Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, does this proposal preclude the consideration of any further amendments before third reading?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Health Care Claims Guidance Act. I am pleased to have the distinguished Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), join with me as an original co- sponsor of the bill. This measure addresses a very serious concern: the government's misuse of the False Claims Act and the need to distinguish Medicare fraud from unavoidable billing errors. Health care fraud has no place in health care practice. Health care fraud costs taxpayers many millions of dollars that should be spent on patient care. In addition, government agencies must be able to use all of the tools at their disposal to prosecute aggressively those who willfully engage in fraudulent practices. It is equally important, however, that government resources be used to go after genuine wrongdoers, rather than health care providers who may have overbilled the government for Medicare services through innocent clerical errors or interpretive mistakes. Recently, the Department of Justice has embarked on a program to utilize the False Claims Act to prosecute provider billing errors. Until 1994, government agencies, hospitals, and physicians acted together, cooperating in most instances, to make sure all parties were treated fairly in Medicare billing disputes. Sometimes providers were underpaid, sometimes they were overpaid. Either way, they and the government would review and settle claims at the end of each quarter or each year. But, the government has abandoned this practice with doctors and hospitals and has begun a campaign to coerce and extract money improperly from the providers. In the State of Mississippi, and across the Nation, health car providers have received ``demand'' letters from U.S. Attorneys' offices, many not even from their own State, asserting that the doctors and hospitals may be guilty of fraudulent billing. These letters threaten the imposition of treble damages plus fines of $5,000 to $10,000 per claim unless a quick settlement is reached, often within fourteen days of the letter. In some cases, the demand letters have been sent based on alleged overbilling of minuscule amounts. Providers should certainly do all they can to minimize errors, and when discrepancies are discovered, the correct amounts should be paid to the Government with interest. But, with the filing of large numbers of claims each year, and the volume of Government rules, regulations, and directives--some of which are conflicting--that providers must follow, it is impossible to be error-free. Hospitals and health systems submit nearly 200,000 Medicare claims a day. To ensure the accuracy of those claims, they must comply with the 1,800 pages of law, 1,300 pages of regulations interpreting the law and thousands of additional pages of instructions. In addition, they are required to work with 41 intermediaries--mostly insurance companies--that have their own procedures that hospitals must follow as part of the billing process. The same level of law, procedures, and instructions also apply to physicians. The current practice of the Department of Justice, using the False Claims Act, assumes that hospitals, health systems, and doctors are guilty of intentionally filing erroneous claims when errors are made. This, in my view, is simply not right. The Health Care Claims Guidance Act we are introducing would amend the False Claims Act to distinguish between fraud and mere mistakes. It would apply only to claims under federally funded health care programs, and would have no effect on other False Claims Act prosecutions. The legislation does not change the criminal portions of the False Claims Act. Neither does it change the qui tam, or ``whistle blower'' provisions of the law. And it in no way would impede the Department of Justice or any other Government agency from zeroing in on true fraud and prosecuting those who commit fraud. No other Federal laws would be affected, including changes made by Congress in 1996 in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The changes would apply only to health care claims for Federally funded programs such as Medicare and CHAMPUS. This legislation would not prevent the Government from receiving any money that is rightfully due. In all cases, overpayments would be reimbursed with interest. What this legislation does is to distinguish Medicare billing fraud from honest billing mistakes. The bill does these four things: It imposes a ``de minimis'' standard. Under the standard, as defined by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Medicare overpayments to providers of less than a specified percentage would result in penalties of no more than the amount of the claim plus interest. It establishes a ``safe harbor'' for health care providers that submit a claim based on advice given by fiscal intermediaries and carriers. Such hospitals would be subject to fines limited to actual damages and interest, not treble damages plus $5,000 to $10,000 per claim. It raises the burden of proof required under the act from a ``preponderance of the evidence'' standard to a ``clear and convincing evidence'' standard. And lastly, it establishes a ``safe harbor'' for health care providers that have adopted effective, good-faith compliance plans in which they are, if found to be in violation of the False Claims Act, subject only to actual damages plus interest, rather than treble damages plus $5,000 to $10,000 per claim. Mr. President, although Congress 2 years ago gave Federal agencies additional tools to go after health care fraud--such as expanded authority under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act--the Department of Justice has nonetheless decided that the use of the False Claims Act guarantees ``easy money.'' The Health Care Claims Guidance Act stops this abuse of the law and provides a clear and simple way of distinguishing between those claims that are fraudulent and those claims that result from human error. I urge Senators to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Health Care Claims Guidance Act. I am pleased to have the distinguished Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), join with me as an original co- sponsor of the bill. This measure addresses a very serious concern: the government's misuse of the False Claims Act and the need to distinguish Medicare fraud from unavoidable billing errors. Health care fraud has no place in health care practice. Health care fraud costs taxpayers many millions of dollars that should be spent on patient care. In addition, government agencies must be able to use all of the tools at their disposal to prosecute aggressively those who willfully engage in fraudulent practices. It is equally important, however, that government resources be used to go after genuine wrongdoers, rather than health care providers who may have overbilled the government for Medicare services through innocent clerical errors or interpretive mistakes. Recently, the Department of Justice has embarked on a program to utilize the False Claims Act to prosecute provider billing errors. Until 1994, government agencies, hospitals, and physicians acted together, cooperating in most instances, to make sure all parties were treated fairly in Medicare billing disputes. Sometimes providers were underpaid, sometimes they were overpaid. Either way, they and the government would review and settle claims at the end of each quarter or each year. But, the government has abandoned this practice with doctors and hospitals and has begun a campaign to coerce and extract money improperly from the providers. In the State of Mississippi, and across the Nation, health car providers have received ``demand'' letters from U.S. Attorneys' offices, many not even from their own State, asserting that the doctors and hospitals may be guilty of fraudulent billing. These letters threaten the imposition of treble damages plus fines of $5,000 to $10,000 per claim unless a quick settlement is reached, often within fourteen days of the letter. In some cases, the demand letters have been sent based on alleged overbilling of minuscule amounts. Providers should certainly do all they can to minimize errors, and when discrepancies are discovered, the correct amounts should be paid to the Government with interest. But, with the filing of large numbers of claims each year, and the volume of Government rules, regulations, and directives--some of which are conflicting--that providers must follow, it is impossible to be error-free. Hospitals and health systems submit nearly 200,000 Medicare claims a day. To ensure the accuracy of those claims, they must comply with the 1,800 pages of law, 1,300 pages of regulations interpreting the law and thousands of additional pages of instructions. In addition, they are required to work with 41 intermediaries--mostly insurance companies--that have their own procedures that hospitals must follow as part of the billing process. The same level of law, procedures, and instructions also apply to physicians. The current practice of the Department of Justice, using the False Claims Act, assumes that hospitals, health systems, and doctors are guilty of intentionally filing erroneous claims when errors are made. This, in my view, is simply not right. The Health Care Claims Guidance Act we are introducing would amend the False Claims Act to distinguish between fraud and mere mistakes. It would apply only to claims under federally funded health care programs, and would have no effect on other False Claims Act prosecutions. The legislation does not change the criminal portions of the False Claims Act. Neither does it change the qui tam, or ``whistle blower'' provisions of the law. And it in no way would impede the Department of Justice or any other Government agency from zeroing in on true fraud and prosecuting those who commit fraud. No other Federal laws would be affected, including changes made by Congress in 1996 in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The changes would apply only to health care claims for Federally funded programs such as Medicare and CHAMPUS. This legislation would not prevent the Government from receiving any money that is rightfully due. In all cases, overpayments would be reimbursed with interest. What this legislation does is to distinguish Medicare billing fraud from honest billing mistakes. The bill does these four things: It imposes a ``de minimis'' standard. Under the standard, as defined by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Medicare overpayments to providers of less than a specified percentage would result in penalties of no more than the amount of the claim plus interest. It establishes a ``safe harbor'' for health care providers that submit a claim based on advice given by fiscal intermediaries and carriers. Such hospitals would be subject to fines limited to actual damages and interest, not treble damages plus $5,000 to $10,000 per claim. It raises the burden of proof required under the act from a ``preponderance of the evidence'' standard to a ``clear and convincing evidence'' standard. And lastly, it establishes a ``safe harbor'' for health care providers that have adopted effective, good-faith compliance plans in which they are, if found to be in violation of the False Claims Act, subject only to actual damages plus interest, rather than treble damages plus $5,000 to $10,000 per claim. Mr. President, although Congress 2 years ago gave Federal agencies additional tools to go after health care fraud--such as expanded authority under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act--the Department of Justice has nonetheless decided that the use of the False Claims Act guarantees ``easy money.'' The Health Care Claims Guidance Act stops this abuse of the law and provides a clear and simple way of distinguishing between those claims that are fraudulent and those claims that result from human error. I urge Senators to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Cochran pertaining to the introduction of S. 2007 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a bill that I originally introduced last fall--the Postal Financing Reform Act of 1998. This bill is designed to do three things: allow the Postal Service to deposit funds in private sector institutions, invest in open markets--with Treasury approval of investment choices, and allow the Postal Service to borrow from private credit markets. For almost two decades now, the Postal Service has been self- supporting. With a yearly budget near $60 billion, and just $100 million appropriated to provide free mailing for the blind, free overseas voting, and reduced postage rates for certain nonprofit mailers, continuing U.S. Treasury control over Postal Service banking, investing, and borrowing is no longer necessary or justified. Nonetheless, when I first introduced the Postal Financing Reform Act last fall, specific concerns were raised by some in the postal community, and I agreed to make changes that were suggested. The Postal Financing Reform Act of 1998 incorporates these changes. Specifically, the revised 1998 Act reverts back to existing law bill language that would have potentially allowed the Postal Service to invest in its private sector competitors, and to benefit from an increased borrowing ceiling at the U.S. Treasury. Current law prevents the Postal Service from obtaining the most favorable combination of prices and services and results in added operating costs. Under this new approach, the Treasury Department would retain much of its current oversight, but it would no longer be the sole provider of certain financial services to the Postal Service. The Postal Financing Reform Act of 1998 proposes four significant changes to current law. First, section two of the bill amends Title 39 of the U.S. Code to authorize the Postal Service to deposit its revenues in the Postal Service Fund within the U.S. Treasury or any Federal Reserve banks or depositories for public funds. The requirement to obtain the Secretary of the Treasury's approval before any funds be deposited elsewhere would be eliminated, just as this approval is no longer necessary for other quasi-public agencies like the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Section three continues the provision of existing law which requires that the Secretary of the Treasury approve any investments the Postal Service may make in non-Government securities. At the same time, it would permit the Postal Service to invest in U.S. Government obligations on its own accord, without unnecessary constraints, thus enabling the Postal Service to take advantage of favorable conditions in the Government securities market. Section four removes the control of the Secretary of the Treasury over the Postal Service's financial borrowing decisions. The Postal Service would still be required to consult with the Secretary regarding the terms and conditions of the sale of any obligations issued by the Postal Service under section 2006(a) of Title 39, and the Secretary would still exercise a power of approval over the timing of a sale of obligations. Finally, section five of the bill removes the ability of the Postal Service to require the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase Postal Service obligations. It merely permits the Secretary of the Treasury to buy Postal Service obligations upon the Postal Service's request. I have heard from many sources that reforms in the Postal Service should be made. Though I have decided to refrain from undertaking comprehensive reform, I have selected instead a simple, straightforward correction of an out of date practice that would reduce costs and help hold down future rate increases, without increasing risk to the taxpayers. Those who believe the Postal Service should operate as efficiently as possible, thus reducing fees charged to consumers, should support this bill. So, too, should those who profess to see the Postal Service treated more like a business. I think it is time to act on this issue. I invite Senators to consider this proposal for reform and support this effort to ensure a more efficient and financially sound U.S. Postal Service. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, a little more than 20 years ago, Congress enacted legislation which created the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress. The legislation enjoyed broad bipartisan and bicameral support. The legislation I am introducing today will provide permanent authorization for the Center so that the Center may continue its work to preserve and share the collections of traditions which exemplify the diverse heritage of millions of ordinary Americans. The collections of the American Folklife Center contain rich and varied materials from my state of Mississippi and every state in the Nation. These materials document the diversity of the folk traditions of the many people who make up our nation. The Folklife Center serves as a national repository of traditional culture and is used by scholars from around the world as well as schoolchildren, teachers, and genealogists. The Congress has charged the American Folklife Center to preserve and present American Folklife for future generations. Providing the Center with permanent authorization will give the Center the security it needs to carry on its good work, continue its educational services, and strengthen its world-class collections. Permanent authorization will also allow the Center to engage the public's support of its collections through long-range planning and fundraising. American folklife is the traditional expressive culture shared within the many familial, ethnic, occupational, religious, and regional groups in the United States. It is the very basis of family and community life. I hope we can permanently authorize the Folklife Center so that these wonderful collections will be available to future generations.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am re-introducing a bill that I originally introduced last fall--the Postal Financing Reform Act of 1998. This bill is designed to do three things: allow the Postal Service to deposit funds in private sector institutions, invest in open markets--with Treasury approval of investment choices, and allow the Postal Service to borrow from private credit markets. For almost two decades now, the Postal Service has been self- supporting. With a yearly budget near $60 billion, and just $100 million appropriated to provide free mailing for the blind, free overseas voting, and reduced postage rates for certain nonprofit mailers, continuing U.S. Treasury control over Postal Service banking, investing, and borrowing is no longer necessary or justified. Nonetheless, when I first introduced the Postal Financing Reform Act last fall, specific concerns were raised by some in the postal community, and I agreed to make changes that were suggested. The Postal Financing Reform Act of 1998 incorporates these changes. Specifically, the revised 1998 Act reverts back to existing law bill language that would have potentially allowed the Postal Service to invest in its private sector competitors, and to benefit from an increased borrowing ceiling at the U.S. Treasury. Current law prevents the Postal Service from obtaining the most favorable combination of prices and services and results in added operating costs. Under this new approach, the Treasury Department would retain much of its current oversight, but it would no longer be the sole provider of certain financial services to the Postal Service. The Postal Financing Reform Act of 1998 proposes four significant changes to current law. First, section two of the bill amends Title 39 of the U.S. Code to authorize the Postal Service to deposit its revenues in the Postal Service Fund within the U.S. Treasury or any Federal Reserve banks or depositories for public funds. The requirement to obtain the Secretary of the Treasury's approval before any funds be deposited elsewhere would be eliminated, just as this approval is no longer necessary for other quasi-public agencies like the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Section three continues the provision of existing law which requires that the Secretary of the Treasury approve any investments the Postal Service may make in non-Government securities. At the same time, it would permit the Postal Service to invest in U.S. Government obligations on its own accord, without unnecessary constraints, thus enabling the Postal Service to take advantage of favorable conditions in the Government securities market. Section four removes the control of the Secretary of the Treasury over the Postal Service's financial borrowing decisions. The Postal Service would still be required to consult with the Secretary regarding the terms and conditions of the sale of any obligations issued by the Postal Service under section 2006(a) of Title 39, and the Secretary would still exercise a power of approval over the timing of a sale of obligations. Finally, section five of the bill removes the ability of the Postal Service to require the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase Postal Service obligations. It merely permits the Secretary of the Treasury to buy Postal Service obligations upon the Postal Service's request. I have heard from many sources that reforms in the Postal Service should be made. Though I have decided to refrain from undertaking comprehensive reform, I have selected instead a simple, straightforward correction of an out of date practice that would reduce costs and help hold down future rate increases, without increasing risk to the taxpayers. Those who believe the Postal Service should operate as efficiently as possible, thus reducing fees charged to consumers, should support this bill. So, too, should those who profess to see the Postal Service treated more like a business. I think it is time to act on this issue. I invite Senators to consider this proposal for reform and support this effort to ensure a more efficient and financially sound U.S. Postal Service. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, a little more than 20 years ago, Congress enacted legislation which created the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress. The legislation enjoyed broad bipartisan and bicameral support. The legislation I am introducing today will provide permanent authorization for the Center so that the Center may continue its work to preserve and share the collections of traditions which exemplify the diverse heritage of millions of ordinary Americans. The collections of the American Folklife Center contain rich and varied materials from my state of Mississippi and every state in the Nation. These materials document the diversity of the folk traditions of the many people who make up our nation. The Folklife Center serves as a national repository of traditional culture and is used by scholars from around the world as well as schoolchildren, teachers, and genealogists. The Congress has charged the American Folklife Center to preserve and present American Folklife for future generations. Providing the Center with permanent authorization will give the Center the security it needs to carry on its good work, continue its educational services, and strengthen its world-class collections. Permanent authorization will also allow the Center to engage the public's support of its collections through long-range planning and fundraising. American folklife is the traditional expressive culture shared within the many familial, ethnic, occupational, religious, and regional groups in the United States. It is the very basis of family and community life. I hope we can permanently authorize the Folklife Center so that these wonderful collections will be available to future generations.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I support the amendment of the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Kempthorne, expressing the Sense of the Senate that funding for the Market Access Program should be fully maintained. The Senate has on several occasions debated funding for the Market Access Program. Most recently, on July 23, 1997, the Senate voted 59-40 in favor of tabling an amendment to reduce the Market Access Program from $90 million to $70 million. The Senate, recognizing the importance of this program, firmly rejected the suggestion to reduce it by even $20 million. I hope the Senate will, by an even greater margin, express its support that the budget should not assume the reduction of this program. The Market Access Program is one of the few tools that the Department of Agriculture has to combat the unfair trading practices of other countries. Since its inception in 1985, the Market Access Program and its predecessors, the Targeted Export Assistance Program and the Market Promotion Program, have assisted nearly 800 U.S. cooperatives, trade associations and corporations in promoting their products overseas. Our agricultural exports have more than doubled--from $26.3 billion in 1985 to a forecast level of $58.5 billion in 1998. In large measure this moderate increase, even in the face of the Asian currency crisis, signifies the results of efforts we have made since the mid-1980's to enhance our export competitiveness and develop new markets overseas. In fact, it is remarkable that the value of U.S. exports will increase slightly over last year and are only slightly below record 1996 levels even with the dire situation in Asian markets. U.S. farmers are particularly vulnerable to the instability of key Asian markets which account for 40 percent of our exports. The Market Access Program and other export programs are crucial to our farmer's ability to compete in a global marketplace. National Parks and Environmental Improvement Act Fund

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, at the end of this month, my long-time good friend, John Perkins, will retire from service as a member of my personal staff. He has served as press secretary in my office since August 1979. Our friendship dates from the 1940s when we were students in elementary school at Byram Consolidated School near Jackson, MS. We also were members of the same Boy Scout troop. John got his first newspaper job when we were in high school. My father was our principal, and he and our football coach were asked to recommend a stringer for the Jackson, MS, papers to report scores and highlights of our football games. The person they recommended was John Perkins. The year was 1953, and John was in the ninth grade. From that beginning, he went on to serve on the student newspaper staff at Millsaps College where he graduated with a major in history in 1961. After college, he served in the U.S. Army Reserves, and then became a docket and reading clerk in the Mississippi State Senate. He attended graduate school in journalism at the University of Mississippi and worked in press relations for the Charles Sullivan campaign for Governor, in our State, in 1963. He then held a series of newspaper jobs covering a range of subjects from sports to local governments at the Jackson Daily News and the Meridian Star before being named managing editor of the Daily Corinthian in 1965. The next year John returned to the Meridian Star as managing editor and political writer. He was elected to the Mississippi House of Representatives for a 4- year term in 1967 and was an active member of the coalition that successfully worked for passage of Governor John Bell Williams' highway program in the House. When David Bowen was elected to Congress in 1972, he recruited John Perkins to come to Washington as his press secretary. As a member of our State's delegation in the House, I had the opportunity to observe the work of all the press secretaries from Mississippi. And soon after I became a Member of the Senate, I invited John to join my staff. I have enjoyed very much working with him for these 18\1/2\ years. Our State and Nation have been well-served by the diligence, dedication and commitment to excellence of John Perkins. He has put forth his best efforts to reflect credit on me, our State, and the U.S. Senate, and he has succeeded. He will be missed by us all, but we intend to stay in close touch and continue the close friendship that began 50 years ago. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this bill was introduced by Senator Inouye and me on March 19. After we sent a letter to all Senators inviting cosponsors, we received a very positive response. I am pleased to advise the Senate that with the addition of Senator Enzi, there are now 40 cosponsors of S. 1873. This bill would make it the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as technologically possible an effective national missile defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack, whether accidental, unauthorized or deliberate. We believe this policy is necessary because of the growing proliferation threat. The proliferation threat includes both weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missile delivery systems. The fact is that determining how quickly the United States will be facing an ICBM threat from a rogue nation is difficult to estimate. The Director of Central Intelligence recognized this point last year when he said to the Senate, ``Gaps and uncertainties preclude a good projection of exactly when `rest of the world' countries will deploy ICBMs.'' That ``gaps and uncertainties'' exist is not an indictment of our intelligence agencies. We have many fine and dedicated people in the intelligence community who have devoted their professional careers to obtaining information about and analyzing proliferation. But it is extremely difficult to predict accurately just how quickly technology will move forward and will be made in certain countries. Predicting the rate of technological advance would be difficult even if rogue states were to accept no outside assistance in their pursuit of mass destruction weapons and missile delivery platforms of ever- increasing range. But adding the knowledge now available in the information age to anyone with a computer and a telephone line to the fact that some nations are actively assisting pursuit of these capabilities makes for a situation in which predictions can be outdated soon after they are made. Take, for example, the case of the Shahab-3 and Shahab-4, two intermediate-range ballistic missiles Iran is pursuing with substantial help from Russian organizations. Last Friday's Washington Times carried an article entitled ``Pentagon Confirms Details on Iranian Missiles.'' It describes this situation, and I think it is very alarming. It is no secret that Iran is pursuing these missiles. The Shahab-3, with a range of 1,300 kilometers, will be capable of striking U.S. forces throughout the Middle East and our close allies in the region as well. The Shahab-4, with a range of 2,000 kilometers, will be able to reach into Central Europe. We all understand that neither of these missiles will have the range to strike the United States unless they are launched from some kind of a mobile platform, like a ship. But the important point is that these missiles are proceeding at a much more rapid pace than anticipated just last year, and the reason these missiles can be ready sooner than we expected is because of Russian expertise provided to Iran. In February the Director of Central Intelligence testified to the Senate: . . . since I testified, Iran's success in getting technology and materials from Russian companies, combined with recent indigenous Iranian advances, means that it could have a medium-range missile much sooner than I assessed last year. Madam President, the very kind of outside assistance that is speeding this Shahab-3 along so rapidly could also contribute in a similar way to the acquisition of long-range ballistic missiles by rogue nations. These kinds of nations are interested in ICBMs because they make the United States vulnerable to coercion or intimidation in time of crisis. It is a vulnerability that disappears when an effective national missile defense is deployed. That is why we have introduced the American Missile Protection Act of 1998. America should end its ICBM vulnerability as soon as the technology is available. Madam President, given the uncertainties about just when other nations will possess ICBMs, it only makes sense to be clear now in our commitment to deploy defenses against these systems as soon as the technology is ready. If the choice is to deploy a national missile defense capable against a limited threat 1 year too soon or 1 year too late, let it be 1 year too soon. The lesson of the Shahab-3 is that even the best intentioned estimates can be wrong. I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, that the article I referred to from the Washington Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Enzi be added as a cosponsor to S. 1873, the American Missile Protection Act of 1998.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business.

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

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. I am not seeking recognition. What is the pending business, Mr. President?

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy----

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Lugar.

Mr. COCHRAN. I am prepared to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, who I know is on the floor, and he is here to discuss the amendment--such time as he may wish to the distinguished Senator from Indiana.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 15 minutes is under the control of the manager of the bill, is it not?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are operating on a time agreement, I think, and it is 30 minutes equally divided.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment that corrects language in amendments previously adopted by the Senate on this bill. The amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.