William Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I recently read a speech that I believe deserves the attention of all Senators. Jack Valenti, the president and chief executive officer of the Motion Picture Association of America, a former aide to President Lyndon B. Johnson, and one of the most articulate and thoughtful people I know, delivered the speech in New York City, as the first in the Louis Nizer lecture series. Jack Valenti's words that evening carry a special resonance for me and I think they will for others. They are words of optimism about our future, in a time when too many in our country do not feel optimistic. But they are also words of caution, directed toward all of us in this body and all of us in this city, who create the policies under which Americans live. They stress the importance of the family, of education, of appropriate moral conduct, of individual--not governmental-- responsibility. They are words to which we should all give careful consideration. I ask unanimous consent that, following my remarks, the full text of Jack Valenti's speech be included in the Congressional Record. be printed in the Record, as follows: William Faulkner's Old Verities: It's Planting Time in America! (By Jack Valenti) The issues of liberty and the replenishment of community values stirred restlessly within Louis Nizer. He and I talked often about the compass course of the society. We both had read the purifying speech of William Faulkner when he received the Nobel Prize for Literature, on December 10, 1950. Like me, Louis found in Faulkner's words a dark punishing wisdom, a plain, spare design for civic conduct. It is from Faulkner's vision that what I say tonight has taken wings. I think Louis would approve. Let me begin, then, by admiring this man, Louis Nizer, who has drawn so many of you here tonight. In the muscular and musical English language which Louis knew so well, loved so much and illuminated so elegantly, there exits two words which perfectly describe him. They are ``polymath'' and ``fidelity.'' Polymath means an artisan of immense learning in many fields. Francis Bacon once said he had taken all knowledge to be his province. For Bacon it was not an immodest objective. But such were Louis Nizer's vast and diverse talents, he is the only man I know or knew who could come close to matching Francis Bacon. Lawyer, courtroom genius, public speaker, best selling author, painter, composer, lyricist, historian, counselor to presidents and public officials, he was all of these and more. And in each he performed with excelling intellect and ascending success. Fidelity means faithfulness to obligations and observances. Louis Nizer gave special meaning to the word ``fidelity.'' In his binding to the law, fidelity took on a richer meaning. The law in all its glory was the core of his life. It was the reservoir from which his daily tasks drew nourishment. I first met Louis Nizer almost twenty-nine years ago when he came to visit with me in my office in the White House. I was about to resign as Special Assistant to the President, to become the President of the Motion Picture Association of America. He was to become the MPAA general counsel. Our paths that day not only crossed, but became intimately interwoven and forever sealed in friendship and trust. His long, fruitful life is now over. Death, as it does to every mortal, has finally came to Louis Nizer. I can say that I am so grateful to a beneficent God that I was given to know Louis so intimately, so gloriously, so lovingly. He was a noble man. There are so few of his kind. Any enterprise that bears Louis' name is valuable to me. This evening then, to me, has great worth. May the Louis Nizer Lecture series flourish in the decades ahead. May I do it as little damage as possible tonight. I have been fortunate to spend my entire working career in two of life's fascinations, politics and movies. I have worked the precincts of my native Texas, within City Hall and county courthouses and the state capitol. I have been privy to decision making in the White House, at the side of a brave, extraordinary President. And I have for a long time been among and within the creative and executive communities of Hollywood and the world cinema. Both arenas, movies and politics, and sprung from the same DNA. Their aims are the same: to entice voters and audiences to yield to their persuasions. What is the value of those persuasions? What is real? What is right? What is truth? Who determines it? Who furnishes the boundaries for the daily moral grind of a functioning society? How is that society to be governed? How do you shape a foundation for a nation's prime objective to endure, always striving to reach for the ascending curve? These are ancient queries. Answers are available but often they are porous, not readily translated into specific behavior. Sometimes they are cast in different shapes to different people. Which answer is true? ``What is truth,'' said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer. I have thought a lot about this, though thinking about these matters is like trying to pick up mercury with a fork. It is maddeningly elusive. But we have to keep trying. Herodotus tells the story of Athenians so emotionally affected by the drama, ``The Capture of Miletus'', by the poet Phrynichus, that the whole theater wept openly. When their passions had cooled, Athenian officials passed a law forbidding Phrynichus ever again to offer this play to the public. He was fined a thousand drachmas for reminding his fellows citizens of their own sorrows. It is an apt metaphor for our current scene. Nothing so much describes the perversity of political and social conduct, and calls to judgment the resorting to morality by public officials as an instrument of domestic and foreign policy. It's a dicey political game to play. Like the Athenians we are deeply involved in that which tugs at both our practical minds and our moral conscience. Also like the Athenians we find the real world, the morning after, not so desirable as we had previously thought. If morality is a rostrum from which we survey our lives, then it is also a principle on which we stand. Principles, unless one rises above them, are cruelly steadfast. If a principle is ignored, for whatever practical reasons, or bent, for whatever seemingly rational decision, then it is no longer a principle. It becomes a weak reed on which we lean at our own peril. So it is that Presidents and Members of Congress, as well as officials of state and local governments, find themselves dealing with morality on a ``yes, but'' logic. If you tried to draw up a catalogue of the good guys and the bad guys, you wind up with public officials from the President down being judged on the same basis as that well known medieval monarch, Philip the Good, renowned in his time for both the number of his bastards and the piety of his fasts. Too often our officials, in both political parties, see issues through their own personal prism. To that end, the historian Procopius wrote about the Emperor Justinian: ``He didn't think that the slaying of men was murder unless they happened to share his own religious view.'' We are poised for a great debate in this land. It has to do with the reach of government, how wide, how narrow. But I daresay the debate will be waged on the wrong platform. Emerson may have gotten it right when he wrote: ``God offers to everyone his choice between truth and repose. Take what you please, you can never have both.'' Emerson is also speaking to this generation as well. I am not a pessimist. Never have been. Don't intend to start now. This country did not survive more than 200 years of cruel disjointings to be undone at this particular moment by discomforts cataloged at length, mainly by TV commentators and political consultants. These are the new political Druids who convince their viewers and their clients that they alone are capable of inspecting the entrails of a pig and thereby are solely in possession of the bewitchery which will lead voters to a proper decision. But this scrambling, unquiet, violent time is one of the rare moments in our history when those who govern us and those who are governed are in concert. Fear is the scarlet thread which runs like a twanging wire through the nation. Fear of tomorrow; fear of losing one's job; fear that children will find their future less attractive than did their parents; fear of crime, in the neighborhoods and in the home; fear that the old bindings which held the nation together are snapping: in too many cities there are too many broken homes, too much loss of the affection which thickens family ties, too much crazy drug use and users, too many guns in the hands of too many children, too many babies having babies, abandonment of the church, schools without discipline, life without hope, anger fed by imagined slights and bigoted blights. No wonder there is fear. The first thing we have to do to combat fear is understand that no matter how well intentioned we are, unless we are guided by a basic moral compass, we will neither begin nor finish the journey. Make no mistake, the politicians are listening. There is nothing so compelling to a public official as the angry buzz of the local multitudes. Therefore (ah, `Therefore' is a wondrous word. It says enough of the rhetoric, what do you do tomorrow morning?), Therefore: We ought to start with William Faulkner. In his speech in 1950, he cited what he called ``the old universal verities and truth of the heart, the old universal truth lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed--love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. He might have added ``and duty and loyalty and service to one's family and friends and country.'' Faulkner's old verities have weight because they are what an enduring nation is all about. Old fashioned words? Yes, they are. Long-living words? Yes, they are. All the more reason why words which have sustained themselves in myth and reality are never out of date. These words describe neither religion nor ideology nor political affiliation. No group or faction or political party has a monopoly on interpreting their meaning. What Faulkner's verities represent is a code of conduct between human beings, between the citizen and the state, between neighbors, friends, associates. They are better guides than a political poll, or the blatherings demagogues, or those earnest folks who insist they alone possess God's wisdom. We have an old prayer in Texas when we encounter these human repositories of divine Truth: ``Dear Lord, let me seek the truth, but spare me the company of those who have found it.'' Nice prayer. I say it often. So, we begin with Faulkner's proposition that there are basics deep rooted in those crevices where each of us stores our beliefs and our passions. Without them we are barren of aim or cause or reason. Or as Faulkner said, without them we ``labor under a curse.'' Government cannot, ought not, be a national nanny, nor the custodian of our faith nor the divine arbiter of our lives. Each citizen must be responsible for his or her actions, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters. Parents must be responsible for their children. Adults responsible for there decisions. Young people responsible for what they do. Playing ``victim'', copping a plea that ``the Devil made me do it,'' these are mocking charades in which the foolish listen to the dunces and the dimwits lead the mob. Taking responsibility for one's life, for one's action, does not mean turning away from the helpless and the hopeless. What it does mean is that if there is not a civic commitment to be individually responsible, the disappointment. But we must be wary in the months ahead. Strenuous efforts will be made to amputate the national government's intervention in the lives of those pressed against the wall because of circumstances over which they have no control. It would be tragic to do that. It would be worse than a crime. It would be a blunder. It cannot be allowed to happen. To give Faulkner's old verities a communal reality, we have to begin within the family, for parents to care enough, believe enough, do enough to begin the process. Parents, sufficiently armed with passion, can do the most. Alongside this familial commitment has to be a zealous attention to teachers and schools. We have to be willing to pay for first class public education or it continues to be lousy education. We can't build enough prisons, or wield enough judicial sabers, or legislate enough tough death penalty laws to compensate for the collapse of discipline in the classroom, or the graduation from high school of too many who can't read or write or the total loss of Faulkner's verities. In a time when our national obligations are larger than our capacity to fulfill them all at the same time, our leaders must make it clear--painful, discomforting, frustrating as it may be--that we have to reinstall the family and the school and the church as the central teaching centers for young people. We have to begin the journey back into ourselves before we can go forward into our future. Too idealistic? Too namby-pamby? too impossible? `Yes,' to all of those descriptions if you think a society can just amble along and keep its liberties alive when so much of its core convictions are in a state of decay. I don't. Every day liberty must be guarded, because like virtue it is every day besieged. Then, why am I optimistic? Because all things are always in flux. Nothing lasts forever, neither triumph nor tragedy, nor the omissions of the human spirit. So long as we understand who we are, why we are what we are, and how we became so, then we will always be able to know where it is that we ought to turn and where we must go. Of course, this requires a national conviction. Without conviction, said Lord Macaulay, a man or woman will be right only by accident. President Kennedy supposedly told the story of a French general in Algeria who wanted to plant a special kind of tree to line the road to his chateau. ``But,'' protested his gardener, ``that tree takes a 100 years to bloom.'' The general smiled and said: ``Then we have no time to lose. Start planting today.'' It's planting time in America. Faulkner's old verities will take root again much sooner than the General's trees.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Please wait until I finish my statement, and I will. Now, I know that the Senator last night was bemoaning the plight of small shops on Main Street America. I might say that what has probably done more damage to those shops on Main Street America is Wal-Mart. If you want to hear complaints from people about what has happened to mom-and-pop stores on Main Street, be it Bangor, ME, or elsewhere, look at Wal-Mart. I do not fault Wal-Mart. I think they provide great benefits for consumers. We have one in Bangor, in Portland, and elsewhere. They do a very fine job. But they put many small businesses out of business. I simply want to make the point that this amendment is not about defending small town America or small mom-and-pop shops. In her own statement to the Small Business Committee last year, a spokeswoman for the International Council of Shopping Centers, supporters of the Bumpers bill, said that retailers were happy to collect sales taxes because they ``realize that these sales taxes play an important role in financing important State and local services on which the shopping centers rely.'' So I would say, if fairness is going to be the issue, is it really fair to ask a company some 3,000 miles away to collect another State's taxes? Some would say no. The mail order industry, to its credit, however, has never said no. As I have pointed out, they have said: We are willing to reach an agreement with these State collection agencies, but let us make it a reasonable agreement. Do not expect us to calculate all the taxes and have different taxes and different exemptions, and figure out what Maine means versus Vermont or Massachusetts or Arkansas or California or Wisconsin or elsewhere. The Senator from Arkansas suggests that this is really a small business bill. Well, last fall the National Federation of Business, NFIB, polled its members on the issue and found that 67 percent of the members opposed forcing mail order companies to collect out-of-State taxes, and I think it is probably the best window that we have into the soul of small business in this country. If they oppose the measure so significantly, it is difficult to see how you can portray it as being helpful to small business. But that is debatable, I concede. That is debatable. What I think is not debatable is to bring this tax-related amendment up on this bill. It is not germane to the bill. The Senator from Arkansas is correct. He has every right to bring it up under the Senate rules. But, if the Democratic response to what happened last November is going to be to stall legislation and think that holds the key to a Democratic victory in 1996, I suggest the Democrats have misread what happened in the elections. I think the people want action to be taken. I think they want to have less regulation. I think they want to see both Houses of Congress move as expeditiously as possible. And if the Democrats' answer is, well, we are just going to stall this thing right into 1966, then I suggest there may be far more Republicans elected in 1996. The success of Republican candidates in November not because Republicans were stalling in the 103d Congress. There was significant disagreement with the health care proposals that were coming before the bodies of this Congress. There was substantial reaction to what they saw as a massive centralization of the health care system in this country. And they saw a drift among Democrats away from the center back to the left. That, in my judgment, accounts for what happened in November. And so if the answer of the Democratic Party is going to be to just simply slow everything down, to come up with whatever amendment they feel is important, no matter how relevant or germane to the bill at hand, then I suggest we are going to see a lot more Republicans in 1996 in the Senate and House than we did in 1994. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas kept at least part of his pledge. He waxed eloquent but not for his usual length of time. I am sure he has a lot more in store for us this afternoon, but I commend him for the enthusiasm with which he is pursuing his particular amendment. First, let me clarify that this amendment is not about whether or not mail order purchases are subject to State sales taxes. They are. Every State, other than the four that have been mentioned, impose taxes on mail order purchases. The issue at hand is the method by which these taxes are collected. Under the current law, States cannot force out-of-State mail order companies to collect taxes for them, and the reason is simple: There are over 6,000 different tax jurisdictions in the country, and once you account for all of the various State, county, local taxes, it would be absurd to expect mail order companies to know and understand every tone and nuance of these various 6,000 tax jurisdictions. Maine has a snack tax it imposes. I have a copy of the Bureau of Taxation document from the State of Maine. It is only a summary, but it takes some seven pages to explain just the exemptions. And every State has exemptions from their sales tax. Here is the Maine regulation dealing with fruit baskets, for example. It says: Baskets or dishes filled with fruit or other grocery staples are not subject to tax. If the fruit basket is composed mostly of grocery staples, the addition of a minimal quantity of otherwise taxable items, such as a few small pieces of candy, does not affect the taxability of the fruit basket. If the fruit basket contains nonfood items of a significant value, the seller must either collect sales tax on the price of the basket, or else separately and reasonably account for the taxable and nontaxable portions and collect tax on the taxable items. This is proposed amendment would certainly create a lot of work for tax lawyers and accountants who advise mail-order companies on tax provisions in Maine and every other State in this country. So this is an example of what would happen if the Bumpers amendment were to become law. The problem is not the rate of taxation. It is 6 percent in Maine. That is simple enough to understand. The complexity is in determining what the tax applies to? And that is the kind of burden we would be imposing on all of these mail order companies. Are we going to expect a fruit basket company in California or Florida or Wisconsin to understand the intricacies of the sales tax, snack tax, of the State of Maine? The mail order industry for years has said, ``Look, we are willing to work something out with the States in order to satisfy their problems.'' They simply ask that taxes be simplified so they collect one simplified, uniform tax and not be expected to hire an army of tax lawyers and accountants. Second, I point out that about 30 percent of all these purchases through mail order are paid by check. So if the people involved incorrectly make out their check or miscalculate the tax due, the mail order company is put in a difficult situation. They then have to go back to the consumer and say, ``By the way, you miscalculated. Please send us another check.'' That would undermine one of the essential benefits provided by mail order companies--convenience. The industry, as I indicated, and the revenue agencies in the States came very close to reaching an agreement in 1992. I respectfully suggest that they go back to the bargaining table to see if something can be worked out, but I think for the Senate to adopt this amendment would be a serious mistake. First of all, it is a tax bill. The Finance Committee has not held a single hearing on this issue--not this year, not last year or the year before. There has been no hearing before the Senate Finance Committee. As a matter of fact, I have a statement, which I will insert for the Record, from of the chairman of the Finance Committee where he indicates, ``Whether to require out-of-State companies sales taxes is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee.'' The chairman of the Finance Committee urges that we oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas, at least until such time as the Finance Committee has an opportunity to examine this with some scrutiny. I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Senator Packwood be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. COHEN. About 8 minutes.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the junior Senator from Maine.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. COHEN. I renew my motion to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COHEN. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. COHEN. Before yielding back my time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Domenici to the bill that I introduced earlier this morning, the health care fraud bill.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I was intrigued with the comments made by the Senator from Florida. He indicated that this was an important subject matter. He said it was not an insignificant issue. I agree. That is precisely my point. This is not an insignificant issue. This is something that deserves a hearing before the appropriate committee. He also said that $168 million in Florida is not subject to sales tax. I do not believe that is correct. It is subject to a sales tax. The State has a right to collect it from its citizens. As my colleague from the State of Maine has indicated, 10 States now, since the Supreme Court decision, have adopted statutes that impose a collection burden upon their own citizens. Other states can do the same. It is not unreasonable to ask the States to educate their own citizens somehow, perhaps with a notice with their income tax forms saying ``If you have made purchases out of State, mail order or otherwise, a sales tax is owed.'' The Senator from Arkansas said, ``If Harry and David can handle the sale of candies and sweets through interstate commerce, why cannot everybody else?'' I say, what about Thelma and Louise? Harry and David may be able to do it, but maybe the smaller companies cannot. That is the problem with this approach. Again, this is why a thorough hearing before the Senate Finance Committee is necessary. I quoted earlier from the Senator from Oregon, chairman of the Finance Committee. He said: Currently States collect their own sales tax without interference from the Federal Government. Ten States collect these taxes from consumers from a separate line on the State's income tax. Obviously, States are fully capable of dealing with the collection of their sales taxes without the interference of the Federal Government. Mr. President, if Mrs. Maloney was defrauded, she has a legitimate complaint. But we ought not paint the entire industry with the same brush. No reputable mail-order company is out there willfully defrauding their customers. But again, those are serious matters that deserve to be fully aired before any legislation is adopted. The Senator mentioned his testimony before the Governors' Conference, and I respectfully say to him he should bring his debate before the Finance Committee. That is the appropriate jurisdiction to argue the merits and equity and seek a proper resolution of this issue, not with an amendment to an unfunded mandates bill that we are currently considering. For those reasons, Mr. President I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COHEN. I think it would be wrong and inappropriate for the Senate to pass judgment on an important matter that I believe deserves at least full-scale hearings before the Senate Finance Committee. At a time when we are trying to put the brakes on the onslaught of regulations, the Bumpers amendment would in fact bring a new regulatory scheme on mail order companies. There is something in this particular amendment that caught my eye. Under this amendment, States requiring mail order companies to collect out-of-State taxes would be required to set up a 1-800 number. It sounds to me like another unfunded mandate. And that is what we reduce unfunded mandates. Yet this amendment appears to contain its own unfunded mandate. The notion that mail order companies attract customers because they offer some great tax shelter is incorrect. I do not think people buy from L.L. Bean because they offer a great way to avoid taxes. They buy from L.L. Bean because they get a great product. They have great service. You call up and order something, or you mail in your order and often within 48 hours you have your product. They have a return policy that if you have a product you think is defective, whether you find it defective in 30 days or a year or 2 years or 5 years, you can return the product and have it replaced, no questions asked. That is why L.L. Bean is so well renowned. That is why it is one of the biggest mail-order companies in the country. And that is why people order; not because they can buy a sweater from L.L. Bean and avoid taxes. As a matter of fact, if you buy a sweater and you have to pay the shipping and the handling charges, it will exceed any taxes you could save if you were inclined to avoid them. For the Senator from Arkansas to say only about 1 percent of the people of Arkansas even know that they have to pay a tax when they buy from out of State, the answer is why do we not simply educate the people or impose a collection mechanism like the State of Maine has where there is a presumptive amount of tax, based on your income?

Mr. COHEN. Well, he is going to wax.

Mr. COHEN. I would agree with that. If we had a vote on cloture, the Senator's amendment would be ruled to be nongermane.

Mr. COHEN. If the Senator will yield, I assume the Senator from Arkansas is saying he is going to engage in the delaying tactics you think brought victory to the Republicans; is that what he is saying?

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself, Senators Dole, Simpson, Stevens, D'Amato, Graham of Florida, Coats, Gregg, Warner, Nickles, Pryor, Chafee, Bond, and Ford, the Health Care Fraud Prevention Act of 1995. Mr. President, health care reform has now taken a back seat to some other measures that are now before the Congress, as our colleagues in the House debate their Contract With America provisions and this body debates unfunded mandates, a balanced budget amendment, and entitlement reform. Apparently health care reform is going to have to wait. But I must say that it is just as important as these other issues as far as the American people are concerned. But as we await the debate on health care reform, which I believe must come this session, we also have to take steps immediately to toughen our defenses against fraudulent practices that are driving up the cost of health care for families, businesses and taxpayers alike. You may recall that last year I introduced a measure which contained some additions to the criminal law provisions of our title 18 statutes. Those provisions were adopted unanimously by the Senate. They were sent over to the House where they were stripped out of the anticrime bill at conference because the majority rationalized that these provisions should not go on the crime bill but on a health care reform bill. As we know, there was no health care reform bill passed last year. On a number of occasions, I sought to attach the provisions to pending legislation, for example, the D.C. appropriations bill and the Labor, HHS appropriations bill. I was prevailed upon to withdraw the legislation at that time so as to allow the appropriations bills to go forward. And I pointed out at that time, which was at the conclusion of last year's session of Congress, that we would lose as much as $100 billion a year due to health care fraud and abuse. That amounts to $275 million a day or $11.5 million every single hour. Mr. President, I do not think we can afford to delay this any longer. Over the past 5 years, we have lost as much as $418 billion from health care fraud and abuse, which is approximately four times the total losses associated with the savings and loan crisis. Just imagine the furor that enveloped this country over the bailout necessary because of the savings and loan problems that afflicted this country. It is four times that as far as health care fraud is concerned, and yet there does not seem to be much of a sense of urgency on the part of our colleagues to do much about it. Mr. President, I have worked with the Justice Department, the FBI, Medicaid fraud units, inspectors general, and others in developing this legislation. As I pointed out last year there is a song, I think it was by Paul Simon-- [[Page S1220]] not our Paul Simon but the song writer Paul Simon--who had a song called ``Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover.'' We showed through an Aging Committee's year-long investigation at least 50 ways in which to pick the pockets of Uncle Sam and of private insurers. I will not, because of the length of the report, introduce it now into the Record. I will simply ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks the executive summary of this year-long investigation be introduced in the Record and included as part of it. Let me simply add a few more examples of the kinds of activities that are taking place now while we are debating other amendments, germane and nongermane, to the pending unfunded mandates bill. First, let me point out that there are roughly a half billion Medicare claims processed each year and the overwhelming majority of those are submitted for legitimate services by conscientious health care providers and beneficiaries--the overwhelming majority. It is the minority who are taking as much as $100 billion out of the system. Let me give you examples of what is going on. A doctor promoted his clinic in television, radio, newspaper, and telephone book ads as a ``one-stop, walk-in diagnostic center.'' You can walk in, and they can take care of any problem you have got. So a person might go in for an examination for a shoulder injury and be subjected to a huge battery of tests which have nothing to do with the shoulder, resulting in bills of $4,000 and more per patient. Using the names of dozens of dead patients, a phantom laboratory in Miami allegedly cheated the Government out of $300,000 in Medicare payments in a matter of just a few weeks for lab tests never performed. The lab that was submitting the bills for the tests was basically a rented mailbox and a Medicare billing number. That was it. Employees of an airline were indicted for filing false and fraudulent claims for reimbursement to a private insurance company for medical care and services they claimed to have received in another country. The allegations are that the employees attempted to mail false and fictitious forms totaling close to $600,000 for treatments and services never performed. A durable medical equipment company, its owner and sales manager pled guilty to supplying unnecessary medical equipment such as hospital beds and oxygen concentrators to residents of adult congregate living facilities and then billing Medicare for more than $600,000. These conspirators induced the facilities' managers to allow them to provide the equipment by promising to leave the equipment when the patients died or were transferred. Physician-owners of a clinic in New York stole over $1.3 million from the State Medicaid program by fraudulently billing for over 50,000 phantom psychotherapy sessions never given to Medicaid patients. Finally, a medical equipment supplier stole $1.45 million from Medicaid by repeatedly billing for expensive back supports that were never authorized by the patients' physicians. These cases are but a small sample of the fraudulent and abusive schemes that are plaguing our health care system daily, freezing millions of Americans out of affordable health care coverage, and driving up costs for taxpayers. The bill I am introducing today will go far in strengthening our defenses against health care fraud. Specifically, it will: Give prosecutors stronger tools and tougher statutes to combat criminal health care fraud. It would, for example, provide a specific health care offense in title 18 so that prosecutors are not forced to spend excessive time and resources to develop a nexus to the mail or wire fraud statutes to pursue clear cases of fraud, or to track the cash-flow from health care schemes in order to prosecute under money laundering statutes. It will allow injunctive relief and forfeiture for criminal health care fraud; provide greater authority to exclude violators from Medicare and Medicaid programs; create tough administrative civil penalties and remedies for fraud and abuse so that a range of sanctions will be available; and coordinate enforcement programs and beef up investigative resources, which are now woefully inadequate. For example, the HHS' inspector general states that it produces $80 in savings for each Federal dollar invested in their office yet their full-time equivalent position level has actually decreased over the last few years. The FBI recently testified that they have over 1,300 cases pending but that regardless of this prioritization, the amount of health care fraud not being addressed due to a lack of available resources is growing and that health care fraud appears to be a problem of immense proportion which is presently not being fully addressed. I might point out we have been reading about the extent of global international crime, even all the way from Russia, now moving into this country and ripping off the Medicare-Medicaid Programs and other health care systems by the millions. This is a growing problem of great concern to me, so the FBI needs help. This bill helps agencies like the FBI and HHS and DOD inspectors general by financing additional health care fraud enforcement resources with proceeds derived from forfeiture, fines, and other health care fraud enforcement efforts. It will also provide guidance to health care providers and industries on how to comply with fraud rules, so they will know what is and what is not prohibited activity. I have worked closely with law enforcement and health care fraud experts in developing these proposals, and am continuing to work with industry representatives to ensure that fraud and abuse statutes and requirements are fair, clearly understood by health care providers, and reflect the changing health care market. Our goal should not be to burden health care providers with complicated, murky rules on fraud and abuse, but rather to lay down clear rules and guidance, followed by tough enforcement for violations. Mr. President, when we are losing as much as $275 million per day to health care fraud and abuse, we cannot afford to delay any longer. The only ones who benefit from delay on this important issue are those who are bilking billions from our system. The very big losers will be the American taxpayers, patients, and families who cannot afford health care coverage because premiums and health care costs are escalating to cover the exorbitant costs of fraud and abuse. I want to thank Senator Dole for his steadfast support and leadership on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support and act expeditiously on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of myself, Senators Dole, Simpson, Stevens, D'Amato, Graham of Florida, Coats, Gregg, Warner, Nickles, Pryor, Chafee, Bond, and Ford, the Health Care Fraud Prevention Act of 1995. Mr. President, health care reform has now taken a back seat to some other measures that are now before the Congress, as our colleagues in the House debate their Contract With America provisions and this body debates unfunded mandates, a balanced budget amendment, and entitlement reform. Apparently health care reform is going to have to wait. But I must say that it is just as important as these other issues as far as the American people are concerned. But as we await the debate on health care reform, which I believe must come this session, we also have to take steps immediately to toughen our defenses against fraudulent practices that are driving up the cost of health care for families, businesses and taxpayers alike. You may recall that last year I introduced a measure which contained some additions to the criminal law provisions of our title 18 statutes. Those provisions were adopted unanimously by the Senate. They were sent over to the House where they were stripped out of the anticrime bill at conference because the majority rationalized that these provisions should not go on the crime bill but on a health care reform bill. As we know, there was no health care reform bill passed last year. On a number of occasions, I sought to attach the provisions to pending legislation, for example, the D.C. appropriations bill and the Labor, HHS appropriations bill. I was prevailed upon to withdraw the legislation at that time so as to allow the appropriations bills to go forward. And I pointed out at that time, which was at the conclusion of last year's session of Congress, that we would lose as much as $100 billion a year due to health care fraud and abuse. That amounts to $275 million a day or $11.5 million every single hour. Mr. President, I do not think we can afford to delay this any longer. Over the past 5 years, we have lost as much as $418 billion from health care fraud and abuse, which is approximately four times the total losses associated with the savings and loan crisis. Just imagine the furor that enveloped this country over the bailout necessary because of the savings and loan problems that afflicted this country. It is four times that as far as health care fraud is concerned, and yet there does not seem to be much of a sense of urgency on the part of our colleagues to do much about it. Mr. President, I have worked with the Justice Department, the FBI, Medicaid fraud units, inspectors general, and others in developing this legislation. As I pointed out last year there is a song, I think it was by Paul Simon-- [[Page S1220]] not our Paul Simon but the song writer Paul Simon--who had a song called ``Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover.'' We showed through an Aging Committee's year-long investigation at least 50 ways in which to pick the pockets of Uncle Sam and of private insurers. I will not, because of the length of the report, introduce it now into the Record. I will simply ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks the executive summary of this year-long investigation be introduced in the Record and included as part of it. Let me simply add a few more examples of the kinds of activities that are taking place now while we are debating other amendments, germane and nongermane, to the pending unfunded mandates bill. First, let me point out that there are roughly a half billion Medicare claims processed each year and the overwhelming majority of those are submitted for legitimate services by conscientious health care providers and beneficiaries--the overwhelming majority. It is the minority who are taking as much as $100 billion out of the system. Let me give you examples of what is going on. A doctor promoted his clinic in television, radio, newspaper, and telephone book ads as a ``one-stop, walk-in diagnostic center.'' You can walk in, and they can take care of any problem you have got. So a person might go in for an examination for a shoulder injury and be subjected to a huge battery of tests which have nothing to do with the shoulder, resulting in bills of $4,000 and more per patient. Using the names of dozens of dead patients, a phantom laboratory in Miami allegedly cheated the Government out of $300,000 in Medicare payments in a matter of just a few weeks for lab tests never performed. The lab that was submitting the bills for the tests was basically a rented mailbox and a Medicare billing number. That was it. Employees of an airline were indicted for filing false and fraudulent claims for reimbursement to a private insurance company for medical care and services they claimed to have received in another country. The allegations are that the employees attempted to mail false and fictitious forms totaling close to $600,000 for treatments and services never performed. A durable medical equipment company, its owner and sales manager pled guilty to supplying unnecessary medical equipment such as hospital beds and oxygen concentrators to residents of adult congregate living facilities and then billing Medicare for more than $600,000. These conspirators induced the facilities' managers to allow them to provide the equipment by promising to leave the equipment when the patients died or were transferred. Physician-owners of a clinic in New York stole over $1.3 million from the State Medicaid program by fraudulently billing for over 50,000 phantom psychotherapy sessions never given to Medicaid patients. Finally, a medical equipment supplier stole $1.45 million from Medicaid by repeatedly billing for expensive back supports that were never authorized by the patients' physicians. These cases are but a small sample of the fraudulent and abusive schemes that are plaguing our health care system daily, freezing millions of Americans out of affordable health care coverage, and driving up costs for taxpayers. The bill I am introducing today will go far in strengthening our defenses against health care fraud. Specifically, it will: Give prosecutors stronger tools and tougher statutes to combat criminal health care fraud. It would, for example, provide a specific health care offense in title 18 so that prosecutors are not forced to spend excessive time and resources to develop a nexus to the mail or wire fraud statutes to pursue clear cases of fraud, or to track the cash-flow from health care schemes in order to prosecute under money laundering statutes. It will allow injunctive relief and forfeiture for criminal health care fraud; provide greater authority to exclude violators from Medicare and Medicaid programs; create tough administrative civil penalties and remedies for fraud and abuse so that a range of sanctions will be available; and coordinate enforcement programs and beef up investigative resources, which are now woefully inadequate. For example, the HHS' inspector general states that it produces $80 in savings for each Federal dollar invested in their office yet their full-time equivalent position level has actually decreased over the last few years. The FBI recently testified that they have over 1,300 cases pending but that regardless of this prioritization, the amount of health care fraud not being addressed due to a lack of available resources is growing and that health care fraud appears to be a problem of immense proportion which is presently not being fully addressed. I might point out we have been reading about the extent of global international crime, even all the way from Russia, now moving into this country and ripping off the Medicare-Medicaid Programs and other health care systems by the millions. This is a growing problem of great concern to me, so the FBI needs help. This bill helps agencies like the FBI and HHS and DOD inspectors general by financing additional health care fraud enforcement resources with proceeds derived from forfeiture, fines, and other health care fraud enforcement efforts. It will also provide guidance to health care providers and industries on how to comply with fraud rules, so they will know what is and what is not prohibited activity. I have worked closely with law enforcement and health care fraud experts in developing these proposals, and am continuing to work with industry representatives to ensure that fraud and abuse statutes and requirements are fair, clearly understood by health care providers, and reflect the changing health care market. Our goal should not be to burden health care providers with complicated, murky rules on fraud and abuse, but rather to lay down clear rules and guidance, followed by tough enforcement for violations. Mr. President, when we are losing as much as $275 million per day to health care fraud and abuse, we cannot afford to delay any longer. The only ones who benefit from delay on this important issue are those who are bilking billions from our system. The very big losers will be the American taxpayers, patients, and families who cannot afford health care coverage because premiums and health care costs are escalating to cover the exorbitant costs of fraud and abuse. I want to thank Senator Dole for his steadfast support and leadership on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support and act expeditiously on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Cohen and Mr. Dorgan pertaining to the introduction of S. 245 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I was home when I learned that the Senator from Arkansas was going to take the floor this evening and offer this amendment. I had no prior notification that it was coming up this evening. I can perhaps understand why the Senator from Arkansas would want to file this amendment prior to the cloture vote tomorrow. This is precisely what the majority leader was just talking about. Here we have a bill dealing with unfunded mandates, and we have the minority leader saying, ``Well, we just want to amend it in a substantive way dealing with relevant and germane issues pertaining to unfunded mandates,'' and the first thing that happens is the Senator from Arkansas gets up and offers this amendment which has no particular relevance to this bill. It is an example of what I mentioned on the floor the other day. We are back at it again. No sooner do we go into a new session with a new Congress, with new hopes of perhaps moving legislation at a much more expeditious fashion, at least, than we just have a series of amendments and more amendments that have nothing to do with the bill under consideration. Now that is consistent with the Senate rules. And the majority leader said he does not want to see a change in the Senate rules; keep the Senate as the Senate and not as the House. But the American people ought to understand why it is we cannot move forward with legislation: because every individual Member has his or her particular amendment that they want to offer. With respect to this particular amendment, this would reflect a major change in existing law. There is no mistake about it. This would be a major change in existing law. It is being offered without any hearings having been held in the Finance Committee--not one. And yet on the floor of the Senate, the Senator from Arkansas wishes to make this rather significant change. The Small Business Committee, I am told, held one hearing on the issue. But none in Finance which is the committee of jurisdiction. Now the supporters of the amendment argue this is a matter of fairness for local retailers. It is grossly unfair to ask mail order companies to collect taxes for over 6,000 jurisdictions. Do you really want to talk about putting burdens on people? Ask a mail order company to collect taxes for 46 States. There are some country that would have to be considered. But the Senator from Arkansas says, ``Well, that is just too bad. We are going to impose that burden on these mail order companies.'' We have a Maine snack tax, to give you an example. It is virtually indecipherable to most Maine companies. I think it would be absurd-- absurd--to expect every fruitcake vendor in this country to understand it. But that is what the Senator's amendment would do. Second, about 30 percent of all of the mail orders are paid not by credit cards, but by check. So if the check is made out in the wrong amount, any mail order company, L.L. Bean or any other company in the country-would have a difficult time collecting this particular tax if the calculation is wrong. Now the Home Shopping Network collects State and local taxes. They are made via credit cards, where the seller simply adds an appropriate tax to it. The Senator from Arkansas has talked about the great advantage that is being held by these mail order companies over the local retailer. The fact is, the local retailers also pay taxes to enjoy benefits that out-of-State companies do not. As a matter of fact the out-of-State companies are not at a competitive advantage. They have to add the shipping cost. These are costs that are added to the product. They have to do it on a single item basis rather than in bulk, because when people call up and say, ``Can we have the product?'' they have to order and pay the shipping and mailing costs, which far exceed the sales tax in many cases. That is an added expense the local retailer does not have to bear. So Senator Bumpers may talk about competitive advantage, but it does not exist. Mail order companies do not, let me repeat, do not enjoy a competitive advantage by not having to collect these taxes. The States have numerous ways to handle the collection of their taxes? In Maine, for instance, we assume that people in each income category have purchased a number of goods from out of State, and the State imposes a presumptive use tax. Maine has devised its own means of collecting taxes for goods purchased across State lines through mail order. Why not let the States handle it without the Senator from Arkansas mandating another rule, where no hearings have been held by the committee on jurisdiction. It is an extensive change. We ought not to undertake it on this particular bill. Mr. President, as I indicated, I was not aware that this was going to be brought up this evening. But I understand why it was. Last year an agreement was nearly reached involving the voluntary collection of State use taxes. This was negotiated by the direct marketing association and the multistate taxes commission, federation of tax administers, and small businesses. They tried to reach an agreement to reduce the 6,000 taxes down to maybe 46 so that within each State there would be only one rate. Unfortunately, the agreement fell apart in the end. This amendment is very significant and should not be offered to this bill. I support the majority leader, where he says it is time to file cloture. I hope that we do invoke cloture tomorrow. And to eliminate those amendments including these types of amendments that are being offered tonight on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I will have more to say tomorrow, but for the moment I will yield the floor.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, today on behalf of myself and Senator Pryor I am submitting a resolution to authorize funding for the Senate Special Committee on Aging for the period of March 1, 1995, through February 28, 1997. This resolution makes a technical change in the amounts requested for committee operations from the funding resolution we introduced last week. The amounts contained in this resolution fully comply with the guidance issued by the rules Committee that directed each Senate committee to reduce its committee expenditures by 15 percent below the committee's budget authorization for 1994, plus approved cost of living adjustments.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to no more than 10 minutes each. The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I had the opportunity last evening to join Senator Dole in meeting with British Gen. Rupert Smith, who will take command of the United Nations force, known as UNPROFOR, in Bosnia later this month. A few other Senators also had a chance to meet with General Smith yesterday. Senator Dole and I expressed admiration for General Smith's willingness to take on this unenviable task. But we also expressed skepticism that UNPROFOR can improve its credibility in order to more effectively carry out its limited mission of facilitating humanitarian relief and lessening the violence in Bosnia. But the change in command in UNPROFOR does at least offer the opportunity to try to adopt measures to make UNPROFOR more effective. I recall that a year ago, when UNPROFOR's leadership was rotating, American military officials responsible for the humanitarian airlift and airdrops in Bosnia proposed to take advantage of the situation to reestablish UNPROFOR's credibility and its ability to fulfill its mandate in Bosnia. They proposed that UNPROFOR end its ```mother may I?' construct of operations,'' and they outlined a plan by which UNPROFOR, even with its restrictive rules of engagement and limited troops and equipment, could use force to more effectively carry out its humanitarian mission and curb Serb and other harassment of UNPROFOR. These American military officers warned that if such action were not taken, an already bad situation would quickly get much worse. When he first took command of UNPROFOR in January, Lt. Gen. Michael Rose took actions that suggested he might follow this advice. But this initial promise faded as General Rose became even more pliable to Serb demands than previous UNPROFOR commanders had been. The results have been disastrous: UNPROFOR has all along had difficulty supplying food, fuel, and medical supplies to Bosnian civilians suffering the privations of war. Now, UNPROFOR cannot be sure it can supply its own emaciated troops. The United Nations declared a weapons exclusion zone around Sarajevo but refused to enforce it despite routine Serb violations. Now, it has effectively become a Serb-declared exclusion zone from which humanitarian air flights are blocked at the whim of Serb forces. In the past, UNPROFOR had been humiliated by being compelled to assist Serbs in the deportation of detained Muslims. Now, UNPROFOR has been rendered impotent by having its own forces detained and used as human shields against NATO air attacks. Some UNPROFOR troops seem to have become willing hostages who engage their Serb captors in sports and feasts. In short, continued UNPROFOR's submission to Serb demands and threats may make it impossible for it to fulfill its mandate. While things appear to have improved in recent weeks, with relief flights resumed and U.N. forces not held hostage, this has only been at the discretion of the Serbs, who can reverse course at any time. All sides in the conflict have sought to manipulate UNPROFOR to their own ends, but Serb forces have largely succeeded in making UNPROFOR a tool of Serb strategy, and the recent improvement should be seen in that light. This situation will only get worse over time unless UNPROFOR can gain credibility it has never enjoyed. Either prompt, dramatic action should be taken to establish UNPROFOR's credibility and its ability to do its humanitarian job or UNPROFOR should be withdrawn from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The plan proposed last winter by American military officers may have worked if implemented then, but it is probably too late toady. Certain elements of that plan, however, are still relevant and even more critical in light of Croatia's recent announcement not to extend UNPROFOR's mandate in that country beyond March 31: Discredited UNPROFOR leaders cannot change the situation. Any effort to revitalize UNPROFOR must be accompanied by new leaders. General Rose, the UNPROFOR commander in Bosnia, will be replaced on January 24 by General Smith. Yasushi Akashi, the U.N. Secretary General's representative for the former Yugoslavia, must be replaced, as well. The U.N.-declared no-fly zones and weapons-exclusion zones in Bosnia, now widely flouted, primarily by the Serbs, should be enforced. This includes the withdrawal of SAM's from the zone and deactivation of SAM's in the surrounding area that threaten NATO aircraft policing the zones. UNPROFOR should no longer tolerate checkpoints operated by belligerents nor should it pay tolls, extortion by belligerents of fuel and other humanitarian supplies. If belligerents question whether a convoy is going to its declared civilian destination, they should be permitted to ride the convoy. UNPROFOR should organize is convoys along military lines and reject Serb demands that include armored vehicles and similar demands. Any use of force or threat of force against UNPROFOR should be met with force. While such retaliation must be measured according to its objective, it need not be limited to retaliation against the specific offending forces, given the targeting difficulties often involved and the need for UNPROFOR to acquire the upper hand. As for the concern that adopting such an approach would endanger UNPROFOR troops now detained by Serbs, the reality is that unless such an approach is adopted immediately, all UNPROFOR troops will be endangered--whether formally detained or not. Action can either be taken to reverse the current situation, or it will only get worse. If UNPROFOR refuses to adopt such an approach, it should be withdrawn in States should, of course, provide the necessary assistance to help our allies and friends in UNPROFOR withdraw. This may include the temporary deployment of ground forces in Bosnia. End the impotence or end the mission. Any action by any of the belligerents to interfere with the withdrawal of UNPROFOR should be met by overwhelming force. Such force should not be limited to targeting those belligerent forces directly involved in interfering with the withdrawal. Instead, given the difficulties often involved in targeting the offending forces and the need to dominate the battlefield during a withdrawal, targets could include anything of military, political or economic value to the belligerents. Nor should we exclude targets outside Bosnia-Herzegovina, given that much of the impetus and sustenance for the conflict has come from outside its border. Once UNPROFOR has withdrawn, NATO should continue to enforce the exclusion zone around Sarajevo to the extent possible without excessively endangering allied forces. the broader balken context Given the Clinton administration's support for keeping UNPROFOR in Bosnia, and presumably trying to make it more effective there, the administration should work with our allies to reverse Croatia's decision to end UNPROFOR's mandate in that country. This might be possible if, parallel to adopting the measures I have proposed for UNPROFOR in Bosnia, a serious effort were made to revitalize UNPROFOR in Croatia, where it has been as much a tool of Serb strategy as in Bosnia. The Clinton administration has nominally recognized the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [FYROM], but in response to pressure from domestic groups has refused to fulfill this decision by sending an ambassador. This is an important foreign policy issue, not a election spoil. A professional diplomat should be dispatched forthwith as ambassador with a mandate to assist in the reconciliation among ethnic groups in that country and between Skopje and Athens. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton threatened to use military force against Serbia if it should employ blatant force in Kosovo, Serbia's Albania-populated province along its southern border with Albania and Macedonia. While Serbia has been slowly tightening its grip over the once autonomous Kosovo, this American threat remains useful to discourage overt and widespread violence. Congress should explicitly endorse this threat to make it more credible. Mr. President, during our meeting yesterday, General Rose emphasized that he was going to have to play the hand he has been dealt, and do so with the players who are already at the table, including the Bosnian Serb leadership. It is true that we have to shape our policy based on the situation as it exists today. No one can go back and undue what has happened over the last 3 years. But we can learn from the mistakes of the last 3 years. The measures I have proposed would seek to do so. But from what I heard from General Smith, I am afraid that UNPROFOR will continue down the path it is on. If so, the quagmire that is now up to its waist will soon be up to its neck. And at that point, the task of pulling it out and bringing it home will be much more difficult and costly. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I think we also ought to take into account that this bill is not a panacea. It is possible it could even create as many problems as it seeks to solve. We need to think carefully through the ultimate consequences as to how this all will work once it is in place. I mention this, Madam President, in connection with another subject I would like to talk just briefly about. We are confronted with a Contract With America. It is a contract that was signed by many of those in the House of Representatives; not by any, that I am aware of, here in the U.S. Senate. Nonetheless, I think there is great identification with many of the issues contained in the Contract With America, especially on the Republican side of the aisle. However, I think many of the issues contained in that contract will enjoy bipartisan support. The Contract With America is apparently on a very fast track in the House of Representatives. Frankly, the House can do that. The House is able to move far more quickly than we can, and that is because, under its rules, it is designed to move expeditiously. The Senate, by contrast, is a completely different institution. The Senate, by custom and institutional history, is designed to slow things down. It is designed to force Members to debate issues at greater length, to engage in discourse that will raise the level of interest on the part of our constituents, and to raise the level of scrutiny on the part of the national press corps. Basically, the Senate is designed to generate enough interest in an issue that the American people will be satisfied it is the wise thing, not necessarily the fast thing, to do. That occurred last year during the debate on health care reform, a major piece of legislation that could, under the right circumstances, have been gavelled through in the House with a limited measure of debate. In the Senate that was not possible. It was not possible because under our rules we needed more time to really ventilate the complexity of the issues involved. I think we did a great service to the country. Now, a lot of people, especially in the press, are saying, can the Senate measure up to the House? Will the Senate be able to pass the ``Contract With America'' on a fast track? How is Senator Dole going to measure up with Speaker Gingrich in meeting these targets? If it is a race to the finish line in 100 days, I think it is probably no contest. If it is a question of wise leadership, then, I think the conclusion could be quite different. I might say I am raising this issue in connection with this legislation. I am looking at my colleague from Ohio, a gentleman I have more than a great deal of respect for. I consider him to be one of the true heroes of this country not only based upon his past experience as an astronaut but, in the way in which he has carried out his responsibilities as a Member of the U.S. Senate. I have served with him on the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and the Armed Services Committee. I have traveled the world with him. I think that he is someone to whom we are deeply indebted for the quality of leadership he has brought to public service. During the debate on this particular matter before the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senator from Ohio raised some valid points. Had we given sufficient consideration to all of the permutations involved in this legislation? Had we given sufficient consideration to the consequences? How is it going to work procedurally? Parliamentarily? How is it going to work realistically as it applies to the country? Yet, we rushed it through. We rushed it through with very little debate. We voted down every amendment. There was a good reason for that. We are trying to give Senator Dole, our leader, an opportunity to say that we can take legislation up, we can debate it, we can move quickly. We do not want to see the same kind of tactics, stalling tactics, that we engaged in years past. Let us see if we cannot exercise some ability of governance. I say this because it seems to me as this legislation comes forward, as it did on the Congressional Accountability Act, many amendments will be offered. Again, many of the amendments offered to the Congressional Accountability Act had merit individually but, as a practical matter, no application to the bill that was under consideration. They were designed--I say this with all due respect to the other side-- politically, to put the Republicans on notice that there will be a lot of tough issues coming up for which we will have to be accountable and make us vote on each and every one of those issues. That was the whole purpose behind them. We understand that. As a matter of fact, we did it when we were in the minority. That, it seems to me, is part of the problem that I see in the country, as to why this institution is not held in high regard. People look upon the Senate as playing tactical games. It is only January 1995, but already posturing is going on for 1996. After all, 2 years is a very short time in politics, and some on the other side feel that if they can just put the Republicans on the defensive, we will look bad. Maybe they think we will have a hard time holding on to that majority next time around. So the amendments are offered. Again, I say this not in the way of any moral posturing here. We are guilty, or were guilty, of the very same thing. It has been going on for years and years and years. I think, from my perspective, we are coming to a point when it has to stop. It really has to stop or at least slow down. We ought to, if we cannot strike some kind of accord with our colleagues as we look at legislation, try to tailor amendments to either improve or modify the legislation in a way that we think is in the best interests of the country, but to stop the gamesmanship. There will be time enough as we get into the final stages of next year where we can take our philosophical positions and try to gain tactical advantage. But for now, at least, we ought to try to focus on the legislation before Members. I believe the Senator from Ohio has offered amendments in the very finest tradition and from the best of motivations. I might say, my colleague from Michigan--he is not here--also raised valid points about this legislation before us today. How is it going to work? These are the kind of amendments we should be willing to openly debate and give serious consideration to. I know we are all motivated by a desire to make this conform as closely as possible to the legislation that the House will pass. I also think that we should give serious consideration to those issues that we are not clear about. So it is in that regard that I hope the amendments come forth during this, I expect, several days' debate. Frankly, that it might take several days or a week is not troubling to me; this is an important piece of legislation. We should consider issues thoughtfully and amendments that really do pertain to the legislation. I know there will be some that will be emotional but have nothing to do with this bill. And they will be voted down, probably on a straight party line. I urge my colleagues that, if we really want to show the American people that we have an opportunity and an ability to govern and we are doing so in a fashion that we think is consistent with the Nation's best interest, that we try to approach it on that basis and not seek tactical advantage. I think all of us feel the pressure to go along this fast track as quickly as we can to show that we, the Republicans, who have not had control of both Houses in over 40 years, can govern in a way that is consistent with the Nation's goals and needs. I urge my colleagues to resist the temptation to offer amendments that have absolutely no relevance to this bill. I know there is the tactic to present the Republicans as simply wanting to make the trains run on time. They just want to throw off the trains the homeless, the helpless, the handicapped, and the children, to make sure they run on time. That is the tactic on the part of some. That is the goal. That should not be. What we are trying to do is to carry out what we believe to be a responsibility to the American people. I hope that we can, at least on this legislation and for the foreseeable future, try to address ourselves to the issues at hand.

Mr. COHEN. Madam President, in the absence of changing the rules, I say to my good friend, I hope we will exercise some restraint, because I think the very things that we do on this floor to gain tactical advantage are what contribute to the criticism. The characterization of the Senate and the House is something I think we need to address. I hope it is something we can minimize, certainly on this bill and in the future. Republicans are going to be voting down amendments which are not germane, for the most part. There may be some exceptions on some issues seen as being so overwhelming in importance that we cannot resist them. For the most part, those amendments that are going to come forward that are not relevant to this legislation will be voted down probably on a party line, again, with the notion we are trying to work with our House counterparts. We cannot work on the same timeframe--it is impossible--but we will do our level best.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be a cosponsor of the bill that is now pending before the Senate. I wish to offer my congratulations to Senator Kempthorne, and others, who have taken the leadership on this issue. He has worked on this very arduously for the past year and a half at least. I know there have been many changes that have been made to the original legislation that he proposed. I think it is fair to say that under the original legislation it would have been a much more draconian approach to the problem which most of the State and local officials have confronted over the years. I commend Senator Kempthorne for his willingness to look at the complications and the complexity of the issue before us. So I join my colleagues in commending him for his efforts in this regard. Mr. President, the entire issue of unfunded mandates really comes back to the issue, I think, that we have confronted about Congress being perceived as having lost touch with the rest of the country. Late yesterday, we concluded debate on legislation dealing with extending coverage to Congress the laws that we apply to the rest of America. Again, inherent in the need for that legislation is the perception that we who serve the public here on Capitol Hill are somehow living in a place of barricaded privilege, that we do not deal with real issues or real people, and that we do not understand the nature of the problems that confront them. I think that was at least one facet of the legislation we passed yesterday as we tried to dispel that perception, and also create a sense of equity. We understand that when we pass a bill that applies to other people, it also applies to us. So we live under the same rules. That perception also applies to unfunded mandates, namely, the feeling that people in Washington go about their business of passing laws, all of which may be quite meritorious, without fully understanding the costs. As a matter of fact, most, if not all, of the bills that we pass have at least a partial measure of merit that many of us feel compelled to support. It may be safe drinking water, it may be clean air, or it may be any number of issues which the American people, in concept at least, support. I do not know many people who would like to see mercury in our drinking water, toxic waste in our soil, or needles wash up on our beaches. The American people want protection against many types of pollution. Again, we talked a great deal about deregulation or ``demassification.'' We talked about passing responsibilities back to the States. Yet, there is a measure of inconsistency on all of our parts, because the first thing that happens when there is an airline disaster, or a situation like Three Mile Island, or a Love Canal, is that many people want to know where the Federal agencies were? The public asks where was the EPA or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Where are the folks who are supposed to be looking out for the Nation's safety? So we have a conflict between what the people expect and what is delivered. Underlying this particular legislation is the notion that somehow we pass laws without regard to the burden that we are then shifting on to the backs of the State or town officials. And they, of course, face a different problem. I, like Senator Kempthorne, used to be mayor of my hometown. I did not have to confront at that time either the Clean Air Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act. But, nonetheless, I felt the pressure of the burdens that were placed upon us. We had very little choice in how we responded to these particular types of mandates. Our only option at the local city level is to do what? To raise real estate taxes. And each time, of course, we raised real estate taxes, we were putting greater and greater burdens upon people who could not afford it. There was really no relationship between an individual's wealth or ability to pay and the taxes that were being raised. I look at the city of Bangor, for example. As a result of unfunded mandates they will have to bear a burden that may seem minor to most of us in this Chamber, about $2 million a year for the next 15 years. Because the city was required by the Federal Government to construct a new secondary wastewater treatment plant, at the cost of $25 million, water rates are increasing by as much as 20 percent a year. Real estate taxes are getting higher and higher. We are forcing people to sell their homes. So we face a situation of forcing people to actually sell their homes because they can no longer afford to maintain them by virtue of the taxes that are being imposed as a result of actions taken here at the Federal level. We, on the other hand, who legislate from Washington have a number of options. We can raise income tax rates, which has been done, or we can simply pass a mandate and borrow the money, which is what we have been doing for the past 10 or 15 years. So we have been spending and borrowing. They cannot do that as easily at the State and local level as we can here. I mentioned before that many of the mandated laws are meritorious. I do not think many question that. The difficulty comes about, as far as State and local officials are concerned, because they keep cascading down without relief. It is not just one mandate that they have to comply with, it is a dozen mandates. It is not just clean air, but it is clean water. Or it is a motor voter law. We debated the motor voter legislation in the last session of Congress. Again, I think it is important that we make every effort to ease the process by which our citizens can become registered to vote to encourage them to participate in the voting process. On the surface it was a piece of legislation that ordinarily I could have supported. However, we do not need it in Maine. In Maine, we have same-day registration. We have constructed our own system that is tailored to Maine's history and tradition and culture and laws. But we passed the motor voter legislation. It was a mandate and it was unfunded. It may not sound like much to a lot of people. There was $47 million that we were passing on, once again, to the States and saying, ``Here, you pick up the bill.'' Rather than let the States decide whether they needed or wanted this type of law, we mandated that they do it. So the mandates are relentless and there is no relief being granted to mayors and town councils or State Governments. In Maine, we had one former city mayor who made a very provocative statement saying, ``We're going to have the cleanest water, but the dumbest kids in the State.'' It shocked people when he said that but as far as he was concerned, it was true. He could not raise taxes any higher. He could not raise the money for education because he had to allocate it to meet Federal mandates. Education was being deprived. There was no balance involved. There was no ability to prioritize and say, ``Give us a break. Could we have a longer period of time in which to phase in this particular mandate? We cannot raise enough taxes. We don't have the people earning enough to pay for this.'' And the answer from the Federal Government was of course, ``No, you don't have any choice. You have to you do not meet these particular deadlines.'' And, sure, the EPA or whatever the agency might be, would try to negotiate, but there was very little flexibility involved. Senator Jeffords introduced legislation, which I supported, trying to provide some relief that was called the STEP Act, to give those small towns with populations of 2,500 or less some relief. But that was not enough to deal with the magnitude of the problem that we are facing. I think at the heart of this bill a cry from the people saying, as we might when approaching an intersection with a flashing red light, ``Stop and look and listen.'' I think that is what Senator Kempthorne and others have tried to construct here. Communities are saying, ``We do not have the ability to measure up to all of these mandates. Take a very careful look at what you are mandating that we must comply with. You are not taking into account our relative economic status. You are not taking into account any of the impositions currently on the books. You are adding and adding and adding and there is no relief in sight.'' So this legislation really is a flashing red light, as I see it, calling upon Congress to try to identify legislation that is important. Clean air is important, and clean water is important, and safe drinking water is important and, yes, motor voter legislation is important. But we have to take into account exactly what we are doing by passing on the bill to those who are unable to pay for them. (Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the chair.)