend itself against allegations about the quality of bottled water. In an effort to resolve this dispute, the legislation being introduced today would simply require the FDA to publish regulations for a specific contaminant in bottled water no more than 6 months after the EPA has issued regulations for that same contaminant in tap water. If that contaminant is not a risk for bottled water, then FDA must formally make such a determination. If the FDA fails to meet this 6 month deadline, the EPA regulations would then apply to both tap water and bottled water. I believe this proposal is a very reasonable and workable solution to this problem. I think both consumers and the bottled water industry, which welcomes this bill, would benefit from the changes this legislation attempts to achieve. I look forward to working with my colleagues toward the passage of this bill.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending resolution to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget. I have not always supported the balanced budget amendment. When this measure was considered by the Senate in 1982 and again in 1986, I felt that Congress could and would address deficits without the aid of a constitutional amendment. Several years ago, however, I realized that I had overestimated Congress' ability to deal responsibly with the budget. We have not balanced the budget in 25 years. When it came time for the tough spending cuts ordered by the Gramm- Rudman deficit reduction law, Congress did not have the will to follow through. So in 1992, for the first time I supported a balanced budget amendment in the Senate. Public debt is not inherently bad. It was both necessary and wise for the Federal Government to borrow heavily during World War II. In the three decades following the war, the United States gradually paid down this debt. Beginning in the 1970's and worsening in the 1980's, however, the Federal Government reversed this trend by borrowing more and more to pay for current expenses. The huge deficits we have been running for the past 15 years have not been to finance public investments that will yield benefits in the future. We have been borrowing primarily to pay for current consumption. We're not borrowing to build roads; we're borrowing to put gas in the car. Contrary to popular belief, Congress is never faced with the option of raising taxes or borrowing money to finance Government. Spending can only be paid for through taxes--it is simply a question of whether we raise taxes today or tomorrow. Borrowing invariably means that future generations will face a heavier tax burden. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget last year published an analysis of the growing tax burden. The report forecast that, without changes in Federal law, the average net tax rate for future generations would eventually reach 82 percent of their lifetime earnings. Clearly, such a tax burden would be unacceptable. The real harm caused by Government borrowing is that it draws down the pool of savings available for investment. Rising standards of living are possible only through investments in infrastructure, in plants and equipment, and in education. Savings by American families and businesses provide the capital for these investments. But deficits draw down, or crowd out, the national pool of savings. This year, for instance, the first $200 billion in savings will not go to investments in new plants and equipment but to feed the deficit. As more and more of our savings are devoured by the deficit, investments for the future decline--and with them, the rate of economic growth in the country. So the deficit is a double hit on future generations. We are not only asking them to finance our current spending; we are handicapping their ability to meet this obligation--by crowding out investments for the future. We are not only eating their seed corn, we are asking them to pick up the dinner check. This travesty simply must end. As nearly every economist in the country future is to cut the deficit. And, the surest way to cut the deficit is to pass the balanced budget amendment. All other remedies have failed. Repeated deficits have done serious damage not only to the economy but to Congress' standing with the public. The low esteem in which Congress is held is directly related to our fiscal irresponsibility. For the sake of the integrity of this institution, we cannot continue to promise the American people long-term deficit reduction and do little about it. Actions do speak louder than words. We have tried every conceivable legislative option to force a more responsible budget policy. With few exceptions, these efforts have failed. A constitutional amendment appears to be the only solution left. As others have said, it may be a bad idea but one whose time has come. Amending the Constitution should not be proposed lightly. It is a very serious matter. However, the balanced budget amendment is consistent with the historic role of the Federal constitution in safeguarding the rights of those who may be under-represented in the political process. In this case the under-represented individuals are future generations who are being asked to pay for our profligacy. Numerous arguments have been made in opposition to the balanced budget amendment. Some have argued that the balanced budget amendment is a gimmick that will not work, while at the same time arguing that it will wreak havoc by imposing draconian cuts. The balanced budget amendment is neither a gimmick nor a merciless ax hanging over all Federal programs--and it is certainly not both. The balanced budget amendment is not an easy political vote. The easy votes have been the routine ones to spend beyond our means. The proposed amendment will not--with certainty--end deficit spending, but it will undoubtedly make it more difficult. When the 1990 budget agreement required a supermajority to exceed annual caps in discretionary spending, no one argued that the supermajority requirement was a gimmick. It was recognized as an essential step toward fiscal responsibility. When all the smoke is cleared on the balanced budget debate, it is undeniable that deficits will be harder to continue under a constitutional amendment. If you want to make it more difficult for Congress and the President to pass the tax bill on to future generations, you should support the balance budget amendment. The amendment does not tie Congress' hand to the point that it could not respond to a national crisis. With the approval of three-fifths of the Congress, deficits would be permitted. In times of war or dire economic circumstances, three-fifths of the Members of the Congress can be expected to recognize the need for deficit spending. Unfortunately, Congress has too often viewed deficits not as a necessary tool in dire circumstances but as a convenient way to spend beyond our means. We have turned the exception into the rule and have become hooked on deficit spending. It has been easier to reach for the deficit brew than to abstrain and act responsibility. The practical effect of the balanced budget amendment will be to put this elixir a little higher on the shelf and further out of Congress' reach. In closing, I would like to make three points that I think put this debate into context. First, 37 States have balanced budget amendments. Complying with these requirements is not always convenient. But over the long term, forcing governments to balance their budgets promotes good and disciplined government. Second, the fact that taxpayers are willing to finance only $1.4 trillion of the $1.6 trillion worth of current Government services, begs the question of whether the public really wants as much Government as currently exists. Last, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is no free lunch here. Every dollar the Government borrows is a dollar unavailable for job-creating investment in the private sector. Also, every dollar the Government borrows today is a dollar tomorrow's taxpayers will have to repay. At its most basic level the balanced budget amendment stands for the simple principle that we should pay today for the Government we use today. If we are unwilling to put the money on the barrel ourselves, by what right can we ask future generations to put their money on the barrel? The balanced budget amendment offers the best hope of ending the fiscal child abuse in which we have been engaged. The bruises may not show right now, but the pain is going to last a lifetime. We owe it to our children and their children to balance the budget. I have no illusions that this will be an easy task, but if we do not in earnest set this as our goal and accept it as our responsibility, it will never happen. The debate today is not about how do we get there, it is about where are we going. Thomas Jefferson once said that whenever one generation spends money and taxes another to pay for it, it is squandering futurity on a massive scale. Let us end this squandering and pass the balanced budget amendment now before our task becomes even more difficult. Mr. President, now let me speak briefly about the pending amendment, the so-called right-to-know amendment. The word ``gimmick'' has been thrown around here quite a bit in this debate, with the opponents of the balanced budget amendment arguing it is simply a gimmick rather than a serious effort to balance the budget. I respectfully suggest if there is a gimmick stalking the Chambers these days, it is the so-called right-to-know amendment. It is designed to kill the balanced budget amendment and nothing else. Some of its principal sponsors supported the balanced budget amendment last year, and there was no mention on their part of a right to know at that time. Curiously, suddenly it has emerged. Any one of us can produce a balanced budget plan by the year 2002. Indeed, some of us have. I joined last year with Senators Danforth, Boren and Johnston, to offer the only bipartisan alternative to the President's budget. Our plan called for cutting spending on the basis of $2 for every $1 in taxes. It was a serious and detailed plan. Unfortunately, it gathered more critical acclaim from the Concord Coalition and others than it did from Members of the Chamber. But the issue pending before the Senate is not how we are going to get somewhere. It is about where we are going. Are we truly committed to balancing the budget? If so, let us take the first step by passing this amendment. The process of figuring out how we achieve the goal is going to be difficult. Everyone in the Chamber understands just how it is that no serious debate can take place in an atmosphere of partisan sniping, where one side is trying to score points through fear mongering, by saying the other side is trying to attack Social Security or veterans or some other group. Three years ago, Senators Nunn and Domenici offered a plan to cap entitlement spending the way we already cap discretionary spending. I supported it. Unfortunately, there were only 28 votes in favor of that approach. A second-degree amendment was offered by the Democratic leader to exempt veterans' programs. It was effective. Very few Senators wanted to vote against that amendment. It was effective in terms of short-term politics, but it served to underscore what is wrong with Congress and why the American people are basically fed up with Washington. Every thinking person who has looked at the Federal Government knows entitlement reform is the key to any serious deficit reduction, yet the political fires are stoked to the point where no one dares to discuss openly what we know privately to be essential--entitlement reform. During the debate on the Nunn-Domenici plan, we were told, do not undertake broad entitlement reform, that is really not where the problem is. The problem is with health care spending. We need health care reform. After a year of debate in this Chamber, after the President submitted his 1,435-page proposal for health care reform, the best that could be said was that it was deficit neutral. Yet before we were told, ``Wait until we get to health care reform, that is where the savings are, forget about entitlement reform,'' and when the plan finally came up it was at best deficit neutral. It certainly did not reduce the deficit. The atmosphere around here has become so poisoned that honest debate has become nearly prohibited, and that is neither in the country's nor the Senate's best interest. The President's budget calls for $200 billion in deficits as far as the eye can see. We all understand why it does not call for a long list of specific cuts, because he would be attacked, just as Republicans are when we produce lists of spending cuts. We need an environment like the one Chief Justice Earl Warren sought when the Supreme Court took up the case of Brown v. Board of Education, dealing with racial segregation in public schools. The Chief Justice, knowing this would be a landmark and controversial case in the country's race relations, first sought an agreement among the Justices for unanimity in their decision. He did not want such an important decision to be decided by a split Court. I have no illusion that the Members of Congress could unanimously agree on a difficult deficit reduction package, but I do think we ought to learn from Chief Justice Warren's approach in terms of securing an atmosphere where debate can be undertaken without fear of being punished for candor. The budget deficit is rivaled only by the candor deficit. Until we can openly discuss these issues without fear of charges of heresy, is any serious progress ever going to be made? The balanced budget amendment is necessary to create that atmosphere, and I urge my colleagues to reject the attempt to subvert and derail this effort by the so-called right-to-know amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I thank my friend for his comments. Let me conclude with a few observations. There has been so much partisanship discussed in the House and the Senate on various other issues. There was a great deal of partisanship on the health care debate as well. I remember when Senator Dole asked the committee to put together a task force headed up by John Chafee to meet with our Democratic counterpart; we ran into a stonewall. compromise. It was all-or-nothing, comprehensive or nothing at all. As a result, we had nothing at all. One of the members of the Democratic task force came to me just a couple of days ago and said, ``You know, if we had done what you had suggested 2 years ago, it would have been a great step forward.'' We did not do it then. We ought to do it now. Let Senators put aside the partisanship and reach across the aisle and do something the American people will support--Republican, Democrat, independent, it does not matter. We need the relief. We need the reform. We ought not to defer this any longer. I yield the floor.

Mr. COHEN. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, as the 104th Congress opened, it did so with a great deal of fanfare this month. Much of the discussion has been devoted to congressional reform, tax cuts, the balanced budget amendment, unfunded mandates, and welfare reform, but on one issue our colleagues have been notably silent. I say that with one notable exception, my colleague from Illinois, who has just spoken rather eloquently on the whole subject of health care reform, which is what I would like to talk about this afternoon. Health care reform was a dominant topic on everyone's mind during the last Congress. As I mentioned just a moment ago, today it is barely a whisper. I believe that this is a mistake. I think it is time for the Senate to put the issue back on the front burner of the public agenda. Health care reform may not be a major clause in the House Republican's Contract With America, but rising health care costs and expanding gaps in coverage are still very much on the minds of the American people. In fact, postelection polls conducted for the Health Care Leadership Council and by the Washington Post and ABC News show that health care remains a top priority--as important even as cutting taxes, passing a balanced budget amendment, or enacting welfare reform. Abraham Lincoln once observed that ``with public sentiment nothing can fail, and without it nothing can succeed.'' I think the American people wisely rejected the big-government approach advocated last year by the administration. More Government is clearly not the way to lower health care costs. And when I say they rejected big government, this is a copy of the bill that in fact was being debated last year, some 1,443 pages long. The public did not understand it. They felt also that we were moving toward, if I can use that Tofflerian phrase, demasification of the centralized health care system. The fact is, they rejected it. The fact is that Government spending on health care, with all of its bureaucratic endeavors and controls, has risen much faster than private health care spending. In fact, between 1970 and 1991 Medicare and Medicaid grew 427 percent, more than double the amount of 165 percent in the private sector. So we have seen a real disparity in terms of Government sponsored and funded But the public rejection of the Clinton health care plan does not mean that American people do not want health care reform. As my colleague from California, Senator Diane Feinstein, observed, the main reason the President's health care reform efforts collapsed was that the ``Democrats listened to the 15 percent of the public who had no coverage, while the Republicans listened to the 85 percent who did.'' What some Democrats in Washington derided as merely incremental was, to the American public, essential. Susan Sontag wrote: Illness is the night-side of life, a more onerous citizenship. Everyone who is born holds dual citizenship, in the kingdom of the well and the kingdom of the sick. Although we all prefer to use only the good passport, sooner or later each of us is obliged, at least for a spell, to identify ourselves as citizens of that other place. As such, the flaws in our health care system are ones that will-- sooner or later--touch every American family. The American people want health care reform, but they want something they can understand and afford. They want a program that gives them some reassurance against their growing sense of financial insecurity against potential illness--a program that gives them some protection should they cross over into that kingdom of the sick. When the American people say they want reform, they mean: ``If I lose my job or get sick, I want to keep my health insurance and I do not want it to cost so much.'' They want Congress to enact targeted reforms to contain health care costs and to ensure that they do not lose the health care coverage that they have. Health care reform, I think, as my colleague from Illinois has pointed out, is pretty familiar to most of us now. We have spent over 4 years studying the problem, countless hours of staff researching the issue, debating the issue, drafting legislation, negotiating compromise. We have something, I think, very valuable to show for that effort. Despite the partisan and sometimes bitter debate in the last Congress, there is broad-based, bipartisan agreement on some key steps that can and should be taken to contain health care costs and increase access for millions of Americans. In fact, I believe that action could have been taken on these changes 3 years ago if some had not insisted that there be comprehensive reform, or no reform at all. Today I am introducing legislation outlining a blueprint for reform that is based on principles upon which I believe a bipartisan majority in Congress could agree. The plan takes significant strides toward the goal of universal coverage by bringing millions more Americans into the system. While some might characterize these reforms as incremental, they are by no means insignificant. They would include insurance market reforms to make insurance portable and prohibit insurers from denying, canceling, or limiting coverage or otherwise discriminating against individuals on the basis of their health status. They would include refundable tax credits for low-income families and full tax deductibility for the self-employed to make insurance coverage more affordable. They would include voluntary purchasing cooperatives to give individuals and small businesses access to more affordable coverage; administrative reforms to reduce costs and paperwork and make the system more efficient. They would include malpractice reforms to reduce the costly practice of defensive medicine; expanded access to care in rural areas; more affordable long-term care; and, finally, stronger efforts to combat fraud and abuse, which currently rob our system of as much as $100 billion every year. Many of my colleagues have heard me take the floor time and time again to complain about health care fraud in this country. In fact, just last week I introduced separate legislation dealing with health care fraud, because we are losing $100 billion every year to health care fraud. It amounts to $275 million a day, $11.5 million every single hour. We could have taken action last year. We did not take action last year. The said wait until health care reform comes. Health care reform did not come. So by the time this legislation or some variation of this legislation is finally adopted, we will lost another $100 billion to health care fraud and abuse. Many of the principles involved in this legislation--and, by the way, Mr. President, this contains about 200 typewritten pages--could have been adopted more than 4\1/2\ years ago when I first introduced it. In fact, it could have been adopted when Senator Lloyd Bentsen passed his version of the bill back in 1992. Although action on health care reform has been deferred in the past. It simply cannot be deferred any longer. The new Republican-controlled Congress has both the obligation and the political opportunity to enact health care reform, but the window of opportunity will not be open long. We simply cannot afford to repeat past mistakes and allow the issue to become complicated or obfuscated by election-year politics. I listened with great interest to my colleagues from Illinois outline some of the letters he has received from constituents and others pointing out it is not a Republican or Democratic issue, it is an American problem. Last month, one of my constituents, Leslie Mansfield, of Bar Harbor, testified before the Maine Health Care Reform Commission about the importance of health care reform for her family. Since her son was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes 6 years ago, the family has faced mounting insurance and medical bills. Even though the rest of the family is healthy, in 3 short years they have seen their insurance premiums jump from $190 to $600 a month, and they fear that they will soon be either dropped by their insurer or priced out of the market entirely. If the new Congress does not move quickly on health care reform, millions of Americans like Leslie Mansfield and her family will be worse off, not better off. Health care costs, which last year topped $1 trillion, will continue to rise, placing an increasing strain on families, employers, and governments alike, and pricing millions more Americans out of the market. Insurers and businesses will be able to continue to cut costs by avoiding customers at greater risk. People with preexisting medical conditions like heart disease and diabetes will face even steeper premiums or could lose their coverage entirely. And we will continue to lose an estimated $275 million a day--that is $11.5 million every hour--to health care fraud. Health care reform does not have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. That mistake was made both in 1992 and in 1994 and should not be repeated. By building upon our areas of agreement, we can take major steps to contain costs, expand choice and extend access to care to millions more Americans. We have come a long way to reach this point in the health care debate and we should move forward. While to do nothing may not be a breach of the Contract With America, it most certainly would be a breach of trust with the American people. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Access to Affordable Health Care Act and ask unanimous consent that a section-by- section summary as well as the full text of the bill be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Cohen pertaining to the introduction of S. 294 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I object to further consideration of the bill.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do so with some hesitation since I have very high regard for the former chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, now ranking member, and my good friend from Michigan, Senator Levin. I must say that when the Senator from Ohio talked about this being grunt work on the Governmental Affairs Committee, coming from him I think that is a bit of an overstatement. A former marine-aviator- astronaut, we like to joke from time to time, saying what on Earth was he doing, and the fact is he has done a lot. He has done a lot and he continues to do a lot on the Governmental Affairs Committee, but the notion that somehow the Governmental Affairs Committee would not be reviewing and overseeing this particular piece of legislation, I think, is not entirely accurate. I have worked with Senator Levin since I have been in the Senate. If there is one thing we do, it is conduct oversight. Week after week after week we conduct oversight on virtually every facet of our Government. I must say that they are correct, this is landmark legislation. This is a new concept that we are undertaking. A new relationship that we are trying to establish with the States and local communities. But the notion that somehow, because we passed landmark legislation, that it is cast in concrete, I think, is simply inaccurate. It is subject to change each and every year. We can anticipate that there will be complications developed in the implementation of this act. It will be subject to the law of unintended consequences. We will see permutations and changes and complaints at certain points in terms of how it is going to ultimately function. But that is what our responsibility is on the Governmental Affairs Committee, to oversee exactly how a law is working and is being carried out through regulation and through its implementation. will never be subject to change is simply not a reflection of what goes on in virtually every other statutory provision, and certainly not with something as controversial as this. I am not fond of recalling our experience with the special prosecutor law. Senator Levin and I have worked on that for many years now, since 1978, where it has come up for reauthorization every 5 years, and we had a sunset provision. We have discussed on several occasions making that law permanent because we felt we had a vital interest in seeing to it that we had a provision on the books that remained there and did not have to go through that period of time where we were under the gun, the guillotine coming down to chop off that bill. We knew it was subject to political pressures and, in fact, it happened. At the very end of the Bush administration, because of the opposition that developed for political reasons--mostly on this side but not all--we lost that bill. Nearly half a year or more went by before we could bring it back up because of the political complications that developed with this administration. So I would like to see the special prosecutor law made permanent and not be subject to sunset because of exactly the kind of pressures that were generated against that legislation. Mr. President, we can repeal this law if we find that it is not working, if we find that it is contrary to the best interests of our country. If it is not really establishing a proper balance between the Federal and State relationship, we can repeal it at any time. We can change it, we can alter it, we can reshape it. We can do anything we want provided we exercise proper oversight. That is the function of the Governmental Affairs Committee. That is the function of the oversight committee that I now chair, with Senator Levin as the ranking member. So the notion that somehow we need to have a cutoff period with the guillotine coming down unless we take action to reauthorize it, I think, is a mistake. I am sure there will be opportunities for us to reshape and modify the law to make it consistent with our articulated goals. So for those reasons, I urge that we reject the amendment, or, if a motion is going to be made to table, I urge my colleagues to, once again, support the motion to table. I want to reiterate my compliments to the Senator from Michigan for offering an amendment that relates to the bill, that is germane and relevant and important. My compliments also to the Senator from Ohio for his steadfast performance on the Governmental Affairs Committee, doing the grunt work as well as the astronautic work he does and the more exotic items we share in the Armed Services Committee and even the Intelligence Committee. Of course, I will conclude by commending my colleague who is managing this bill. He has been on the floor, I think, at least a week and a half. It seems like 3 weeks. I commend him for his endurance and his steadfastness in purpose in passing this legislation. I yield the floor. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.