William Cohen

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to volunteer amateur radio operators who provide an essential emergency communications service to government and private relief agencies during times of national disasters. After floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, and tornados, amateur radio, or ``ham'' operators as they are often called, provide emergency communications when other forms of communications are down. They are often the only ones who can relay messages from victims in disaster areas to loved ones in other locations. There are over 4,000 ham radio operators in Maine, over 650,000 nationwide, and several million internationally. To give you an example of the valuable public service that ham radio operators provide, I want to tell you about a story that came to my attention last year. A couple honeymooning on St. Maarten were lost during Hurricane Luis. The hurricane caused massive destruction to the island, leveling neighborhoods, tearing apart hotels and restaurants, and washing out roads. Thousands of tourists were stranded without electricity, running water, or telephone service. George Foss, a ham radio operator from Franconia, NH, worked with Linda Leeman and David Seaborn of my staff, and ham radio operators in Cuba, Panama, North Carolina, and Aruba to contact the U.S. Consulate on the Dutch side of the island where one of the diplomats was operating an amateur radio station on emergency power. At the time, there were only two cellular telephones in service for the entire island. All other forms of communication had been destroyed by the hurricane. The hard work of these amateur radio operators made it possible to locate this couple and let their friends and family back home know they were alright. Mr. President, I want to publicly thank George Foss and the millions of amateur radio operators worldwide who volunteer their time to aid in these search and rescue efforts. We all owe them our thanks and sincere gratitude.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the staff of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the District of Columbia. I have had the pleasure of serving either as the chairman or the ranking member during my entire tenure in the Senate. The subcommittee has been responsible for a number of significant legislative and oversight accomplishments during the past 18 years and, while it would take too long to describe each of these accomplishments, I want to mention just a few of them: The Competition in Contracting Act [CICA] of 1984, major procurement reform which remarkably improved the way Government agencies acquire goods and services. The independent counsel law, which serves to ensure that wrongdoing at the highest levels of Government will be impartially investigated. The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1988, designed to improve the regulation and accuracy of medical laboratory tests. More recently and under the leadership of Senator Levin, the Subcommittee was instrumental in the passage of the Lobbying Disclosure Act which requires public registration of professional lobbyists. Just this year, the subcommittee was responsible for the enactment of the Information Technology Management Reform Act. This landmark legislation will save taxpayers billions of dollars by changing the way the federal government approaches, purchases and uses technology. As a result of two subcommittee hearings, the Federal Employee Travel Reform Act of 1996 recently became law. This act represents the biggest change in Federal travel rules in 40 years and will result in an estimated savings of $4 billion over the next five years. Not only has the subcommittee staff achieved significant legislative accomplishments, but they have worked tirelessly to ensure that the subcommittee's oversight function was performed aggressively, credibly, and with the utmost integrity and care. Regardless of the issue, the subcommittee has undertaken its oversight role with vigor and tenacity. The subcommittee has performed oversight on issues ranging from procurement to Government ethics and, more recently, from bank failures and federal construction to aviation safety. The subcommittee has also published a number of investigative reports which have had significant impact on Government reform. These reports include ``Federal Government Losing Millions By Not Minding the Concessions Store'' and ``Computer Chaos: Billions Wasted Buying Federal Computer Systems''. A soon to be released report on Federally Funded Research and Development Centers [FFRDC] will lay the groundwork to significantly improve the Federal role in promoting scientific research. Today, I wanted to pay tribute to the staff who have worked tirelessly in recent years to continue the tradition of excellence always associated with the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management. Under the leadership of staff director Kim Corthell and deputy staff director Paul Brubaker, the staff continues to perform a respected and recognized oversight and legislative function on Capitol Hill. I want to express my gratitude and thanks to the current subcommittee staff--Kim Corthell, Paul Brubaker, Paulina Collins, Bill Greenwalt, Frankie deVergie, and Andrea Gerber. I also want to recognize and thank other members of my staff who served on the subcommittee in the past--Mary Gerwin, Priscilla Hanley, Andy Antrobus, Jennifer Goldthwait, Kelly Metcalf Meese, Julie Denison, and Matthew Frost. Finally, I want to mention and thank the individuals who have most recently served on the subcommittee as fellows and detailees--Don Mullinax, Ralph Dawn, Marty Grenn, Chris Condon, and Peter Wade. These women and men made an invaluable contribution to the subcommittee's work and to improving government. I deeply appreciate their loyalty and dedication, and I wish all of these talented and hard working individuals continued success and much happiness in their future endeavors.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, as the 104th Congress and my own tenure in the Senate draw to a close, I want to take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to my staff on the Senate Special Committee on Aging for their fine work, dedicated service, and exemplary commitment to the needs of our Nation's elderly. I have had the privilege of serving as a member of the Aging Committee since first coming to the Senate, after having served on the House Aging Committee for many years. In 1991, I assumed the position of ranking Republican member on the Senate Special Committee on Aging, after the sudden and tragic death of John Heinz, our beloved friend and colleague from Pennsylvania. He left us long before his contributions were fully credited and before his mission could be completed. It was daunting indeed to follow in the footsteps of John Heinz, who was legendary in his advocacy on behalf of our Nation's senior citizens. In 1995, I succeeded another giant in the field of aging issues, Senator David Pryor, as chairman of the committee. Senator Pryor has been an indefatigable leader on issues affecting the quality of life for our seniors and protecting them from all forms of exploitation. David has decided to retire from the Senate, but the high standard of excellence that he set throughout his years as a Congressman, Governor, and Senator will be remembered with great fondness and gratitude by those who have been honored to serve with him, and by those who were so honorably served by him. Mr. President, I am proud that in these last 5 years the Aging Committee has had a strong record of achievement, thanks in large part to my highly dedicated and talented committee staff. The committee has brought many problems now facing our Nation's elderly to the attention of the Congress, policy makers, and the public. It has provoked public debate and has proposed solutions on how our Government programs can better serve the elderly and disabled. For example, the committee has examined a host of issues relating to Medicare and Medicaid. It has examined how managed care trends will affect the elderly and disabled populations, and how some Medicare HMO's have given poor quality and service to Medicare enrollees. We have reviewed the Medicare hotline and the level of service provided by the Medicare program itself to enrollees. The committee has identified how those with Alzheimer's disease and other chronic conditions of aging often fall through the cracks of our health care system, and how we should rethink our programs to provide more integrated care. The committee has placed strong emphasis on the long-term care needs of our Nation's elderly and disabled, recommending ways to protect the rights of nursing home residents and offering proposals on how to help families prepare for the crushing financial burden of long-term care. The committee has held hearings on the mental health needs of older Americans and heard riveting testimony on the once taboo subject of suicide among the elderly. Our hearings have cast a bright spotlight on the high prescription drug costs facing older Americans and how, tragically, some older Americans face the Hobson's choice of whether to buy food or medicine, because they simply cannot afford both. As has been the long tradition of the Aging Committee, we have exercised an active investigative agenda, focusing on how senior citizens are often prime targets of scams and con artists. Our investigations have revealed how some health care providers manipulate the system to siphon off as much as $100 billion a year from our health care system. We have heard sobering testimony from perpetrators on how easy it is to rip off the health care system and the taxpayers. Major reforms have been now signed into law to crack down against these abuse, in large part due to the investigations and recommendations from the Aging Committee. We have investigated telemarketer who offer prize giveaway, contests, investment schemes and other promises of gold to trusting senior citizens. Tragically, these scams have resulted in many seniors losing thousands of dollars, and often their entire retirement savings. The committee has devoted much attention to the unfettered growth of the Social Security disability program and how this program suffers from management deficiencies, fraud and abuse, and far too little oversight. We have provoked important public debate on problems in our Federal disability programs and have stressed the need to start facing head on the problems posed by the future insolvency of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. While this is but a taste of the entire record of the Aging Committee's activities over the past 5 years, it gives a flavor of how this committee has alerted the Congress and the public to the needs of our aging population. I want to pay special tribute to my staff on the Aging Committee who have played a major role in each of these committee efforts. Since 1991, my Aging Committee staff has been under the able direction of Mary Gerwin, who has been the driving force behind the issues we have reviewed and who has shaped many of the legislative proposals we made as a result of our investigative and oversight efforts. I also want to recognize the fine work and dedication of deputy staff director Priscilla Hobson Hanley; chief investigator Helen Albert; professional staff member Victoria Blatter; professional staff member Liz Liess; committee chief clerk Sally Ehrenfried; systems administrator Beth Watson; research assistants Lance Wain and Lindsey Ledwin; staff assistants Karina Lynch, Wendy Moltrup; and Myrna Webb; and GPO printer Joyce Ward. I extend my gratitude to these and all of the many committee staff, both past and present, who have contributed greatly to the mission of the committee. I also want to recognize the fine work of Kathryn Gest, my press secretary and Mike Townsend, committee press secretary, for their excellent work in promoting the work of the Aging Committee. Mr. President, the Aging Committee is perhaps unique among congressional committee due to its strong bipartisan cooperation. I want to congratulate and thank Senator Pryor's dedicated staff on the committee for their many years of service to both the Senate and our senior citizens. As I retire from the Senate, my staff will disperse to seek new opportunities and to make their contributions to the Nation in other ways. I wish them well and am deeply indebted to them for their service. The Senate Special Committee on Aging serves a very special purpose for the Congress and the Nation--and my staff on that committee has been very special indeed.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering this morning to H.R. 4194, a bill to reauthorize alternative means of dispute resolution in the Federal administrative process, is the result of a compromise reached last night with the other house. The amendment deals with the issue of bid protest jurisdiction in the Federal district courts and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The amendment will expand the bid protest jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. It should be noted, however, that this amendment in no way expands the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims beyond bid protests or changes the standard of review in any other area of jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. Currently, the Court of Federal Claims only has jurisdiction over bid protests which are filed before a contract award is made. My amendment provides for both pre- and post-award jurisdiction. The Federal district courts also have jurisdiction over bid protests. Prior to a 1969 Federal court decision, however, the Federal district courts had no jurisdiction over Federal contract awards. A Federal district court, in Scanwell Lab., Inc. versus Shaffer, held that a contractor can challenge a Federal contract award in Federal district court under the Administrative Procedures Act. It is my belief that having multiple judicial bodies review bid protests of Federal contracts has resulted in forum shopping as litigants search for the most favorable forum. Additionally, the resulting disparate bodies of law between the circuits has created a situation where there is no national uniformity in resolving these disputes. That is why I have included provisions in this amendment for studying the issue of concurrent jurisdiction and have provided for the repeal of the Federal district courts' Scanwell jurisdiction after the study is complete in 2001. The chamber of commerce fully supports this language as do our colleagues in the other chamber. I would like to express my deep gratitude for the willingness of my colleagues and their staffs in both houses to work with me and my staff to develop this compromise.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, at the request of the city of Brewer, ME, I am introducing S. 2153, legislation to name the post office building in Brewer the ``Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain Post Office Building.'' For the people of Maine, Joshua Chamberlain is a household name-- Civil War hero, four-term Governor of Maine, president of Bowdoin College, scholar and professor. He is recognized among many historians as one of the most remarkable soldiers in American history. He played a crucial role at Little Round Top, on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, when he led the 20th Regiment Infantry, Maine Volunteers in holding the extreme left flank of the Union line against Confederate attack. After running out of ammunition and being outnumbered two to one, Chamberlain rallied his regiment, charged down Little Round Top using bayonets to break up the Confederate attack and took nearly 400 Confederate prisoners. In 1893, Congress gave him the Medal of Honor for his gallantry at Gettysburg. He is also remembered for the surrender of Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox, when Gen. Ulysses S. Grant chose Chamberlain to receive the formal surrender of weapons and colors. His ancestors migrated from England in the mid 1600's settling in Woburn, MA, and made their own significant contributions serving this country. His great-grandfathers served in the Revolution, his grandfather was a colonel in the War of 1812, and his father acted as second in command on the American side in the Aroostook War in 1839. Joshua Chamberlain was born in Brewer, ME, in 1828. He attended school in Brewer, graduated from Bowdoin College, in Brunswick, ME, in 1852 and completed a course at the Bangor Theological Seminary in 1855. He married that year and served as professor of rhetoric, oratory, and modern languages at Bowdoin. In 1862, he was granted a leave of absence to study abroad but he abandoned this plan and enlisted as lieutenant colonel of the 20th Maine. He remained in active service until the end of the Civil War, taking part in 24 battles including Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Spottsylvania, Cold Harbor, Petersburg, and Five Forks. He was wounded six times, once almost fatally at Petersburg. He was made a brigadier general on the field by Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. Chamberlain returned briefly to his academic duties at Bowdoin, but was soon elected Governor of Maine, a position he served with great distinction for four terms. He helped to establish the new agricultural and technical college at Orono which eventually grew into the University of Maine. In 1871 he returned to Bowdoin to serve as president while also lecturing on mental and moral philosophy, political science, and public law. He died in Portland in 1914 at the age of 85. The Civil War, comments historian Geoffrey Ward, ``was a war that thrust figures of common clay into monuments of true grandeur.'' How well the actions of Joshua Chamberlain affirm this observation. He was a man inspired to greatness by the cause he served. I hope my colleagues will work with me in passing this legislation as a means of paying tribute to the many years of outstanding service Joshua Chamberlain gave to the State of Maine and the country.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, recently, Dave Ehrenfried retired after 40 years as an editor and cornerstone of Lewiston, ME's Sun- Journal. He began at the paper in 1956, where he quickly showed his talent for newspaper reporting. Dave held many positions throughout his tenure at the Sun-Journal. Most notably, his work was recognized by the New England News Executives Association with a first place award for editorial writing in 1982. In 1988, Dave was named the assistant executive editor at the Sun-Journal and in 1991 he became a representative, advocating for readers of the daily and Sunday papers. He was once again recognized by his peers for his dedication to journalism by being asked to serve as president of the New England Society of Newspaper Editors in 1993. Dave has always been a hard worker, a requirement when you work for one of Maine's leading newspapers. His coworkers hold him in the highest esteem, including one member of the Sun-Journal staff who referred to him as a quiet leader with sound judgment. Dave gave himself and his time to all who asked and the people who turned to him who knew that they were heard. Dave is a remarkable person who has dedicated his life to journalism and integrity. I commend his commitment to his family, his coworkers, and to Maine journalism.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, this morning I rise to commend the National Institutes of Health and its leadership for changing the way the Government buys technology. Earlier this year, the Information Technology Management Reform Act, which I authored, became law. ITMRA fundamentally changes the rules governing how the Government purchases and uses technology. It eliminated overly bureaucratic and cumbersome procedures that resulted in the Government's failure to get what it needed and frustrated vendors who were unable to provide government with the optimum solution. ITMRA sets the stage for Federal agencies to emulate successful organizations and break up large computer projects into smaller more manageable segments--a strategy that up to now had been hindered by a procurement system that encourages large complex contracts. Despite passage of this major reform, the Government must also overcome a culture that arose from the antiquated and cumbersome way of doing business. While the full impact of this reform may take a little time to be felt, some agencies have seized the opportunity to become leaders in innovation consistent with the spirit and intent of the legislation. While I have witnessed recent innovations within the Department of Defense, General Services Administration and a number of other agencies, one effort stands out as exemplifying the spirit behind ITMRA and is particularly well developed based on the intent behind ITMRA. The chief information officers solutions and partners contract at the National Institutes of Health is an excellent example of how government, under ITMRA, will be able to meet its technology needs in a reasonable time frame and obtain optimum solutions. By comprehending the possibilities presented by recently enacted procurement reform, NIH has provided a contracting vehicle that will allow Federal agencies to buy goods and services in a manner that is competitive, easy to use, fair and timely. Although the ultimate success of this program will depend on NIH's ability to properly administer the task orders it receives, the innovation demonstrated in the early phases of this procurement deserves special mention. In particular, the leadership and hard work of two NIH employees, Manny DeVera and Gale Greenwald, deserve special attention. Both Mr. DeVera and Ms. Greenwald quickly recognized the potential of ITMRA and procurement reform, allowing them to award a flexible contract in record time. Both the Government customers and the vendor community are quite excited about the prospects for obtaining needed services in a timely and efficient manner. Government clients will be able to obtain the technology, services, and solutions they need under ITMRA via competitive task orders. Agencies will not have to bundle their requirements into large contracts that take years to award and often end in protest and litigation. Under the new law, an agency can look to the growing number of multiple award task order contracts or the GSA schedule to fulfill information technology requirements. Agency chief information officers can then focus on the return on investment from information technology rather than on finding ways to overcome obstacles in the Federal procurement system. Mr. President, while this contract must still prove itself, this effort represents a milestone in innovation. The two Federal employees most responsible for this innovation, Manny DeVera and Gale Greenwald, deserve our thanks and appreciation.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, it is altogether fitting that I follow the remarks of my colleague from Kansas. I think those who have been watching have seen just an example of the kind of passion that she has brought to public service, the kind of strength and integrity that she continues to display even in the waning moments of this session. I know the country is going to miss her service. I am certainly going to miss being a partner in so many endeavors that we have had over the past 18 years in the U.S. Senate. I must say, this is both a sentimental and a sweet moment for me. It shortly will mark 24 years of serving in both the House and the Senate. It is a mere blink of the cosmic eye of time, and it has all been telescoped into these final few moments as we conclude this session. So it is sentimental in that sense, but it is also sweet in another, because I have been standing in the glow cast by so many friends and their kind remarks. Last evening, Senator Byrd took the floor and gave an encomium to me. I was pleased that I was not here to hear it, because, had I been here, I would have been too embarrassed to have remained on the floor. If someone throws rocks at me, I am quite accustomed to throwing them back. But if you hurl a bouquet, then I am usually undone. So, I thank Senator Byrd for his gracious comments last night, along with those of Senator Nunn, who also was most kind. He and I have served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for the past 18 years. I must say it has been truly an honor for me to have served with such a distinguished, intelligent, and dedicated individual, one who has dedicated his life to promoting a sound and responsible national defense policy, foreign policy, and, indeed, economic policy. It is my hope that sometime in the future we will be able to continue efforts in all of these areas. While I have been caught up in the golden afterglow of the accolades of my colleagues and those of the editorial writers in my home State, I have always been mindful of Dr. Johnson's observation that: ``In lapidary inscriptions, men are not under oath.'' I suspect there may be some truth to that as far as the editorial comments are concerned or final tributes to our parting Members. I might say, for my own part, I have been little more than Aesop's fly on the wheel of history's chariot, marveling that I could kick up so much dust in a period of 2\1/2\ decades. I have also been deeply humbled by the experience. I think it is a testament to the openness of the people of this country, especially the people of Maine, that a boy who was born in the bed of his mother on the third story of a tenement building on Hancock Street, in Bangor, ME, just a block away from what used to be described as the ``Devil's half acre'' could, in fact, be elected to the greatest elective body in the entire world. Maine people have always demonstrated a generosity of heart and, also, I believe, self-serving as it may sound, a great soundness of mind, to judge people not on their origins, not on their economic status, ethnicity or race, but on merit, and that is why, historically, we can point to people like Margaret Chase Smith, who stood on this floor so many years ago and delivered her ``Declaration of Conscience.'' It is why the people of Maine elected Ed Muskie, whom we lost just a few months ago who demonstrated his commitment to this Nation's interest in helping to clean up our waterways, improve the quality of our air and became known as Mr. Clean, then Mr. Budget, and the enormous contribution he made through public service to the entire country. The people of Maine are very, very proud of him and are working to memorialize all of his work. They elected George Mitchell, who, in a very short period of time, became the Senate majority leader and one of the most effective in the history of this body. They elected Olympia Snowe to replace Senator Mitchell when he decided to retire. Soon I believe they are going to send Susan Collins to sit beside Olympia Snowe. Governor King, who is an Independent Governor of the State of Maine, made the comment when I announced my retirement, ``What do you do? What does a State do when it loses Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig?'' I suspect he was referring to Senator Mitchell as being Babe Ruth and me as Lou Gehrig. But what do you do? I might say the same for Kansas. What does Kansas do when it loses a Bob Dole and a Nancy Kassebaum? What the people of Maine will do is do what the Yankees did. They will go out and recruit Mickey Mantle, which they have done in Olympia Snowe, and Roger Maris, which they will have in Susan Collins. I think all of us feel the sense of loss that so many are leaving-- some 13 now, with Bob Dole, 14--the U.S. Senate at the end of this term. We feel that perhaps things won't go on as they should. People talk about the ``center no longer holding, of things falling apart.'' But I believe it was Charles De Gaulle who said ``That our graveyards are filled with indispensable people.'' There will be others equally qualified, if not more qualified, to take our place in this distinguished institution. I had occasion to travel out to Ann Arbor, MI, yesterday afternoon to partake in a conference that was held at the Gerald Ford Library. The moderator of the panel, which consisted of Tom Foley, Bob Michel, and myself, hit me with a question the moment I arrived. He said, ``Why are you leaving? Why are you and so many others leaving?'' Of course, I could have given a glib answer and said, ``Well, I'd rather have people wonder why I'm leaving than stay and have people wonder why I'm staying.'' But it was a serious question that required a serious answer. Each of us are leaving for different and profoundly personal reasons. Some are departing the Senate at the end of this session because of age. Some are departing because of health factors. Some are departing, like my colleague from Kansas, for family reasons, of wanting to be at home with her children and grandchildren. For me, I must say, there is never a good time to leave the best job in the world. There is never a good time to do that. But for me, it is the best time. I have what I would call a Gothic preoccupation with the relentless tick of time. I served almost a quarter of a century on Capitol Hill now representing the people of Maine, and I know had I chosen to run one more term, the pressure would have been on to say, ``Well, now that you are chairman of one of the various committees on which you serve, we need to keep you where you are, so run again.'' So it would be 12 years from now I would then still be running after Senator Strom Thurmond, whom I am sure by that time would have renounced his late-blooming support for term limits and decided he wanted just one more term. But the subject of term limits, of course, raises another issue. The people of Maine passed by way of referendum a proposal to place a two- term limitation on those who serve in the U.S. Senate. It was not binding, as such. It was not retroactive, and so it never would have applied to me or, indeed, to Senator Mitchell. But it basically said something about the mood of the people of our State; that they feel, or have come to feel, at least those who voted, that 12 years is long enough. I must say, in the back of my mind, that weighed rather heavily; that even though it did not apply to me in any legal sense, in spirit, some were at least saying, you have been there twice as long as we would like to see people serve in the U.S. Congress. I think it is a mistake. It is open to, obviously, a difference of opinion, with good will on both sides of this particular debate. But I think it is a mistake to suggest that people should only be here 12 years and move on. It will only, in my judgment, continue the churning of people moving in, moving out, and we lose a sense of history that a Senator Robert Byrd possesses and that of Senator Moynihan and others. I can go down the list of people who serve with great distinction, who bring such a wealth of information, a sense of history, a sense of reverence for the finest institution in the world. That is a personal judgment on my part, but I think we should be wary of just pushing people in, pushing them out, relieving people of their responsibility of voting. We have term limits. We have them now. They are called elections. If you don't like what your elected official is doing, then go to the polls and vote them out. But, no, it is an easy way to say, ``We don't even have to think about it, it is automatic. You have done your 12 years; now move on.'' So that was something that weighed at least in the corners of my consciousness as to whether I should stay or leave. I must say to my colleagues that my goal in politics has always been quite modest, and that is to help restore a sense of confidence in the integrity of the process itself, to help bring Washington a bit closer to the main streets of my home State. I have always tried to bring a sense of balance and perspective and, yes, let me use the word, moderation. It is not in vogue today to talk about being a moderate. We are frequently depicted as being mushy or weak-principled or having no principle, looking for compromise--another word which has somehow taken on a negative tone. I recall after supporting the crime bill 2 years ago, a call came into one of my district offices, and a man was very angry. He said, ``I am angry with your boss,'' to one of my staffers. I said, ``Why was he angry?'' He said, if you excuse the expression, ``He's too damn reasonable.'' Perhaps that will be the epitaph on my gravestone. I believe it is essential to have passion in politics, provided that passion doesn't blind us to the need to seek, find and build consensus. Republicans and Democrats have different philosophies. We are different. We see the role of Government in different ways, of either the need for its limitation or expansion. But we have the same goal, and that is to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in this country. I also think it is sheer folly to believe that either party holds the keys to the kingdom of wisdom, and I think the danger to our political system is that each party is going to plant its feet in ideological cement and refuse to move. The Senate has changed since I first came here. The personalities have surely changed, and that is to be expected. It was inevitable. We had people of such stature like Senator Ribicoff, Senator Baker, Senator Javits, Senator Tower, Senator Jackson, Senator Rudman, Senator Danforth, and the list goes on. They have all departed from this institution, and we lost a great deal when they retired or passed away. So the personalities have changed, but the process has also changed. Toffler wrote a book some years ago in which he said we were entering the age of future shock, in which time would be speeded up by events and our customs and culture would be shaken in the hurricane winds of change. Those hurricane winds of change have been blowing through this Chamber over the past three decades as well, and has changed, fundamentally, the operation of the Senate itself. The introduction of cameras into our Chamber has changed it, some for the good and some not for the good. The House has always been able to act differently than the Senate. The House is a different body, a different institution with a different history. I served there for 6 years. I recall reading that Emerson with a visitor in the gallery, pointed to the House floor, and he said, ``There, sir, is a standing insurrection.'' And that is what it is. It is far more energetic and boisterous and full of passion because that is the House of the people. That is where they are closest to the people that we serve. The House undertook a 100-day march at the beginning of this session. They passed some major legislation. The pressure immediately was on the Senate: ``Why can't you do the same? We did all of this in 100 days. Why can't you do the same?'' And the answer is, the Senate was never designed to act in 100 days, to take up the same agenda in the same period of time. We were designed to slow down the process, to be more thoughtful about exactly what we were about, to take up major issues and to ventilate them, to debate them at length, if necessary, to allow the public to understand exactly what we were undertaking, to express their approbation or disapproval. But now the pressure is on to move faster and faster, to become more like the House. That is a great institution, but we should not merge the two identities. I think there has been a loss of reverence for our institutions. In fact, if you look, perhaps the Supreme Court may be the only institution for which there is a deep sense of respect and reverence, and perhaps that is because the mystique that surrounds it has yet to be torn away and shredded. I find it troubling that we see shoving matches outside committee rooms in the other body. While poets have asked, ``What rough beast slouching its way toward Bethlehem,'' we have to ask, ``What rough beast slouching its way toward the Potomac?'' Is it the Russian Duma? Have we come to shoving matches to make our points? It was discouraging to see that passions are so high that we have to resort to fisticuffs. Perhaps there is a recognition that we have gone too far. We can take some hope that Members in the other body are now holding retreats and actually socializing. Think about that. They are deciding to socialize, Democrats and Republicans, something unheard of for the past 2 years, and now starting to socialize to get to know each other a little bit better so that perhaps during the height of those passionate debates, they might still maintain a sense of order and respect. I remember during the Watergate process I served on the House Judiciary Committee that was debating whether to bring impeachment articles against Richard Nixon. It was more than 22 years ago. And I raised a question. I said, ``How did we ever get from `The Federalist Papers' to the edited transcripts? How have we come that far?'' And I wondered yesterday, in the same vein, how did we ever get away from the kind of relationships that Gerald Ford and ``Tip'' O'Neill and Tom Foley and Bob Michel had with each other where they could vigorously debate their philosophical differences but go out and play a round of golf or have a drink after debate ended that day, and now we find ourselves filing ethics complaints against each other, a volley going back and forth to see who can make the strongest charges against the other? Mr. President, there are many reasons why this is taking place. It would take a full day and longer to analyze them from a sociological point of view. I would prefer to defer to someone of Senator Moynihan's stature and knowledge, to talk about social issues. But I think radio and television has contributed somewhat to that stripping away of reverence for our institutions. We now have journalists who are heralded as celebrities. They have radio shows and television programs though which they have achieved a great deal of notoriety. Some of them achieve notoriety by taking the most extreme positions possible and using the most inflammatory rhetoric they can, and, of course, as the rhetoric becomes more extreme, their popularity tends to soar. As their popularity soars, the invitations for them to come and address various conventions and groups also continues to escalate, as do their speaking fees. Somehow, all of that excessive, inflated, and sometimes outrageous rhetoric starts to get recirculated back into the congressional debates, because then Members of Congress are invited to participate in those very shows and programs. They are then prone to come up with something equally extreme or quotable so that they can continue to be invited back on the programs. So a little vicious circle has been set up and set in motion, people then vying for the best quote, the most inflammatory, provocative thing they can say in order to make the news on that program or another. There is also the hydraulic pressure that everyone in this body and the other body faces from the endless quest for raising campaign funds. There is the rise of the negative attack ads. It is a sorry spectacle that we have been witnessing all too much. We all say that they are terrible, but all of the consultants say, ``But they work.'' So we have allowed ourselves to lower the sense of decency and civility in this country by attacking character, trying to portray our adversaries, our political adversaries as enemies, as evil-minded people who are set out to destroy the fabric of this country. We have witnessed the rise of special interest groups. There have always been special interest groups, but today they are far more organized, they are far more technologically advanced than ever before, and they have a greater capability than ever before of blunting and stultifying any attempt to forge legislation in the Congress. John Rauch wrote an article for the National Journal some time ago--I think since has been expanded into a book--but it referred to the process as ``demosclerosis,'' that the arteries of our democratic system have become so clogged with special-interest activities and organizations that it is virtually impossible to work any kind of change because single-minded groups have more at stake in preventing legislative changes than the general public has in supporting them. So there is that intensity of interest, and they are able to hit a button and suddenly flood our offices with 5,000 letters overnight or several hundred phone calls in the matter of a few hours. There is also, I must say, a reluctance on the part of the Members of this body and the other body to touch the so-called third rails, to touch politically volatile issues like Social Security and Medicare and entitlements. All of us have been shying away from these issues. We have to rethink exactly what the role of a U.S. Senator is. I always felt that it was the responsibility of Members of this body who are elected to come to Washington, to become as informed as they possibly could, to have an open door to all special interests--and everyone in this country has a special interest--to be open to all issues and arguments and advocates, and then to weigh the respective merits of those arguments, to sift through them and come to a conclusion and vote, and then go back to our constituents and explain exactly why we voted as we did, not just react to or appease the most vocal among our citizenry. Some of that has changed. We do not quite do that anymore. Today, we are being driven by overnight polls. Today, we are lobbied intensively by various groups. Today, everything has become compressed. Margaret Chase Smith, I mentioned her earlier. She used to sit over here to my right. She never announced a vote until the roll was called--never. And that was her particular mark, saying, ``I want to hear what all the arguments are before I make my decision.'' Most people cannot do that today. Most people are not allowed that luxury of waiting until debate is concluded before announcing their decision. Those who do run the risk of being criticized editorially or otherwise as being indecisive, possessing a Hamlet-like irresoluteness. You mean you do not know how you will vote on a bill that may come to the floor a month from now? Have you not thought it clearly through? We even get ranked by various groups on legislation that we do not cosponsor, so that you have black marks listed next to your name if you refuse to cosponsor a bill that may never come to the Senate floor. I have on occasion taken this podium and announced that the mail coming to my office and phone calls coming to my office were running heavily against the position I was about to take. Having said that on the Senate floor, my office would then be flooded with immediate calls saying, how dare you indicate that your mail is running two or three or four or five to one but you are going to vote the other way? How could you possibly be so arrogant? Well, of course, those callers presume that that body of mail and that volume of calls received reflect the will of the people of Maine, which may or may not be the case. Much of the time it is so highly organized it does not reflect the general will of the people of the State. But it also presumes that we serve no function other than to tally up the letters and to tally up the phone calls. You do not need us for that. You do not need a U.S. Senator to do that. All the people have to do is just buy a few computer terminals and put them in our office, have the mail come in, count the phone calls, and then push a button and have a vote. You do not need us for that. So we have to restore the sense of what the role of a Senator is. We have to really work to persuade our constituents that this is not a direct democracy, it is a republic. It is what Benjamin Franklin said: ``We have given you a republic, if you can keep it.'' So we have to dedicate ourselves not to a direct democracy, or to voting according to the passions of the moment of what an overnight poll may or may not show, but to consider thoughtfully and weigh the merits of the opposing arguments and then take a stand on an issue and try to persuade our constituents we have done, if not the right thing, at least a reasonable thing. If we cannot do that, we do not deserve to be reelected. That is the way the system should operate--not, take an overnight poll and formulate our policy to comport to what the overnight poll shows. Polling is now driving our policies, driving it in the White House--this is not the first White House--and it is driving it in Congress as well. Mr. President, I am fond of quoting from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, and the Presiding Officer as a very gifted attorney, I know, is familiar with his writings and his works. He wrote at one point: I often imagine Shakespeare or Napoleon summing himself up and thinking: ``Yes, I have written 5,000 lines of solid gold and a good deal of padding--I, who have covered the Milky Way with words that outshone the stars, yes, I beat the Australians in Italy and elsewhere, and I made a few brilliant campaigns, I ended up in a cul-de-sac. I, who dreamed of a world monarchy and Asiatic power. Holmes said, ``We cannot live our dreams, we are lucky enough if we can give a sample of our best, if in our hearts we can feel it has been nobly done.'' During the past 24 years, I have tried to give a sample of my best. I will leave it, of course, to the people of Maine to judge whether it has been nobly done. I mentioned a sample of the best, because yesterday for me was a very momentous day. I had the great privilege of cochairing a hearing held by the Senate Aging Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee. For the first time in 18 years, I had the honor of sitting beside Senator Mark Hatfield, a man whom I admire enormously, someone who stands as tall and straight and tough as any individual that has ever occupied these desks. We held a hearing to deal with the issue of providing in some fashion more funding for research for medical technologies and developments. We had quite a remarkable group of people testifying before that joint committee. We had General Schwarzkopf who, having defeated Saddam Hussein's army on the battlefield, waged another kind of battle against prostate cancer. He was successful, and he is now waging a campaign on a national level to educate the American people of what the dread disease really entails and how it needs to be combated. We heard from Rod Carew who talked about losing his 18-year-old daughter Michelle to leukemia, a very painful experience for him, and the television program that was shown to demonstrate her lightness of being, her generosity of heart and spirit was moving to all of us. We heard from Travis Roy. Travis Roy is a young man from Yarmouth, ME. He was a great hockey player. He lived for the moment that he would take to the rink and play for Boston University. He suited up, stepped on to the ice, and 11 seconds later he became a quadraplegic, having been shoved head first into the boards. But to listen to him talk about what his aspirations are, that he wanted one day to have the kind of help, medical help that would allow him to get married, to hug his wife, to hug his mother, to teach his son how to play hockey, as his father had taught him, was quite a moment. We had Joan Samuelson who has been waging a 9-year battle against Parkinson's disease. She talked about the day-to-day struggle that she has to encounter, and so many others, hundreds of thousands if not millions of others, have to confront every day of their lives, just to carry out functions that we take for granted. We heard from a young woman from Oregon who is dedicating her life to become a research scientist but does not know if she will be able to complete that kind of education or whether the funding will ever be available to carry on medical research. It was a momentous occasion for all of us. But what was equally poignant for me and memorable was the reaction of our colleagues. I paraphrased a poet during the course of the morning, and I said each of us, every one of us, here in the galleries, here on the floor, we all prepare a face to meet the faces that we meet. Every one of us puts on a mask every single day. But for at least a moment yesterday, every one of the Senators who were there dropped the mask of being U.S. Senators and revealed the pain and suffering that they, too, have known. We had Senator Pryor who talked about his son's illness, having cancer of his Achilles tendon and what that entailed. We heard from Senator Connie Mack who talked about the loss of his brother and his wife's fight against breast cancer. Conrad Burns, Harry Reid, Bob Bennett, Herb Kohl--each one of them told a personal story of their own pain and suffering of that of friends and family members. It was not, Mr. President, an adversarial hearing. It was a bipartisan meeting, a realization that we have to dedicate ourselves to defeating on a bipartisan basis common enemies that assault us daily. Yesterday we spoke of disease, but there are far more enemies that await us as we rocket our way into the 21st century. There is something called a balanced budget. We can work toward a balanced budget on a bipartisan basis. This is not a political statement. This is a moral imperative. This is something that we have an absolute obligation to our children and our grandchildren to do. It does not matter whether you are a Republican or a Democrat or Independent. We have to balance the budget within a reasonable timeframe if there is any hope for ever solving this country's fiscal crisis. Mr. President, we can have and we have to have a bipartisan consensus on the need for a strong national defense and a coherent and consistent foreign policy. I say this not as partisan, but we have lacked coherency, we have lacked consistency, and it has been to the great detriment of this country's credibility as the only superpower in the world. I am fond of thinking back to a time when Churchill was being served his breakfast by his man-servant and, as the breakfast was being delivered to him, he said, ``Take this pudding away; it has no theme.'' Well, we have been lacking a theme in foreign policy for too long. You cannot pick up today's paper without being disheartened, if you look at what is taking place in Israel today, or Russia, or Bosnia, or Iraq, or China, or Japan. You cannot adopt the policy or the position that, well, I am just going to focus upon domestic issues. You can't focus just on domestic issues. You have to focus on foreign policy because foreign activities can overwhelm your domestic concerns and considerations. We need to develop a strong bipartisan consensus on what the role of the country is to be in the next century. We have to do so and put aside those differences that we may have on other issues. Everyone is fond of saying, ``We can't be the world's policeman.'' I agree, but we can't afford to become a prisoner of world events either. It requires us to be engaged, and requires us to be engaged not only with the President, which we have yet to be engaged fully, in my judgment, on a number of key issues; we have to be engaged with our allies and, indeed, even our adversaries. We have to have a world view. There is no such notion of coming back to America, of zipping ourselves in a continental cocoon and watching the world unfold on CNN. We have to be actively and aggressively engaged in world affairs. History has shown that every time we have walked away from the world, the world has not walked away from us. The history of the 20th century has been one of warfare. What we need to prevent the 21st century from descending into warfare is an active, aggressive engagement in world affairs. Mr. President, we need to have a restoration of individual and community responsibilities. We don't need to debate that issue as Democrats or Republicans. We have to return to the stern virtues of discipline and self-reliance. That should not be a matter of partisan debate. Everyone understands what has happened in this country by simply turning to Government to solve our problems. We have to get back to a sense of moral responsibility, fiscal responsibility, self responsibility, to be accountable for our own actions, and, yes, turn to the Government and have that Government care for individuals who are unable to care for themselves, be they poor, disabled or elderly. We also, Mr. President, must work very hard on a bipartisan basis to heal the racial divide in this country. The words ``affirmative action'' are no longer in vogue; it is distinctly out of fashion to talk about affirmative action in America. Many people say it is the obligation of Government--if not the reality--to be colorblind. Well, we don't live in a colorblind society. It is a fiction. We live in a society in which racism is still very much alive. It is an evil that we have to rise up and confront day in and day out. The notion that we are all starting from the same line, the same end zone, running a 100-yard dash, is pure folly. Can you imagine suggesting that we are starting out equal, when you have some young children in suburbia who go to bed with their laptops and teddy bears at night, and children in the urban areas who go to sleep still ducking bullets that are fired by gangs? Are they starting off equally in our society? Affirmative action may not be the answer to these problems, but we cannot adopt a position of indifference or hostility to recognizing the need to overcome barriers that have been erected for centuries against people who have been deprived of their opportunity to participate fully in the American dream. Mr. President, I could go on at length about the subject of the need to heal the racial divide, or the wound that has been opened up in our communities. I will save it for another time in a different forum, obviously. I would like to conclude my remarks by referring to a book that was written many years ago by Allen Drury. If ever there was an author who captured the essence of what this institution at least used to be like, it was Allen Drury in his novel ``Advice and Consent,'' written and published in 1959. He said something which I have carried around with me from those very days when I first read the book. He said about us: They come, they stay, they make their mark writing big or little on their times in a strange, fantastic, fascinating land in which there are few absolute wrongs or absolute rights, few all-blacks or all-whites, few dead-certain positives that won't change tomorrow, their wonderful, mixed- up, blundering, stumbling, hopeful land, in which evil men do good things and bad men do evil things, where there is a delicate balance that only Americans can understand, and often they, too, are baffled. It was a wonderful description of Washington itself. But I have gone further back into the past in Mr. Drury's writings, and I found something even more pertinent and important to me. He kept a journal. He used to sit up in that press gallery and look down upon the workings of the U.S. Senate. He kept a journal between 1943 to 1945. It is a remarkable piece of writing. It is so brilliantly and eloquently expressed, I don't think there has been a better piece of writing since that time. He said something about the Senate which I would like to repeat for my colleagues, because I am sure that the book is not on the shelves of all of us. He said: You will find them very human, and you can thank God that they are. You will find that they consume a lot of time arguing, and you can thank God that they do. You will find that the way they do things is occasionally brilliant, but often slow and uncertain, and you can thank God that it is. Because of all these things, they are just like the rest of us, and you can thank God for that, too. That is their greatness and their strength, and that is what makes your Congress what it is--the most powerful guarantor of human liberties free men have devised. You put them there, and as long as they are there, then you can remain free because they don't like to be pushed around any more than you do. This is comforting to know. I don't know, if Mr. Drury were sitting up in the gallery today, that he would look down and find as much comfort as he did in 1943 through 1945. But I must say that I do. After all that I have said in pointing out all the difficulties and all the problems that confront us as an institution, I take hope. I look at people like Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, John Breaux of Louisiana, Kent Conrad, John Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Slade Gorton, who is sitting in the Chair, Bob Bennett, Pat Moynihan, and they are just a few--in spite of all of the difference, all of the criticism we have witnessed in the past--and John Glenn who just walked through the door. I include him by all means in that category of people that I look to the future with great hope and encouragement. I want to just point out that, several years ago, when Senator Sam Nunn and Senator Pete Domenici--two more giants in this body--offered an amendment to curb the growth of entitlements, I thought they came up with a very rational, responsible proposal. It said, let us take the entitlement programs that are growing at such a dramatic rate and see if we can't rein in those spending programs a little. Everybody who is entitled to enter a program can still come in and we will provide a cost-of-living adjustment, a COLA, every year, and for the next 2 years we will even add 2 percent, and then we will cap it at that rate. It sounded eminently reasonable to me. But what happened? How many people voted for that? I think it was 26. Only 26 Members were prepared to stand up and endure the wrath of our constituents, for fear that we were taking away something that they were entitled to. Well, that has changed, Mr. President, thanks to people like you, the senior Senator from Washington, and thanks to the others I have mentioned, and so many more, we had a vote recently in which we presented a balanced budget that included some very difficult choices. It included reductions in the growth of Medicare. It included some tax cuts--not as much as many had hoped but more than perhaps many believe we are entitled to at this moment in time, but, nonetheless, tax cuts; Medicare reductions; reductions of a half of a percentage point in the Consumer Price Index. Some would like to have at least 1 percent, but half a percent is a very courageous thing from Members to do in an election year. Forty-six Members of the U.S. Senate went on record in favor of that. That is why I am encouraged that we will find men and women succeeding those of us who are departing and who will look into the eyes of their constituents and say, ``This is something that is right for us to do.'' The Social Security system eventually will go bankrupt, the trustees say by the year 2029. Around 2015, revenues collected will be exceeded by payments to beneficiaries. Medicare will be broke in 6 years. It is a tragedy that the White House has absolved itself of this issue and has refused to come to the grips with the issue of Medicare solvency. I know what is going to happen. They will wait until the elections are over, and then, whoever wins at that time--if it is President Clinton who wins reelection, I can almost guarantee that the first thing he will do will call for the creation of a blue ribbon commission to resolve the Medicare crisis. It is an issue that should be debated this year. It should have been resolved this year, but it will not be. I take hope, Mr. President, when I look at leaders such as Tom Daschle and Trent Lott. I know, again, what the reaction was when Senator Mitchell, my colleague from Maine--again, I point out he was one of the most effective majority leaders in the history of this body--when he left, there was a great expression of woe. ``What will we do?'' When our distinguished colleague, Bob Dole, left, all of us felt the pang and the anxiety of saying, ``What are we going to do now?'' Bob Dole is no longer with us--a master at bringing people together. I believe that we are still in good hands. I am impressed with the majority leader, with his drive, intelligence, and determination and, yes, his pragmatism, his willingness on key issues to reach across the aisle, and to say, ``Can't we work this out? We have our differences, but can't we at least come to some kind of consensus on the major issues confronting this country?'' I am enormously impressed with his talents, and those of Senator Daschle as well, both men of outstanding ability and good will. To those people who declare that ``the center can no longer hold; things are going to fall apart; the best are lacking in conviction while the worst are full of passion and intensity,'' I say nonsense. There are going to be people who will come to this Chamber who will be filled with passion, to be sure, who will argue strenuously for their positions. But I believe it is inevitable that they will come back to the center. The center may have shifted slightly to the right. People are more conservative today than they were 10 or 20 years ago. But the center has to hold. If the center does not hold, then you will have stagnation. If the center does not hold, then you will have paralysis. If the center does not hold, you will have Government shutdowns. When that takes place, the level of cynicism that currently exists will only deepen to a point that is so dangerous that it will afflict us for generations to come. Mr. President, Alistair Cooke summed it up for me in his wonderful book called ``America.'' In one of his chapters, he made the inevitable comparison between the United States and Rome. He said that we, like Rome, were in danger of losing that which we profess to cherish most. He said liberty is the luxury of self-discipline; that those nations who have historically failed to discipline themselves have had discipline imposed upon them by others. He said America is a country in which I see the most persistent idealism and the greatest cynicism, and the race is on between its vitality and its decadence. He said we have--paraphrasing Franklin--a great country, and we can keep it, but only if we care to keep it. I believe based upon the many friends that I have made here--the people that I admire and who are leaving with me, but those, more importantly, who are staying and those who will come--that there is a genuine desire to keep this the greatest country on the face of the Earth, a country that is still a beacon of hope and idealism throughout a world that is filled with so much oppression and darkness, and this will remain the greatest living institution in all of the world. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 26 at 9 a.m. to hold a hearing to discuss increasing funding for biomedical research.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about Taiwan's new Foreign Minister, John H. Chang. Mr. Chang's selection as Foreign Minister at this crucial moment in relations between mainland China and Taiwan is particularly appropriate, because his background represents the complexity of the cross-straits relationship writ small. Born on the mainland in the midst of the Second World War, Chang came with his family to Taiwan in 1949. Although a mainlander by background, Minister Chang grew up among local Taiwanese and became equally comfortable speaking Mandarin, Taiwanese, and Hakka. He has been able to bridge the tensions between Taiwanese and mainlanders that have marked much of the island's postwar politics. Among the first KMT leaders to open a dialog with opposition members, Minister Chang served as a key player in the talks between the governing party and the Taiwanese opposition in the years leading up to the democratizing reforms of the late 1980's. Earlier this year, Chang won the highest percentage of votes of any candidate in Taiwan's assembly elections. Minister Chang is a skilled diplomat and a seasoned negotiator. His presence in President Lee Teng-hui's cabinet should be a force for good in cross-straits relations. Mr. President, I request that an article on Minister Chang from the Asian Wall Street Journal be placed in the Record at this point to further acquaint my colleagues with Minister Chang and his background. [From the Asian Wall Street Journal, June 21, 1996] Chang Aims To Expand Taiwan's Role on World Stage (By Leslie Chang) Taipei.--By his second day in office, Taiwan's foreign minister was hearing the first attacks from China: He is ``untrustworthy'' and ``betraying (his) family.'' Mention of the criticisms, attributed to Beijing sources and reported in a Hong Kong newspaper, elicits only a diplomatic ``no comment'' from John Chang, in his first interview since joining the new cabinet of Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui last week. But in an hour long conservation in the ministry's lushly appointed reception room, lined with framed photographs of the career diplomat with everyone from Mikhail Gorbachev to Bob Hope, the 55-year-old Mr. Chang isn't always so circumspect. ``It is mainland China which has complicated the issue, which has confused all the world,'' asserts Mr. Chang, speaking of a year of heightened tensions between Beijing and Taipei. As Mr. Chang takes on the touchiest of ministerial portfolios amid that standoff, such broadsides and rebuttals seem a fitting start. After all, the very existence of his job is irritating to Chinese leaders, who regard Taiwan as a Chinese province, which shouldn't pursue its own foreign policy. And Mr. Chang likely will work aggressively to beef up the island's ties with other countries, analysts say, while his good relations with the president ensure a more seamless foreign policy than ever before. ``His profile will be higher'' than that of his predecessor, Fredrick Chien, predicts Chou Yu-kou, who has written a biography of Mr. Chang's mother as well as three biographies of Taiwan's current president. Mr. Chang's ``voice can be louder; he can push hard for `pragmatic diplomacy,' '' Ms. Chou says, referring to Mr. Lee's policy of establishing formal ties with as many nations as possible. One reason Mr. Chang can step up these efforts lies in his unusual background: He is a grandson of Chiang Kai-shek, who ruled China for two decades before fleeing with his Nationalist troops to Taiwan in 1949, defeated by the Chinese Communists in a civil war. Mr. Chang and a twin brother who died earlier this year were the illegitimate offspring of a wartime affair between Chiang Ching-kuo, the general's son and later Taiwan's president, and a woman he met in the southern Chinese province of Jiangxi, who died shortly after the twins were born. But Mr. Chang and his twin brother, who came to Taiwan in 1949 and were raised by their maternal grandmother, were unaware of their illustrious parentage until they went to college, according to Ms. Chou's book. While most main landers settled in Taipei, speaking the official Chinese Mandarin dialect among themselves and dominating all top government and military posts, the boys grew up in the smaller northern city of Hsinchu and spoke the local Taiwanese and Hakka dialects. ``I was brought up . . . with native children,'' says Mr. Chang. ``I see no differences between mainlanders and Taiwanese.'' Mr. Chang's viewpoint is unusual on an island where ethnic differences often lie just beneath the surface. Such close associations with local Taiwanese people, he believes, helped him garner the highest percentage of votes island-wide in March elections to Taiwan's National Assembly. The combination of an elite mainland background and Taiwanese sympathies also gives Mr. Chang the clout to do things his way. As a rising star in Taiwan's diplomatic corps in the late 1970s, Mr. Chang was one of the first government officials to initiate contact with antigovernnment politicians, many of whom had fled abroad and faced treason charges if they returned. Mr. Chang helped some of those politicians to get off the government's blacklist and return to Taiwan. ``He was pretty open, willing to take (such) risks,'' recalls C.J. Chen, a vice minister of foreign affairs who has known Mr. Chang for more than two decades. At the same time, he adds, ``because of his background, people would have little doubt about his loyalty.'' Acquaintances describe Mr. Chang as liberal-minded and full of energy. In his previous post as Overseas Chinese Affairs Commissioner, for example, Mr. Chang shook up the sleepy cabinet-level position by expanding contacts with overseas Chinese communities around the world. In January, he hosted a high-profile breakfast meeting in Washington between Taiwan politicians and some of their U.S. counterparts, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich. At a news conference last week, while other new cabinet members shuffled papers and rattled off statistics, Mr. Chang addressed each reporter by name and gave colorful responses. Asked which was more important, Taiwan's foreign policy or its policy toward the mainland, he responded, ``If you are going fishing, is it the hook or the line that is important?'' Already, Mr. Chang is signaling a shift in tone from that of his predecessor, Mr. Chien, who held the more conciliatory stance that policy toward the mainland took precedence over foreign policy. It is Mr. Chang's stepped up efforts to raise Taiwan's international profile that has led some in Beijing to accuse him of betraying the ideals of his father and grandfather, who had hoped that the island would one day reunify with the mainland. On some points, Mr. Chang strikes softer notes. Taiwan's continuing efforts to join international organizations, he says, will focus more on ``functional agencies'' such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization. And while Taiwan will continue its efforts to take a more active role in the United Nations--the move on the international stage that most angers Beijing--Mr. Chang notes that Taiwan isn't formally seeking U.N. membership, but rather, it asks only that the U.N. study the issue of the representation of Taiwan, which hasn't been a member of the world body since 1971. But in the next breath, Mr. Chang says he is planning overseas trips for later this year, and hopes to sign on new countries ``who want to have formal relationships with us,'' adding to the 31 nations that currently recognize Taiwan. Which new countries might those be? The diplomatic veil drops again. ``You will hear about it,'' he promises, smiling.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, of these housing projects, all of which receive project-based assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 14 are financed through the Maine State Housing Authority. None of them are FHA-insured. We would like to further confirm our understanding that the project-based contracts for these particular housing projects will be renewed for 1-year at the current rent level under the terms and conditions of paragraph (2), section 211 of the housing appropriations bill.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 24, at 9 a.m. to hold a hearing to discuss Social Security reform.

Mr. COHEN

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

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

Mr. COHEN

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

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now go into a period of morning business with Members allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

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 Thursday, September 26, 1996, at 9 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building. The hearing will discuss increasing funding for biomedical research.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 19, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing to discuss Social Security reform.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Special Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on Tuesday, September 24, 1996, at 9 a.m., in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will discuss Social Security reform.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the fiscal year 1997 intelligence authorization bill. In addition to containing the annual schedule of authorizations for intelligence activities, a matter vital to U.S. national security, this legislation contains important provisions intended to reorganize the U.S. intelligence community in order to increase its efficiency and effectiveness. This bill also contains badly needed legislation to criminalize the theft of U.S. economic and proprietary data by foreign governments or their agents. My colleagues should be aware that notwithstanding the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of modern information systems, the organization of the United States intelligence community has remained essentially unchanged since 1947. The modest changes proposed in this legislation, intended to assist the Director of Central Intelligence manage this disparate and complex community in behalf of its many consumers, are in my view long overdue. The U.S. intelligence community is without equal in terms of its sophistication and global access. Yet, I believe that we can acquire even more capability from our intelligence community if changes are made to its organization and management. During the course of the last few years, for example, we have learned that the National Reconnaissance Office carried billions of dollars in so-called forward- funding on its books. These funds, which might have been either returned to the Treasury or used for more pressing activities in the intelligence community or Defense Department, remained hidden from view in large part because the Director of Central Intelligence [DCI] and his staff were not even aware of their existence. I think this episode illustrates as well as any the fact that DCI has often been less of a director than a spokesman and ombudsman for the intelligence community. His degree of control and access to information has often been shockingly limited, yet he is the individual that the President, Congress, and the Secretary of Defense look to ensure that the intelligence community is operating both effectively and within the law. Another startling example of the limits of the DCI's control and access occurred during the Intelligence Committee's investigation into the tragic Aldrich Ames case. One of the surprising facts to emerge from this investigation was the revelation that neither William Webster nor Bob Gates knew the extent of the losses caused by Aldrich Ames within the ranks of the CIA's Russian assets, nor the degree of penetration that had obviously occurred. Senior managers in the Directorate of Operations, like senior managers in the National Reconnaissance Office, felt free to withhold this critical information from the individual nominally responsible for the performance of the U.S. intelligence community. The bill currently before the Senate would significantly strengthen the role of the DCI as the leader of the U.S. intelligence community and thereby help to ensure greater coherence and discipline within its ranks. First, section 707 of this bill grants the DCI new statutory authority to participate with the Secretary of Defense in developing the Joint Military Intelligence Program [JMIP] and individual service department [TIARA] intelligence budgets. The intent of this section is to eliminate duplication among national and military intelligence programs. Second, this measure stipulates that the DCI is responsible for approving all intelligence collection requirements and priorities. Third, it requires the DCI to be consulted regarding proposed reprogrammings within the Joint Military Intelligence budget. Finally, section 707 requires the DCI and Secretary of Defense to develop a joint data base for all intelligence programs' budget and activities. This provision will help to eliminate waste and duplication by ensuring that the DCI and his staff have access to all of the information necessary to evaluate programs within different intelligence organizations. Section 716 of the bill will give DCI a voice in the selection of the individuals who serve as the heads of U.S. intelligence organizations. While these same officials must in some cases also report to the Secretary of Defense, there is no reason in my view not to involve the DCI in their selection. Imagine trying to run a business in the private sector, or manage your office here in the Senate, if you were not free to select or discipline your subordinates. Yet, that is the situation that the DCI finds himself in with regard to his nominal subordinates at DIAA, NSA, and NRO--the organizations which account for the great preponderance of personnel and resources within the intelligence community. This bill will ensure that the DCI concurs in the selection of intelligence agency heads by the Secretary of Defense, or that his nonconcurrence be brought to the attention of the President in the event of a disagreement. The DCI, pursuant to this provision, would also provide the Secretary of Defense an annual performance evaluation of the heads of NSA, NRO, and the new National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Sections 709, 710, and 711 of the bill strengthen the DCI's staff by establishing new, senior intelligence community staff positions directly subordinate to the DCI. Specifically, the bill establishes DCI deputies for collection, analysis, and administration. This approach differs from that proposed by the administration, which seeks to have a single DCI deputy for community affairs and a second for the CIA. I am confident that these different approaches, which share a common objective, can be resolved in discussions with the House Intelligence Committee and the administration prior to approval of the Intelligence conference report later this month. Mr. President, these organizational provisions are the product of numerous hearings held by the Intelligence Committee dating back to 1990. They are also to some degree the product of the Presidential Commission on Intelligence sponsored 2 years ago in the Senate by our distinguished colleague Senator John Warner of Virginia. Finally, these provisions reflect substantial contributions and refinements made by the members and staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee. These provisions have been the subject of substantial discussions, hearings, and debate, and I believe they deserve the support of every Senator. In addition to these very substantial and important organizational provisions, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to title V of S. 1718, which criminalizes economic espionage conducted against the United States by foreign governments and their agents. Too often, when considering the issue of economic espionage, the question that has been asked is whether or not the United States should try to collect information that might be of value to U.S. industry. I believe the answer to that question is clearly ``no.'' The issue that has not received as much attention as it deserves, in my opinion, concerns the threat posed to the U.S. economy by acts of industrial espionage perpetrated by foreign governments. Over the last few years I have tried to move the discussion of these matters out of the closed-door settings of the Intelligence and Armed Services Committees and into the public domain. Nearly 3 years ago the Senate adopted an amendment I offered to S. 4, the National Competitiveness Act, requiring the President to submit an annual report on foreign industrial espionage modeled on the State Department's annual report on terrorism, which has done a great deal to increase media, and thus public, awareness of the terrorism threat. I offered my amendment to the competitiveness bill so that it would attract the attention of the business media, rather than the defense-oriented press, and so that the Commerce Committee would have jurisdiction over it and become a forum for congressional oversight of this problem. While this reporting requirement had to be moved to the intelligence authorization bill after S. 4 stalled in conference, I am pleased that the first two annual reports have resulted in more and better media coverage of the threat that economic espionage poses to U.S. industry. At the same time, the President's report relegated too much information to the classified appendix, not because release of the information would have put at risk sources and methods, but because it would have diplomatic repercussions. Nevertheless, awareness of the problem has been increasing, as has the need to provide new tools to the FBI to deter the theft of critical U.S. trade and economic information. To their credit, Director Freeh and other administration officials have been forward-leaning in addressing the problem, and we are now in the position of enjoying administration support for the legislation that Senator Specter and I introduced, which has been incorporated in this bill, to provide the FBI the tools necessary to defeat and when necessary successfully prosecute acts of economic espionage. I expect the FBI and the Justice Department to use the new authorities provided by this legislation to aggressively investigate and prosecute acts of economic espionage. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, as well as their staff, for their dedication and hard work. It has not been easy to forge a consensus on the many legislative provisions contained in this bill, but the very dedicated managers of the bill have found solutions to the concerns raised by the Armed Services Committee and the Department of Defense. In closing, I would like to also express my admiration for the thousands of dedicated personnel who labor in obscurity within the U.S. intelligence community. Most of their accomplishments remain secret, but in my nearly 10 years of service on the Intelligence Committee, I have developed enormous respect and appreciation for their achievements. They deserve the support and appreciation of the American people, the best managerial structure we can provide, and the resources necessary to accomplish their many missions. I believe this bill is fully consistent with those objectives and I urge its adoption by the Senate.

Mr. COHEN

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

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Special Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on Thursday, September 19, 1996, at 9:30 a.m., in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will discuss Social Security reform.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I would say that the Senator from Connecticut is correct in his interpretation of the language in the bill regarding the transfer of design data between the two shipyards. It was the intent of the conferees to reaffirm last year's requirement requiring the transfer of design data regarding the new attack submarine to Newport News Shipbuilding. It was not the intent of the conferees to change the terms of the memorandum of agreement. Further, it was the intent of the conferees that the appropriate US Navy official resolve differences of opinion about what information is required to be transferred under the MOA.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, earlier this year the Senate family lost one of its own, Ruth Young Watt, the former chief clerk of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee, who passed away peacefully on June 16, 1996. Ruth's Senate career spanned 32 years. Beginning as the clerk of the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program for Senator Owen Brewster of Maine, Ruth later became the chief clerk of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Affairs Committee where she worked for 31 years. Ruth also served as chief clerk of the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor-Management Relations from 1957 until 1960. Ruth gave herself and her time to all who asked. People who turned to Ruth Watt knew they were hard and that she would do her best. As chief clerk she played an integral role in the committee; without her, operations would not have run as smoothly and succinctly as they did under her care. Ruth was a remarkable woman who dedicated all of her life to public service. I commend her commitment to her country, to her coworkers and to her family. On behalf of the Senate family, I extend my condolences to Ruth's siblings, Richard Young, Frances Lilly, and Kathryn Woods. Our prayers and our thoughts are with them.

Mr. COHEN

Mr. COHEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5177, As Modified