William Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, my efforts to correct longstanding problems related to Federal property management, particularly in the courthouse construction program, are already well documented in the public record. During the last few years, I have supported a number of amendments to eliminate wasteful spending for construction projects that were not needed or not cost-effective and I've introduced legislation to reform the way the Federal Government manages its office space. Over the years, the General Accounting Office [GAO] and General Services Administration [GSA] Inspector General reports have highlighted recurring problems at GSA in managing the Federal Government's real estate portfolio and have shown a pattern of wasteful spending. Long standing problems have significantly impaired GSA's ability to meet the Federal Government's property needs in a cost- effective and businesslike manner. Despite GSA Administrator Roger Johnson's efforts to reform GSA and reorganize the Public Buildings Service [PBS], I remain convinced that PBS fails to adequately meet Federal space needs in a cost-effective manner and continues to construct buildings that are not needed and that we can ill afford. Earlier this month, GAO testified before the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the Federal Government continues to spend billions of dollars more than is necessary to acquire and manage Federal office space. Congress has also contributed to the problem as it has too often funded construction projects which have not gone through the normal authorization process. In today's climate of downsizing Government and budgetary cuts, funding for any Federal building project must be carefully assessed to ensure the best and maximum use of scarce Federal resources. Last month, I wrote to my colleagues on the Treasury, Postal Appropriations and General Government Subcommittee urging them not to obligate funds for any unauthorized Federal buildings or unauthorized courthouse construction projects; to reassess the need to spend $1 billion, as the President requested, on new construction; to closely scrutinize whether planned funding levels for projects already in the pipeline are economical and realistic in view of current budget constraints; and to assess repair and alteration funding levels. I am pleased with the language in the fiscal year 1996 Treasury Postal appropriations bill which is currently before the Senate. The bill reduces Federal construction funding and notes that no funds available in the bill will be used for unauthorized projects. I commend Senators Shelby and Kerrey for their leadership in this important area. I am also pleased with the language in the bill that prohibits the submission of a fiscal year 1997 budget for the construction of U.S. courthouse, unless the facilities meet the construction standards developed by the GSA, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Judicial Conference and reflect the priorities established in the Judicial Conference's 5-year construction plan. Mr. President, the current courthouse construction program lacks a strategic plan and fails to prioritize projects to ensure that scarce Federal resources are spent where they are most needed. As a result, Congress must make the tough funding decisions to protect the taxpayer's interests and prevent wasteful spending. The Appropriations Committee report notes that the committee has been frustrated by the courts unwillingness to establish a priority list for construction and continued insistence that all projects are of an equal priority. I share the committee's frustration over the courthouse construction program. GAO has testified that the Federal judiciary overestimated courthouse construction space needs for the next decade by more than 3 million square feet which, if authorized, could waste up to $1.1 billion. Last year, a Governmental Affairs Committee hearing showed that, in addition to continuing to build unneeded Federal courthouses, we are wasting additional millions on extravagant courthouse features such as top of the line marble, custom lighting, and private kitchenettes. As a result of the hearing, I, along with a number of my colleagues, wrote GAO requesting an audit of the courthouse construction program. The audit is still ongoing and is expected to be completed later this year. As Congress looks for ways to address the Federal budget deficit, we must ensure that Government programs and agencies are operating in the most cost-effective manner possible. Again, I commend Senators Shelby and Kerrey for their leadership in putting an end to funding unauthorized construction projects.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today lays the foundation for real information management reform not only at the Department of Defense but at all Government agencies. The amendment is based on S. 946, the Federal Information Management Reform Act of 1995, which Senator Levin and I introduced earlier this year. Before discussing the details of the amendment, I want to both commend and express my appreciation to Senator Roth, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and Senator Glenn, the ranking member. Both have been leaders on issues relating to information technology, and their contribution to crafting this amendment has been invaluable. I would also like to thank my friend and colleague Senator Levin who I have worked closely with for over 15 years on the Oversight Subcommittee. I very much appreciate his counsel, cooperation, and support on this issue. Finally, I want to also mention the members of these Senators' staff whose valuable assistance is appreciated. Specifically, Peter Levine, Mark Forman, David Plocher, and Debbie Cohen. [[Page S 11390]] The amendment which would reform the Federal Government's approach to using and buying information technology, is cosponsored by Senators Levin, Roth, Glenn, and Bingaman. Together, we have been able to fashion an amendment that will address many critical issues of information technology management within Federal agencies. The amendment would accomplish meaningful reform, in part, by emphasizing upfront planning and the establishment of clear performance goals designed to improve agency operations. Once the upfront planning is complete and the performance goals are established, other reforms would make it simpler and faster for agencies to purchase information technology. The need to reform how the Federal Government approaches and purchases information technology is well documented. The amendment reflects recommendations contained in literally hundreds of General Accounting Office and inspector general reports. The Defense Science Board's and numerous other formal Government studies have also outlined a number of problems in the current system and have made many recommendations for improvement. Now is the time to act on these recommendations, many of which are included in this amendment. The current situation is abysmal. Last October, I issued a report entitled ``Computer Chaos,'' which stressed two key problems affecting the $27 billion we spend each year on information technology. First, much of this money is wasted buying new systems that agencies have not adequately planned or managed. Consequently new systems, especially high dollars systems, rarely work as intended and do little to improve agency performance. Second, a large portion of the $200 billion spent on information technology over the last decade has been thrown away maintaining old technology that no longer performs as needed. In other words, we are throwing billions of dollars away every year on technological bandaids, and we cannot, by virtue of the existing procurement and management system, effectively buy replacement systems. Nowhere is this situation more evident than with our Nation's air traffic control system. In recent months, air traffic control system failures have become all too common. Passing this amendment will help to ensure that follow-on systems can be adequately planned and implemented to replace our Nation's aging air traffic control system before we have a tragedy. The Government's failure to purchase effective computer systems has had significant implications for the Defense Department. The lack of effective information systems at the Pentagon has contributed to the mismanagement of billions of defense dollars. The payment of phantom employees, excessive inventories, and payments that weren't matched to invoices are the result of the Pentagon's inability to adequately and appropriately plan for and buy needed information systems. In addition, defense agencies have spent billions of dollars each year to keep old, inefficient computer systems running, and they continue to buy new computer systems that are poorly planned and, once operational, do not meet the needs of the defense agencies which use them. For example, 3 years ago I held hearings on the Defense Commissary Agency's failure to make timely and accurate payments to vendors. The Agency's computerized bill payment system was inadequate. Consequently, the vendors that delivered goods to commissaries, ranging from Kraft to Quahog Lobster Co. in my State of Maine, were not getting paid on time, if they were getting paid at all, while other vendors were getting paid repeatedly for the same invoices. We do not know how much money the Defense Commissary Agency wasted through erroneous payments and added administrative expenses in an often futile attempt to sort out who was owed what. Although it has taken the Agency and some of its vendors years to recover from this experience, the whole episode could have been avoided had the Defense Commissary Agency invested in adequate technology. Effective modernization at the Department of Defense has the potential to save taxpayers billions of dollars through increased efficiencies. In April, the Oversight Subcommittee held a hearing examining how the Pentagon manages its system from processing employee travel vouchers. We discovered that 30 percent of the Pentagon's travel budget--some $1 billion--was being spent just to process the $3 billion in annual DOD travel. Private sector organizations spend on average about 10 percent of their travel budgets on processing vouchers and the best private sector organizations spend 6 percent. By adopting travel processing systems that are similar to private sector models and automating these processes, we determined that the Pentagon could save as much as $4 billion over the next 5 years. As you can see, it is critical that we encourage not only the Pentagon but all Federal agencies to look at the way they do business, make changes to these business processes, and automate. I believe we can achieve a 5-percent annual reduction in Government overhead by adopting this strategy and, as a result, save the American taxpayer as much as $175 billion over the next 5 years. In this time of austere budgets, we cannot afford not to adopt the reforms contained in this amendment. The bottom line is that the Government's current approach to buying computers is outdated and takes little account of the competitive and fast changing nature of the global computer industry. Markets and prices change daily, yet Government often gets locked into paying today's prices for yesterday's technology. When the Brooks Act which governs how the Government buys computers was written in 1965, the Federal Government was the dominant computer buyer in the world and purchased over 60 percent of the industry's entire output. Today, the Federal market comprises only 3 percent of industry sales. While Government is still the largest single buyer, it no longer moves the market. Over the last three decades, the Brooks Act has produced a process that has become too bureaucratic and cumbersome. It has spawned hundreds of pages of regulations and caused agencies to be primarily concerned with conformity to a paperwork process. What the process fails to address are the results--more efficient and less expensive Government--and fairness to the taxpayers. In addition, an adversarial culture has developed between Government and business. Many companies believe they won't get a fair shake. Federal employees are suspicious of companies because of a fear of being second guessed and having the procurement protested. In short, it is a culture of little trust, less communication, and no incentives to use information technology to improve the way Government does business and achieve the savings that we so desperately need. It is time to move the Government's use of information technology into the 21st century. That is why I am introducing this amendment today so that we can significantly alter how the Government approaches and acquires information technology. The legislation would repeal the Brooks Act and establish a framework that will respond more efficiently to the information technology needs of the Federal Government now and in the foreseeable future. The amendment would also eliminate the delegation of procurement authority at GSA, establish guidance and specific budgetary review authority at OMB, and establish Chief Information Officers at the major Federal agencies. Through the guidance and review process, OMB and the agencies will be required to emphasize up-front planning, monitor risk management, and work with contractors to achieve workable solutions to the Government's information needs. The amendment will also discourage the so-called megasystem buys. Following the private sector model, agencies will be encouraged to take an incremental approach to buying information technology that is more manageable and less risky. By replacing the current system with one that is less bureaucratic and process driven, the bill is designed to enable agencies to buy technology faster and for less money. More importantly, the bill is designed to make sure that before investing a dollar in information technology, Government agencies [[Page S 11391]] will have carefully planned and justified their expenditures. Similar to managing an investment portfolio, decisions on whether to invest in information technology will be made based on potential return. Decisions to terminate or make additional investments will be based on performance. Much like an investment broker, agency management and contractor performance will be measured and rewarded based on managing risk and achieving results. I should note that the amendment is different from S. 946 in a number of significant ways. For example, S. 946 called for the establishment of a National Chief Information Officer at the Office of Management and Budget. Concerns were raised by the administration and Senators Roth, Glenn, and Levin, that this has the potential to become a bureaucratic hurdle. Similar concerns were also raised at a hearing I conducted on this legislation in July. Consequently, the provision requiring a national CIO has been dropped. In addition, a number of changes have been made to the procurement provisions. Specifically, a number of procurement reforms in the original legislation have been deleted from the amendment. These reform issues are currently under discussion by a Governmental Affairs/Armed Services/Small Business Committee working group and will be dealt with on a Governmentwide basis in procurement legislation later this year. The amendment will fundamentally shift the Government's focus on information technology from a technical issue to a management issue. Information technology procurements under the current system have focused on features like the speed of the computer or the type of processor. Rarely, if ever, have they focused on whether the system was going to enhance the agency's mission by, for example, reducing benefit processing time or realize savings by reducing overhead expenditures. Failure to recognize information technology as a management issue has cost taxpayers billions of dollars in inefficiency and waste. By passing this amendment, we can help transform the way the Government does business. If Government is going to regain the confidence of taxpayers, it must successfully modernize. And, as we all know, we cannot successfully modernize unless we can buy the tools which will enable us to automate. Mr. President, my amendment is needed not only by the Department of Defense but throughout Government. Passing this amendment will go a long way toward bringing our Government into the 21st century. Reform is clearly the key to creating a Federal Government that, as the Vice President has put it, ``works better and costs less.'' I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. COHEN. I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding. Amendment No. 2119 (Purpose: To limit to $257,700,000,000 the total amount authorized to be appropriated)

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

Mr. COHEN. Reserving the right to object, I inquire whether or not, between the votes, after the vote on the McCain amendment, I be allowed to offer an amendment that has been agreed to?

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I have an amendment I am sending to the desk, cosponsored by Senators Levin, Roth, Glenn, and Bingaman. It has been cleared on both sides. It deals with the acquisition of computer technology. I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. COHEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. COHEN. I am just going to ask a question of the Senator from Michigan. If we were satisfied that the missiles were in fact delivered, the question I [[Page S 11434]] would have for the Senator from Michigan, would he conclude that the law requires us to apply sanctions against China? I mean, there are many violations. I know the Senator has been attacked--or accused; not attacked--criticized for bringing this amendment up because it flies in the face of what we were seeking to do, namely to dissuade the Pakistanis from acquiring nuclear weapons. I think most of us voted for that, along with Senator Glenn. But the notion that somehow the Pakistanis have deceived us does not put them in a unique category. I think we can talk about the Indians, for example, who for years said, ``We are conducting peaceful nuclear explosions,'' only to find out years later that they were, in fact, developing a nuclear capability. We now have the Russians, with whom we have relations, who are also conducting, I believe, experiments in a field that should be of concern to this body, in the field of chemical weapons and biological weapons. The same thing with respect to China. I think the Senator from Colorado raises a valid point this evening. He is not seeking in any way to repeal or modify the Pressler amendment. What he is seeking to achieve is maintain the kind of relations, as I understand it, with Pakistan, that they have maintained with us. He did not mention, by way of specificity, at least, the name Yusef. Here we had a major international terrorist, as such, who was involved in the terrorist bombing in New York. It was Pakistan who helped us get him back. I think what he is trying to achieve, namely, to maintain a relationship with Pakistan that does not contradict or undermine the Pressler amendment, is something that is very worthy of our consideration this evening, tomorrow, however long it takes. But I think, if we are talking about whether we are going to trigger the Missile Technology Control Act, we have to look at those who are selling it as well. That would involve China and perhaps even other nations.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize one of my State's finest and most generous citizens. Maine has a long tradition of philanthropic largesse, but Elizabeth Bottomley Noyce must now rank among the most kind-hearted, generous and supportive Mainers in the State's history. Earlier this summer, Mrs. Noyce purchased $19 million worth of property in downtown Portland. The property includes 6 acres of land, 3 office towers and some other buildings along Congress Street, in the heart of Maine's largest city. But she did not buy the property in hopes of doubling her investment and moving on. Instead, she did so in hopes of luring businesses, retailers, and shoppers back to downtown Portland. Like so many downtowns across America, Portland's is showing some wear and tear. The trend of the last decade or two has been toward sprawling suburban malls with enormous parking lots and varied stores in one convenient, air-conditioned setting. And while malls have been, in many ways, a blessing in terms of convenience for the customer and business for the retailer, they have left a void in downtowns across the country. The company that will manage the properties Mrs. Noyce purchased has indicated that it plans to refurbish some of the buildings and add more parking in the area in order to lure some of the cultural and economic vibrancy of southern Maine back to downtown Portland. That was Mrs. Noyce's goal in making the purchase--to make Portland's downtown as thriving and vital as possible. Such a purchase would be a noteworthy event on its own. But what makes Elizabeth Noyce special is that the recent investment in downtown Portland is merely the latest in a long series of gifts to the people of Maine. Over the last decade, according to press reports, Mrs. Noyce had donated more than $50 million to a variety of Maine institutions and communities. Her $3.5 million donation, for instance, allowed for the construction of the Maine Maritime Museum, which attracts thousands of visitors every year to explore Maine's rich seafaring history. She has also given $5 million to the University of Maine, $1 million each to the Maine Medical Center and the Portland Museum of Art, and another $250,000 to the Eastern Maine Medical Center in Bangor--just to name a few recent gifts. And she spent $7 million in 1991 to start Maine Bank & Trust and help Maine businesses at a time when there was a full- fledged banking crisis in Maine. She helped restore financial confidence in the Maine banking industry and her bank has flourished as a result--today it has 100 employees and is approaching 10 branches. Last year, she gave $1 million to Maine Public Broadcasting. But instead of just writing a check, she had five houses built on the Maine coast. The project generated more than just revenue--it generated jobs for Maine construction workers, builders, and designers. The money from the sale of the five homes went to Maine Public Broadcasting, but the investment was much larger than that simple donation. It is the same principle she intends to apply in downtown Portland. None of these gifts were to garner newspaper headlines or capture statewide notoriety. Instead, they were simply gifts of a wonderful and generous spirit who believes very strongly in both the present and the future of Maine. Elizabeth Noyce has become Maine's guardian angel--and our State is a much better place because of her.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the pending amendment to allow Senator McCain to proceed with offering his amendment dealing with Seawolf. And, during the course of that time for debate, if we, Senator Nunn and I, come to the floor with our amendment, we then go off the McCain amendment and return to the Cohen- Nunn amendment.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. COHEN. At the direction of the majority leader, I yield back my time.

Mr. COHEN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

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

Mr. COHEN. No.

Mr. COHEN. Which one is it?

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

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside in order to allow Senator McCain to proceed with his amendment, and that there be a time limitation of 2 hours equally divided.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, in sitting here in the past few moments listening to the debate, I am somewhat surprised at the level of rhetoric that is currently being used. We heard Senator after Senator get up and say this declaration in the DOD authorization bill is one to violate the ABM Treaty, or to signal our intent to do so. They say this is a unilateral abrogation of the treaty against a fictional threat. I point out to my colleagues that nothing in this bill calls for the abrogation of the ABM Treaty. Nothing in this bill calls for us to violate the treaty. Fictional threat? I wonder how our supporters on the other side feel about the fictional threat that was launched against the state of Israel? What if the state of Israel had no defensive systems? What if they had no Patriots to defend against the Scud missile? I wonder how many would take the floor and say it is tough luck that they are out of business. All we had to have is a few Scud missiles carrying chemical warheads land in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem and wipe out their populations. They had no defensive mechanism available against it. We are talking about something quite different in terms of ICBM threats. I recall the debate on the threat from Iraq, during the debate on the Persian Gulf war. I remember those citing estimates by our CIA and our DIA and other intelligence agencies at that time. They said, we cannot give you an estimate. It could be 1 year, it could be 10 years, and we are guessing it is closer to 10 years than 1 year. Following the war with Saddam Hussein, I think we came to an entirely different conclusion. We discovered that Saddam had achieved much greater progress toward that goal than we had been aware of. Members on the other side say this should not be a partisan issue. Why is it that every time the Republican majority suggests a policy, it is partisan, but when everybody on that side lines up and vote against it, it is not partisan. This is not a partisan issue. It ought to be bipartisan. We ought to say, as a body, that we are concerned about the proliferation of technology--missile technology--in the world. We are concerned when we see major powers selling technology to potential enemies. We are concerned when we see China, for example, selling technology to other countries that may pose a threat to us in the future. We ought to be concerned about the proliferation of technology that one day--and we cannot predict when that one day will be--will pose a threat to our population. Now, admittedly, if we were to engage in a war with the former Soviet Union, that would not involve a limited attack or an accidental launch against us. That would be a massive exchange, against which there is no defense. I am one who, at different times over a number of years, has stood on this floor opposing the notion of having a so-called dome over the United States to protect us from an all-out attack. I never believed it was possible to do so and led the effort to defeat spending money in pursuit of that kind of system. But I have also stood on the floor with the Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, when he expressed concern about limited attacks, about accidental launches, about what we would do if suddenly received a message stating: ``Sorry, some accidental launch has taken place. There is an ICBM headed for New York City or Washington, DC, or Los Angeles,'' and all we can do is wait for it to hit? We are talking about constructing a system that will protect against a limited attack or accidental launch and nothing more, and it is all to be done in accordance with the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty as originally written called for multiple site defenses, two sites for each side. We renegotiated that treaty--at that time with the Soviets--to one site. Now we are saying, in view of the proliferation of technology, we ought to renegotiate it to [[Page S 11264]] allow each of us, the Russians and the United States, to have some minimal capability to protect our respective countries against an accidental launch or a limited attack. We can do that within the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty explicitly anticipates ``changes in the strategic situation'' and provides a means to negotiate amendments to deal with such changes. It also allows for us to pull out of the ABM Treaty upon 6 months' notice. Following what I hope will be the defeat of the Levin amendment, I intend to offer an amendment--perhaps joined by the Senator from Georgia, perhaps not--to make it clear that we intend to act in accordance with the ABM Treaty. We intend also to call upon the President to seek to negotiate with the Russians to allow each side to develop and deploy a limited system to protect our respective countries against this proliferation threat. And if the President should fail to do so, it will be my recommendation that the President come back and report to the Congress and then seek our advice as to whether or not we should continue with the ABM Treaty or at that time should indicate our desire to withdraw. That is all within the ABM Treaty. And contrary to what is being represented here on the floor this afternoon, we are not seeking a unilateral abrogation. I do not want to see that. I hope, later on during the course of this afternoon, I can make that very clear with explicit language that will resolve any doubts about that. We want to continue to act in accord with the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty allows us to negotiate to seek amendments. We want to see if we cannot negotiate with the Russians to allow for a deployment on a land-based system with multiple sites--and the Russians would have the same right to do so--to protect us against miscalculation or accident. Madam President, there is an assumption in all of this debate that somehow the threat will only come from the former Soviet Union. I do not make that assumption. We are concerned about what is taking place on a global basis. We are concerned about potential threats from other sources. We cannot predict who they are, where they may be, or how far along the line of technology development they have proceeded. But we cannot face our constituents in good conscience and say: ``Sorry we failed to take any measures to protect you. Our only defense is to launch an all-out attack on whomever launched that missile.'' That is our only option today. Is that a rational, sound option, to say if you launch one or two missiles against the United States, we end up launching ours against yours? What we need to do is to have a limited protective system. That is what the Armed Services Committee seeks to do in this authorization. I intend, following the debate and conclusion of the Levin amendment, to offer an amendment to make that very clear. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.