William Cohen

Mr. COHEN

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

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam President, the amendment I am offering today is designed to maintain the integrity of the national security systems definition of the Information Technology Management Reform Act [ITMRA] of 1996. This act lays the foundation for real information management reform not only at the Department of Defense but at all government agencies. The need for this amendment is to make clear that the Senate does not wish to see any significant policy changes to the ITMRA until there has been some time to assess progress in the implementation of the act. The national security systems language in the ITMRA represents a delicate compromise between Congress, DOD, and the intelligence community. But, even before the law becomes effective the House was asked to include a significant change to the ITMRA on the House-passed version of the DOD authorization bill. The House provision undermines the compromise reached last year and would have the effect of limiting oversight for a new class of information systems. The administration in its Statement of Administrative Policy opposes the House-passed provision, and I look forward to the administration's continued support for maintaining the integrity of the ITMRA in conference. The ITMRA was based on compromise. Like most compromises, it probably will not satisfy everyone with an interest in information management issues. The ITMRA is a significant step in establishing the oversight criteria by which all information systems including national security systems will be judged. This criteria will be used by OMB, agency heads, the inspectors-general, GAO, and the Congress in holding agency officials accountable for obtaining a positive return for the taxpayers on the more than $50 billion annual Government investment in information systems. It is important to know whether we are getting our money's worth on information technology investments including, for example, the systems that process classified imagery, the software that guides a precision-guided munition to its target, the computers that control our Nation's air traffic control system, and the long distance phone bill for Federal employees in Portland, ME. The ITMRA would accomplish meaningful reform, in part, by emphasizing up-front capital planning and the establishment of clear performance goals and investment criteria designed to improve agency operations. Once the up-front planning is complete and the performance goals are established, the procurement reforms that Congress has enacted in the last 2 years would make it simpler and faster for agencies to purchase information technology. This management criteria applies to all systems in the Government including national security systems. Yet we have not emerged from the old Brooks Act paradigm. During the negotiations over the ITMRA, I reluctantly agreed to maintain the status quo and keep the old Brook Act national security systems definition and exemptions. But one must really ask what these systems are really exempted from? It is not from OMB oversight as OMB already has that authority in the budget process. This authority was reaffirmed in the ITMRA as Congress explicitly directed the Director of OMB to enforce accountability for sound information resources management through the budget process for all information technology including national security systems. The Brooks Act exemptions were originally passed to exclude some DOD and intelligence systems for the procurement authority of the Administrator of the General Services Administration. It was never intended to exempt DOD and the CIA from implementing sound management practices. ITMRA frees all agencies from GSA oversight in exchange for adhering to the sound business-tested methods of capital planning, establishing investment controls, measuring performance, benchmarking, and enforcing accountability. Thus, there was never any compelling reason for keeping the Brooks Act exemption language as the ITMRA eliminated the original reason for the exemption. The Congress did believe, however, that national security systems should be given some greater flexibility in implementing the ITMRA and agreed to keep a national security systems definition and classification. Systems classified as national security systems are exempt from select portions of the act. It perhaps can be argued that with recent problems with classified financial systems and information management at the National Reconnaissance Office, the serious cost overruns derived from poor software management in many major weapons systems, and the lack of interoperability among our command, control, communications systems that the ITMRA national security systems exemption are too broad. This is probably the case, and I considered offering an amendment to eliminate the national security systems exemption. I have, however, decided not to pursue that amendment in order to see how the current system will work in practice. I will have to leave it to my successors to ascertain how well national security systems are conforming to the ITMRA and whether a more restricted exemption is necessary. In the coming years we will witness whether DOD is able to seize the opportunities generated from procurement and management reforms to provide cost-effective intelligence and information systems that effectively support our service men and women and maintain our technological advantage on the battlefield. I fear, however, if the culture does not change at DOD and the Pentagon continues to hide behind legalistic and metaphysical barriers to outside oversight, we will witness the continued development of shoddy systems that do not take advantage of the dynamic commercial marketplace and that will in time erode our national security in the information age. Another of the more contentious issues in developing the ITMRA was how to treat the oversight of security standards in the Government. Recent hearings of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reveal that information security is still a serious problem that needs to be addressed. In ITMRA, Congress attempted to maintain the status quo regarding the division of responsibilities over information security standards and oversight. Based on recent events, I have now come to the conclusion that the agencies responsible for information security are more concerned with turf battles and bureaucratic infighting than they are about securing vital Government information. I am convinced that Congress needs to readdress the Computer Security Act and its implementation, but I am also convinced that this bill is not the vehicle to address the issue. In conclusion, the amendment I propose clarifies any ambiguity regarding the definition of national security systems, reaffirms the Senate's commitment to maintaining the application of the ITMRA, and directly counters the House provision. Unlike the amendment to the House bill, this amendment does not change the status quo with regard to information systems security and maintains the comprehensive applicability of ITMRA to classified systems that do not meet the national security systems definition.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. COHEN. Madam President, as I listened to the arguments being offered by my colleagues, it seems to me they start from the premise that Congress really should not take any action which differs from that of the requests sent up here by the administration. All we need do is have the President of the United States send up a budget and what we need to do is to look at the budget and either give it our stamp of approval or withhold that stamp of approval; there is no room for discretion. After all, if we were to add something, that would simply be another pork barrel project, would it not, under the logic that is being utilized by my colleagues who are offering this amendment? Why should Congress have any role in this? After all, they are the experts over there. The service chiefs, those who are involved in our military personnel, they are the experts, so why should we have any role whatsoever in terms of altering, increasing, or decreasing the spending for our defense needs? That is the position, it would seem to me, that those who are arguing on behalf of this amendment are taking--that Congress really, any time it makes a change in the Defense Department request, is simply adding pork barrel spending. I suggest, how about the Nunn-Lugar proposal? That will most likely be added. Is that pork barrel? Or is that something that is substantive, that will contribute to the national security interests of this country? What about when we add more funding for the C-17, to buy more of them, so they can be produced at a more efficient rate and save hundreds of millions of dollars. I suppose that is just pork barreling as well. What about the V-22 replacing our aging helicopter aircraft that are ferrying about our Marine Corps? I suppose that is pork barrel, too. So the notion is somehow, whenever Congress adds funding, whenever the Armed Services Committee adds funding for programs, that is just simply pork barrel. And I suggest to you that is simply pure nonsense. That is pure nonsense. Also, it seems to me we would think that it is the requirements, the military requirements that ought to determine how much we spend and to drive policy. But, in fact, most of us know it is not the military requirements that drive policy but, rather, it is the political policies and the priorities established by the President that drive the requirements. Year after year, we have been listening to our military experts come to the Congress and say, look, it is getting very thin. We are getting to the ragged edge. Yes, we can carry out the mission, but it is getting very difficult to do so. And we cannot give you assurances we can do so in future years; it is getting that close. I hear my colleagues talk about cuts in other programs. In terms of percentage of real change in outlays between the years 1990 and 2002, this chart shows domestic discretionary outlays going up almost 12.5 percent; national defense outlays decrease by almost 35 percent, mandatory outlays increase 34.2 percent. So we can see where the priorities are. Defense spending is coming down and discretionary spending, mandatory entitlement programs are going up. However, there is another issue I want to focus on, and that is the issue of promises. This is something that is of concern to me. It has been to a majority of our colleagues in the Senate and the House. We have had promise after promise that we are going to deal with the shortfalls that are coming next year. In 1993, we were promised that defense procurement spending was going to go up, and here is where it came out, where this green line is now. It went down. We were promised by the President it was going to go up again in 1995. It went down, saying wait until next year, a promise to go up. It went down. In fact, it will not go up in procurement spending until after the next term of either President Clinton or President Dole expires. And so the absolute military necessities are being pushed out into the year 2001, 2002, saying, well, we will get to it just like the Red Sox are going to win the pennant next year and every time next year comes by say, well, we cannot afford it. Let me read to you what Admiral Owens, former Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Oversight Council, had to say about the administration's procurement plans for our Armed Forces. I am going to read this. ``We are facing a procurement crisis.'' Here you can see that in 1993 the President's budget had for procurement $62 billion. In 1994, procurement would be at $64 billion. Of course, what really happens, it went down to $48 billion. In 1995, the administration was projecting $55 billion. In fact, it was $46 billion. But then the administration promised it was going to go up. And in 1996 we are now down to $39 billion. And we keep promising and promising ourselves it is going to go up. We have got to stop promising and start doing business. That is from a very highly respected member of the military. Stop breaking promise after promise.

Mr. COHEN. I yield myself an additional 3 minutes.

Mr. COHEN. Madam President, shortly prior to his death, I had a conversation with Admiral Boorda. We spoke initially on the phone and then he came to my office because we went through this process. We said look, we understand. You are under orders to come up to the Hill and testify as to whether you can live with this particular budget. And each time the military has done their duty as required apparently by their obligations and they said, yes, we can live with what the President has requested; he is our Commander in Chief; we can live with this, this year for the first time they started sending other signals that said ask us basically what we really need over and above what is being requested. And so we asked the question: If more money were added, what would you request? Admiral Boorda sent a request to me that was in excess of $7 billion, alone, for the Navy--$7.9 billion over and above the President's request just for the Navy. And I told him it was completely and wholly unrealistic. He said, look, we have a bow wave coming. I am not going to be here. I am retiring. He would not be here when his period for being CNO had expired and left the Navy, he said, but in the year 2000, 2005, 2010, we have an enormous tidal wave of procurement coming and, frankly, he did not see whether we could ever have the will or spirit to measure up to the responsibilities to fund the programs. So he said, I am putting in my request. This is what I need. So that is just one service. Here we are on the Senate floor saying let's just take another $4 billion out totally across the board. Madam President, I think that we have to get realistic about where we are headed, that we know and everybody knows that by the year 2000 spending is going to have to go up dramatically in order to meet the requirements of our military, or else what? We can simply revise what we have to do throughout the world. We can say, fine, we are not going to defend our interests in the Pacific. We are not going to defend our interests in Europe or NATO. We are simply going to shrink back to the continental United States. We can do that. We can revise the Bottom-Up Review. We can say we are not going to meet major regional contingencies, two of them simultaneously, and say we will just meet one. We can do that, and it will be a much more honest approach than what we are currently taking because what we are doing today is saying, yes, we can meet the Bottom- Up Review requirements when, in fact, we cannot--when, in fact, we are holding out an illusion, when in fact many of the same personnel and equipment required to fight in one particular regional conflict will be required to fight in another. So, it is time we get honest with ourselves and, if we do not want to be the superpower, capable of extending our reach in various parts of the globe, if we do not want to exercise military power and projection in various parts of the globe, say so. But let us not go through this routine, saying we will do it next year and next year and next year. This year is an election year. This year it is more for education and environment and other things. We will push the requirements of the military out into future years, and we will let that generation deal with the problem. We will not be here. We will be gone, be out of office. When we heard statements made--the Deputy Secretary of Defense has issued a statement; Senator Warner has referred to it--that there is a tail attached to this particular authorization, some $25 billion, we said, ``Prove it to us. Where is the evidence it is $25 billion?'' They have yet to submit an analysis that shows any justification for the $25 billion so-called tail. They issued a letter saying it is a $25 billion add-on, and we have looked at the analysis and it does not hold up. I will save that analysis for my other colleagues who wish to talk about this particular matter, but it seems to me the Defense Department has an obligation that goes beyond simply issuing letters at the last moment saying it is $25 billion without any demonstration of the analysis by which that judgment was rendered. I am here to say, when we look at what they have done, what they do is say, if money is requested, for example to close out an account, they will take the amount requested--let us say it is $60 million--and they will stretch it out $15 million a year for the next 4 years. That is completely false. If you, in fact, spend more money to purchase equipment up front--aircraft, ships--which they know will save money in the outyears, they nonetheless add that as a total increase. If you look closely--and they have admitted this--if you look closely at their analysis, it will not hold up to scrutiny. So, Mr. President, I hope this amendment will be rejected. We do know Senator Nunn and others will be offering an amendment later that would have a more modest reduction. But for us to come to the floor and say this is simply pork barrel spending, unnecessary, the military did not request it, therefore let us not add it, seems to me it undermines the historic role of the U.S. Senate and that of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, I hope this will be rejected and overwhelmingly so.

Mr. COHEN. I yield for a question.

Mr. COHEN. Let me respond to my colleague. I only pointed to one individual. I tried to point to what Admiral Boorda had to say to me as an example. Here is just the Navy. Just for Navy programs he said, ``I need another $7 to $8 billion to start meeting the obligations that are mandated and that we will have to face in just a few short years.'' But Admiral Boorda, like every other service chief, as such, realizes each year we have to face this red line. It goes down to the green line, and the green line drops to the blue line, and the blue line drops to the orange line, and we do not get to it until the year 2000. He is saying, ``We cannot do this. It is a misrepresentation. It is a dereliction of our responsibilities.'' That is just one service, the CNO. But now we have the Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and they similarly made requests saying if we are really going to be measuring up to our responsibilities, we need more. It was the figure that the Senator from Virginia has cited. So I think we are not to be charged with simply pork barreling, spending money wastefully. Whenever something happens in the world, we are the ones to answer the 911 call. When there was a problem with Taiwan and China, President Clinton did not hesitate. He is going to send the troops, aircraft carriers--two of them, as a matter of fact. If we are going to be spending for these programs and protecting the lives of our young men and women who are dedicating them to the service of this country, we better make sure they do not have aircraft that are wearing out, they are not operating at tempos that cannot be sustained, that we start doing what needs to be done in order to make sure we have the finest capability we can possibly have. I thank my friend for yielding me so much time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I and Senator McCain be allowed to proceed as in morning business for a total of 10 minutes, 5 minutes each.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I too support the intent of the subcommittee language. DOD's alternative financing methods for the TRICARE Program may have significant merit, however, I also share Senator Warner's concerns that this new concept be fully tested and developed before it is implemented. Region 2 is obviously the most experienced and therefore the best qualified region to operate this test and I support Senator Warner's recommendation. BRAC Military Construction of Unaccompanied Enlisted Housing at Ft. Leonard Wood, MO

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this amendment would modify section 124 of the bill. In its present form this section authorizes three Arleigh Burke class destroyers in each of the 4 fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, for a total of 12 destroyers. The provision was included in the bill as the result of compelling testimony by the Navy's senior acquisition executive that he could save a billion dollars on the cost of 12 destroyers if Congress provided the opportunity for a reliable and stable procurement rate over the 4-year period. In other words the Navy would be able to procure 12 ships, all of them urgently needed, for the cost of 11 and still have funds left over for use elsewhere in a shipbuilding account that is under relentless pressure from competing requirements. To achieve such cost savings, the Navy will need explicit authority to enter into multiyear contracts and contract options. This amendment would provide that authority, while limiting the Government's liability should unforseen circumstances force a change in future procurement plans. This amendment makes military sense, cost sense, and industrial base sense. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to endorse the nomination of Mr. Keith R. Hall to be Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space. I have known Mr. Hall since 1983, when I was first appointed to serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. I came to know Mr. Hall particularly well during the period from 1987 to 1990, when I served as the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. During that period, the chairman and I relied heavily on Mr. Hall for assessments of the arcane programmatics surrounding the President's budget submissions for the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office. Throughout this period, Mr. Hall demonstrated exceptional knowledge and expertise, unflagging energy and integrity, and a truly nonpartisan spirit of cooperation with myself and other members of the minority party on the committee. In 1991, Mr. Hall left the Intelligence Committee to become the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. By all accounts, he served very ably in that position, instituting new procedures to try and eliminate potentially wasteful duplication between national and tactical intelligence programs. From May 1995, until February of this year, Mr. Hall served as the Executive Director for Intelligence Community Affairs. In that position, Mr. Hall was directly responsible to the Director of Central Intelligence for developing the President's National Foreign Intelligence Program. I think it came as no surprise to anyone that Secretary Deutch brought Mr. Hall with him from the Defense Department when he became Director of Central Intelligence. As my colleagues are aware, the National Reconnaissance Office has been the target of substantial controversy in recent years as a result of the costs associated with its new headquarters as well as the accumulation of a vast excess of carry-forward funds that accumulated in various accounts in recent years. Inevitably, these controversies have damaged the morale of the organization, notwithstanding the numerous spectacular achievements of the NRO. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Hall will be forthright in all of his dealings with Congress; that he will ensure there is no repetition of such controversies; and that he will be able to maintain and effectively manage the careful cooperation between the Intelligence Community and Defense Department that is necessary for the effective operation of the National Reconnaissance Office. Mr. Hall has earned the confidence of officials at all levels of the administration and he certainly earned my confidence during his able service on the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He is an outstanding individual and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Mr. Hall's complete resume be printed in the Record.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this amendment would restore the planning date for serial production of the next class of nuclear attack submarine to the fiscal year 2000, the date reflected in last year's Senate defense authorization bill. The amendment is intended to resolve a flaw in congressional direction regarding serial production of the next class of nuclear attack submarine that, if left standing, could have a devastating impact on the Nation's submarine industrial base. This flawed direction, contained in the section 131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, mandates a delay in design competition for the next class of nuclear attack submarine until fiscal year 2003. It was identified in the Secretary of Defense Report on Nuclear Attack Submarine Procurement and Submarine Technology that was submitted to Congress on March 26, 1996 in compliance with section 131 of last year's defense authorization bill. Under the assumption that no suitable design could be available until the first decade of the next century, section 131 directed the Secretary of Defense to plan to commence serial production of the next class of nuclear attack submarine no earlier than fiscal year 2003. Let me emphasize that the Senate conferees did not share this view, but accepted this proviso in section 131, and others with which they disagreed, in order to reach conclusion of a conference that had lasted far too long. The Secretary of Defense's report makes clear the Department of Defense's disagreement with the premise that the design being developed for the next nuclear attack submarine, now called the New Attack Submarine, that is to be first authorized in fiscal year 1998 will be inadequate for the requirements set for it by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This view is strongly supported by an independent Submarine Technology Assessment Panel that was commissioned by the Secretary of the Navy to assist in preparation of the Secretary of Defense's report. The approach recommended by the report and the panel is to: utilize the New Attack Submarine design as the basis for serial production; fund a continuing level of effort for submarine research and development; and incorporate new technologies that emerge from this research effort into the base design as they mature. These findings are consistent with the position of the Senate during last year's conference. This year's House version of the defense authorization bill provides extensive direction of how it would pursue development of the next class of submarine. included is direction to the Navy to develop six independent designs that would be completed in fiscal year 2003. The winning design would then become the basis for serial production of the next class of nuclear attack submarine. Aside from the cost implications of pursuing six independent designs, the consequences of delaying a design competition until fiscal year 2003 and the ensuing delay of up to two years before actual authorization of the first submarine would be a gap of four to five years between submarine contract awards no matter which shipyard, Newport News or Electric Boat, wins the competition for serial production. Such a lengthy production break could not be tolerated by either shipyard. The Secretary of Defense's Report points out the disruptive effect of such a lengthy delay and notes the need for additional authorizations in order to maintain a viable construction base for nuclear attack submarines. By accepting the Secretary of Defense's proposal for incorporating new technology into future nuclear attack submarine and setting fiscal year 2000 as the year in which serial production can begin, the future of the submarine industrial base can be preserved. The Senate bill, as modified by this amendment would accomplish that objective. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting the amendment.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to properly identify the resources that will be used to carry of the transfer of design information for the fiscal year 1998 nuclear attack submarine from the lead design shipyard, Electric Boat, to Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock, the shipyard that will build the fiscal year 1999 submarine. In its present form section 123 would direct that design transfer be funded from the Navy's Research and Development account. Subsequent to markup and referral of the bill, I have been informed by the Navy that the correct account to fund this activity should be the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy appropriation. This amendment will require no change in funding levels in the bill that is under consideration. Sufficient resources have been proposed in the bill to carry out design transfer activities for the fiscal year 1999 submarine. The amendment is simply a bookkeeping change that will properly align funding sources with intended activity. I encourage the other members to join me in voting in favor of this amendment.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this amendment would add a provision to title II of the Senate bill that reflects the markup position on advanced submarine technology that is now reflected in report language and the funding tables that accompany the bill. This position was developed as a result of testimony provided at a hearing on submarine procurement and development and on the Secretary of Defense Report on Nuclear Attack Submarine Procurement and Submarine Technology that was submitted to Congress on March 26, 1996 in compliance with section 131 of last year's defense authorization bill. The hearing and report both indicate that the approach used by the Navy to invest in submarine technology should be revised to accommodate the low rate of future production for attack submarines relative to cold war levels and the much higher rate of technology turnover that is occurring in the civilian sector. The previous focus on incorporating new technologies into new designs that occurred with much greater frequency than can be expected in the future and then reducing technology funding to subsistence funding until time for a new design will no longer suffice to maintain the technological edge that our submarine force enjoyed during the cold war. A more promising model would be the creation of a single, stable research and development program under a single product manager and funded at a steady state level that supports, matures, and incorporates new technology on a continuing basis. In other words a process of continuous rather than cyclical evolution. A far greater emphasis would be placed on involvement of civilian industry, particularly the shipyards involved in submarine construction, than has occurred in the past. The Report accompanying the Senate bill provides guidance that the Secretary of the Navy is to use these funds to carry out high priority research on advanced submarine technology that is identified in the Secretary of Defense's report. The House also concluded that additional funding for submarine technology was needed. However, consistent with the fascination with submarine technology reflected in last year's conference negotiations, the House bill would make over $200 million available for it in fiscal year 1997 and pursue initiatives such as the development of six different design alternatives at a cost of at least $500 million before settling on a design for series production no earlier than fiscal year 2003. The House provision also makes very detailed allocations on how submarine technology funds would be spent by the Navy without providing any objective analysis or documented justification to support this allocation. It is clear that the House and Senate have developed divergent views on how the course of future research and development for advanced submarine technology should proceed. It appears prudent, based on the magnitude of funding increases in the House bill and its micromanagement of them, to establish in the Senate bill a provision in law that articulates, with more force than can be achieved with report language, the Senate's view on how the Navy should proceed with a program to develop submarine technology. This provision will provide stronger guidance to our conferees when they negotiate a final outcome in the fiscal year 1997 defense authorization bill. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this amendment.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, let me first add my congratulations to the new majority leader. I think that Trent Lott will do an outstanding job and one that will certainly make our party proud, but the country proud as well. I was pleased to have his colleague, Thad Cochran, with whom we both entered Congress, stand up in a true southern fashion, extend his warmest wishes and willingness to work with you. It will be a great team from Mississippi and for the rest of the country. I add my accolades to you, Mr. Leader.

Mr. COHEN. I want to take a few moments to talk about something that is of great importance to me. As is so often the case in Washington, misinformation is flying about the effects of legislation being considered in Congress. It is customary in this country and in this Congress, to have, just as we are negotiating the last-minute details to legislation, some interest group come forward, place a provocative ad in the newspaper, and try to destroy that legislation. I am referring to the fraud and abuse provisions in the Kennedy- Kassebaum health care legislation that is now in the final stages of a conference. Recently, the American Medical Association placed a full- page ad in the Wall Street Journal. The ads are slick and very clever-- it shows a doctor, with a stethoscope hanging down, in the ``docks.'' It says, ``We (the AMA) are opposed to fraud and abuse. We know it is a serious problem, but if doctors willfully and knowingly violate our Nation's laws, they should be punished.'' Mr. President, this is precisely what the legislation does. Then the ad goes on to say, ``But honest mistakes should not make physicians or any other citizens candidates for incarceration.'' We agree. This legislation has been worked on for the past 3 years. As a matter of fact, this particular ad is not only misleading, it is false. It is absolutely false advertising that the AMA has engaged in, along with other physician groups who have written articles. To distort the intent and scope of the provisions in this fashion minimizes the very real threat that fraud poses to our health care system and, indeed, to the solvency of Medicare. Medicare trustees have said the trust fund is going broke--not in 6 years--but in 5 years. One of the reasons it is going broke is because so much fraud and abuse is being perpetrated on the American people. As we are asking Medicare beneficiaries and honest providers to share the burden of changes to arrest the growth of Medicare, it is our duty to do all we can to get the waste, fraud, and abuse out the program. According to the General Accounting Office, we are now losing as much as $100 billion from fraud and abuse every year. The losses to Federal health care programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and CHAMPUS, is about $40 billion or 40 percent of the total. Mr. President, it is a grand scale of theft that is taking place. We have heard testimony that organized crime has moved into health care fraud. We heard testimony that drug dealers have moved into health care fraud because there is more money and it is easier for them to perpetrate this crime rather than trying to sell drugs with the FBI breathing down their neck. As Willie Sutton said, ``that's where the money is.'' Let me give you a couple of examples that have come to my attention. I have had hearing after hearing on this subject matter. Seven months ago, a physician testified before the Senate about his involvement in a clinic scam in Los Angeles. The physician participated in a scheme that involved phony prescriptions, paid patients, and resulted in losses over $800,000 to the Medicaid Program. In another case, the owner of a home health care company built a beautiful $2.5 million mansion with money he made from phony Medicare billings. A New York physician defrauded the Medicaid Program of more than $1.5 million by fraudulently charging for 25,000 drug treatments never given to recipients. We have even heard of a case where a psychiatrist billed for 50,000 phantom therapy sessions never given to patients. That is just a small sample of what we are trying to deal with today. And that is why we passed this important legislation by overwhelming numbers in this body. The health care fraud provisions now being considered by the Senate and House conference committee do address this problem in a reasonable, measured manner that does not infringe on personal liberties nor penalize innocent mistakes. The bill closes loopholes in current law and provides criminal penalties for a defined set of serious and egregious violations such as embezzlement. The fraud and abuse provisions substantially mirror existing fraud statutes and are designed to give enforcement more precise tools to protect consumers against fraud and abuse. Contrary to claims that the bill will unleash an army of intrusive investigators trying to entrap innocent doctors, the proposal simply provides adequate resources for prosecutors and investigators, long strapped by budget cuts and under staffing to go after serious patterns and cases of abuse. The AMA's claim that ``honest mistakes'' of doctors or any other citizens makes them ``candidates for incarceration'' is simply false. Far from going after honest mistakes, the criminal sanctions will be used to prosecute egregious, intentional acts of fraud against health plans. Mr. President, the final thrust of the attack ads that are being leveled against this legislation is that this is Clinton's health care plan revisited. That, too, is absolutely false. This legislation was developed in response to the recommendations put forth by a task force put together by President Bush, which was headed by a Justice Department that was dominated at the top level by President Bush appointees. It has been endorsed by Bob Dole, our former majority leader, and virtually everybody in our leadership for many years. These provisions have passed twice before during this Republican-controlled Congress and have been the subject of numerous hearings in both the Senate and House. The notion that somehow this is Clinton II slipping through the cracks at the last moment is completely false. We have to deal with health care fraud in a direct and responsible fashion. The legislation we passed by an overwhelming majority in this body, unanimously, as I recall, deserves not to be undercut by false and misleading advertising. I hope my colleagues reject these kinds of last-minute scare tactics which the AMA and others are engaged in. The only ones to gain from failing to pass this antifraud package are those who are intentionally ripping off the system. All the rest of us are the big losers--the vast majority of honest health care providers, taxpayers, and families who are footing the bill for the fraudulent providers in the form of higher taxes and health care costs. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, over the past decades, a consensus has emerged that traditional litigation is an inefficient way to resolve disputes. Not only is litigation costly, but due to its adversarial, contentious nature, litigation often deteriorates working relationships and fails to produce long-term solutions to problems. Private corporations recognized many years ago that certain types of disputes could be resolved much less expensively and with less acrimony by relying on techniques such as mediation, arbitration, and partnering, which collectively have become known as alternative dispute resolution or ADR. In 1990, Congress recognized that the Government lagged well behind the private sector in this field and in response enacted the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act to promote the use of ADR in Government agencies. Senators Grassley and Levin led the effort to pass this legislation and bring the benefits of ADR to the Federal Government. The act authorizes agencies to apply ADR to almost any type of claim involving the Government, requires the appointment of ADR specialists in each agency, establishes procedures for hiring neutral third-parties to help resolve disputes, and provides confidentiality protection to parties participating in ADR. S. 1224, the bill before the Senate, would permanently reauthorize this important legislation. It would also improve the system for hiring mediators, provide additional confidentiality protections to ADR participants, promote the use of binding arbitration and make a number of other minor adjustments to the act. The Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management held a hearing on the bill on November 29. At the hearing, the Department of Justice, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the Office of Management and Budget, the American Bar Association, and private individuals representing the Heritage Foundation and a consortium of Government contractors all praised the ADR Act and strongly endorsed its reauthorization. On December 12, 1995, the bill was unanimously reported, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, by the Committee on Governmental Affairs. The most significant change this bill makes to the original ADR Act is the repeal of a provision known as the arbitration escape clause. During consideration of the ADR Act in 1990, this provision was included to accommodate the Department of Justice's view that agencies lacked constitutional authority to refer disputes to binding arbitration. Although many scholars and the sponsors of the bill disagreed with this view, to satisfy the Department of Justice [DOJ], a provision was added that enabled Federal agencies to opt-out of arbitral awards. Unfortunately, this unilateral provision has deterred private parties from entering into arbitration with the Government. As one witness testified at the hearing on this reauthorization legislation, unless the escape clause is eliminated, ``arbitration likely will never become a viable alternative for the Federal Government.'' This would be unfortunate. Throughout the private sector, companies are saving money and reducing litigation costs by using arbitration to resolve commercial disputes instead of resorting to litigation. If we want the Government to enjoy the efficiencies of the private sector, it must have the flexibility to operate as a private business, especially when the Government is acting as a commercial entity. Indeed, the Government achieves a double benefit when a case is resolved through arbitration rather than litigation because not only are agency litigation costs and attorneys fees reduced, but judicial resources are freed to pursue criminal cases or other civil matters. Last year, DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel issued a detailed opinion concluding that Federal agencies could submit disputes to binding arbitration without violating the Constitution. Since the constitutional objection to binding arbitration has been removed, there is no longer any reason to reauthorize the agency escape clause. There are two amendments to S. 1224 before the Senate for consideration. The first amendment is designed to increase the efficiency of our procurement system by consolidating jurisdiction over bid protest claims in the Court of Federal Claims. The amendment would reverse the decision of the D.C. Circuit in Scanwell Lab., Inc. versus Shaffer (1969), that permitted bid protests to be filed in any district court across the country. Providing district courts with jurisdiction to hear bid protest claims has led to forum shopping and the fragmentation of Government contract law. Consolidation of jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims is necessary to develop a uniform national law on bid protest issues and end the wasteful practice of shopping for the most hospitable forum. Congress established the Claims Court--now the Court of Federal Claims--for the specific purpose of improving the administration of the law in the areas of patents, trademarks, Government contracts, Government employment, and international trade. Scanwell jurisdiction frustrates this purpose and deprives litigants of the substantial experience and expertise the Court of Federal Claims has developed in the Government contracting area. The Information Technology and Management Reform Act of 1996, which I authored, eliminated the authority of the General Services Board of Contract Appeals to entertain bid protests on information technology contracts and left the General Accounting Office as the single extra- agency administrative forum for such actions. My amendment to S. 1224 follows this path of reform by creating a single forum for all bid protest litigation, which will lead to the development of more uniform, and thus more predictable, law. Identical legislation passed the Senate as part of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, but was rejected in conference. The Department of Justice and Office of Management and Budget strongly support the addition of this legislation to the ADR Act. I also want to express my support for the Levin-Grassley amendment to S. 1224, which would reauthorize the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. This legislation establishes a framework for agencies to convene interested parties for the purpose of developing consensus-based regulation. When it is used, negotiated rulemaking can improve the quality, acceptability, and timeliness of regulations, reduce litigation, and enhance industry compliance, thereby reducing the costs of regulations to both private industry and the Government. Over the past 5 years negotiated rulemaking has been an unqualified success; there is no reason not to reauthorize this legislation while we are dealing with the closely related ADR Act. In sum, reauthorization of the ADR and Negotiated Rulemaking Acts and the elimination of Scanwell jurisdiction represent cost-saving, commonsense improvements to the Federal regulatory and administrative processes. These reforms are good for the taxpayer, good for our courts, and good for the parties that have disputes with the Government. I congratulate Senators Grassley and Levin for the success of the original pieces of legislation and commend them for their work on this reauthorization bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and sincerely hope that it may be enacted into law during this session of Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Department of Justice I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, there are few true heroes in this country, but one who has lived in our midst for many years is Bob Dole, who has accomplished so much in his life and is going off to accomplish more. He was a hero in war who now and forever will bear the scars of his service to his country. And he is a hero in peace--a man who can maneuver through the legislative trenches with grace and daring, avoiding minefields and pitfalls, running the gauntlet while dodging bomb blasts from his opponents. He leaves us today to enter a new battleground, where, I have no doubt, he will prevail with the same creativity and tenacity that had made him such an able Senate leader. Bob Dole has the experience, the temperament, and the judgment to be President. He is a man of honor and courage who understands the workings of Government at the highest levels but has never lost his understanding of common men and women. That's because he is a common man, who through the sheer force of his intellect and industry has reached uncommon heights. There are, of course, many stories that could be told to illustrate the spirit and fortitude that has brought Bob Dole to such heights, but two of my favorites date to 1952, the year he was elected county attorney in Russell, KS, and began his political career. One night after Bob was elected, a man named Huck Boyd was driving through Russell after midnight and saw the light still on at the county courthouse. Huck Boyd was editor of a weekly newspaper and thought there might be a break-in, so he pulled over to investigate. It turns out that Bob Dole, the new county attorney, was still working at his desk. And it also turns out that Huck Boyd was Kansas' member of the Republican National Committee, and was so impressed by this hard- working young man that he started talking him up throughout Kansas as a future political superstar. But the quote I like best comes from the story of the 1952 county attorney election itself. Two young men who had come back from World War II were running--Bob Dole and Dean Ostrum. Dean was a bright young man who had enjoyed many of life's advantages and was the son of perhaps the best lawyer in Russell. Bob Dole didn't have all the advantages of life, had seen more adversity in 29 years than most people see in a lifetime, and was the son of Doran Dole who worked in a local creamery. As the campaign wore on, Bob outthought and outhustled his opponent, won by 200 votes, and launched his political career. The quote I like is from Dean Ostrum years after the campaign was over: ``How long was my day? I don't know, but it wasn't as long as Bob Dole's I'm sure of that.'' Forty-four years later that statement still rings true. No one I know has ever outworked Bob Dole. One of the reasons I believe so strongly in Bob Dole's candidacy is because we share common views and values. We believe that consensus and compromise make for good government. We believe that rigid ideas and hardened positions drive people apart and lead to stalemate and paralysis. We believe in Ronald Reagan's theory of the big tent--that the Republican Party is a caring and compassionate organization that welcomes people of all backgrounds, a party that does not demean minorities by ridiculing their ancestry, a party that speaks of hope and promise and does not exploit fears and anxieties. We believe in a strong national defense, that America cannot be the world's policeman, but neither can we afford to become a prisoner of world events. Some want to walk away from the world, but Bob Dole knows the world won't walk away from us. We believe that the best protection for American industry and workers is to open up our minds through education, training, and competition-- not by shutting down our ports. We believe we must prevent illegal immigration but not punish those who seek the blessings of America by complying with our laws. Bob Dole, like Ronald Reagan before him, has dedicated his life in public service to tearing walls down around the world and not putting them up around America. We also share a common belief that for government to operate most effectively--or in this day and age some might say to operate at all-- it is necessary for policymakers to understand that goals cannot always be achieved at once. Progress must often come in small steps. Bob Dole understands that principle better than most and he has the judgment, gleaned from years of experience, to know when those steps can be taken safely--or when one more step will send us hurtling over a dangerous precipice. Bob Dole understands that power and responsibility must be returned to the States. We have a $5 trillion debt that is gobbling up our children's economic future, and we know we have to slay this monster or it will surely slay us. The man who stood for so many years beside us in the Senate does not appear to be wearing armor. But he is. It's made of a composite stronger than anything that can be manufactured by campaign strategists, pollsters, or spin-meisters. It's made of a belief in God, country, family, honor, and duty. I have known Bob Dole for more than 20 years as both a friend and a leader. He is a man of good heart and good humor who calls forth the better angels of our nature. As President of the United States, he will make America safe and sound for us and our children. As President of the United States, he will help make the world safe for America.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Special Committee on Aging, in conjunction with the Committee on Appropriations, will hold a hearing on Wednesday, June 12, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in room 138 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will discuss increasing funding for biomedical research.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Special Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on Wednesday, June 5, 1996, at 9 a.m., in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will discuss encouraging return to work in the SSI and DI programs. committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, Senator Lott a moment ago spoke about the life and death of Adm. Jeremy Mike Boorda. I think all of us were stunned by this revelation. Yesterday, most of us, Republican and Democrat alike, were shocked, and saddened, in some respects, at the announcement of another man of character and courage who decided to leave a position he loved most to achieve a higher dream. Today, just moments ago, we are advised of another man in our public service, one of the best and brightest that the Navy has ever had to offer, took leave of life. The reports at this point have not been confirmed. On one network they have indicated that it was a self- inflicted wound. I hope that is not the case. We are trying at this particular point to verify rumors. No such confirmation has been forthcoming at this point. We do not wish to add to the speculation any further than what is on the television at this moment. I say a few words about Admiral Boorda from a personal point of view. He was a very close friend of mine. He attended my wedding a few months ago. Our relationship goes back several years, at least, when we were in Munich together, the Wehrkunde conference. It was memorable to me because one night while we were there, Sarajevo had been shelled. There was a great loss of life. Admiral Boorda took charge immediately. He ordered C-141's to get to Sarajevo. He did so over the objection of the U.N. command at that point. Akashi could not be reached. They said, wait until tomorrow; do not send any aircraft down. Mike Boorda said, ``I am not waiting for anything. Get those planes in there. Get those wounded people out of there and get them to the hospital.'' That was the kind of man of action and passion that I came to know and admire. He, over the last several years, demonstrated that time and time again in terms of his commitment to the Navy. Yesterday, Senator Dole talked about life being a hardship. Nothing came easy to Senator Dole. I might say that for Mike Boorda. Life was a hardship as well. He was not born into wealth. He was not a man of privilege, but he is what we call a common man. He rose through the ranks of common men and women to the highest position in the U.S. Navy. He was admired by everyone who ever came within his presence. He was inspiring to those men and women who now served in our U.S. Navy. All of them will be equally stunned and shocked, as we were, to learn of the news of his death. I can only hope that the reports I have heard to date are not correct. I pray for the members of his family who are alive today and no doubt in a state of shock and grief. I can only indicate to them that every person who has ever been touched by Jeremy Mike Boorda will remember him for the rest of their lives. I can only express my condolences at this moment and hope to have further comments about the life and times of Mike Boorda at a later time.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for a few minutes as in morning business.