Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. And is it true that fisheries managers can accurately predict how much fish can be caught from year-to-year?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, as has been indicated by my colleagues, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, we have before us--we do not have before us, but we would like to have before us S. 2251, entitled the ``Risk Management for the 21st Century Act.'' It has been certainly aptly described by the distinguished chairman and Senator Harkin. This legislation is a slightly modified version of a bill by the same name; that is, S. 1580 which was introduced by Senator Kerrey and myself last fall. It was supported by a large number of our colleagues. Our farmers and ranchers have to deal with multiple threats of weather and pests and disease that few, if any, businesses must experience on a daily basis. As we all know, it can often be a very brutal up-and-down cycle, a real price roller coaster that our farmers and ranchers must face. To get through these cycles, our producers must have crop insurance and risk management tools at work. This bill represents a real personal effort on my part and that of my staff, as well as Senator Kerrey and other colleagues. But it was about 20 years ago that my predecessor in the House of Representatives, the Honorable Keith Sebelius, cast the deciding vote to create the Federal Crop Insurance Program. Since that time, it has been almost 20 years now we have gone through numerous reforms to get this right. This has been a personal commitment of mine for some time. If you sit on the wagon and listen to farmers, regardless of which region they come from, or what commodity they are involved in, time and time again they have come to us and said it is time for major reforms in the program. Two years ago, Senator Kerrey and I agreed to work together on this issue. I said: Bob, do you think we can do this? He said: Well, we don't have any other alternative but to try. Tackling the national and comprehensive Crop Insurance Program has been--I don't know--sort of like pushing a rope. But we certainly agreed on the issue. We have been working on this legislation with able staff and with the help of the chairman and the distinguished ranking member. We have been working on this for nearly 18 months nonstop. We began the effort in earnest when we gave every farm, commodity, lending, and insurance group the opportunity to provide their suggestions for improvements in the Crop Insurance Program. We asked everybody--we cast a wide net: How do you want to improve this? The response to this call for comments was overwhelming. The comments we received certainly gave us a clear and common direction in which we needed to go in regard to this legislation. Who am I talking about? If I could find the list here because we have a letter dated just a couple of days ago: As organizations representing farm, lending, and insurance industries, we are writing to strongly urge that the Senate pass the recently reported Senate Agriculture Committee crop insurance risk management bill. We have the American Association of Crop Insurers, the American Bankers Association. Don't forget, this is a lender's issue as well. This is an issue that affects the lending institutions. Many of them simply will not continue to go down the road on behalf of our producers without what they believe is reasonable crop insurance. We have the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Feed Industry Association, the American Nursery and Landscape Association-- let me repeat that--the American Nursery and Landscape Association. Why am I saying that? Because that particular group represents, in many of the Northeastern States, the No. 1 major agriculture interest. I understand there is some concern on the part of those from the Northeastern part of our country that perhaps their needs have not been addressed to the extent that they believe would be commensurate with proper reform. We have the American Soybean Association, the Crop Insurance Research Bureau, the Farm Credit Council, the Independent Community Bankers Association, the Independent Insurance Agents of America. I do not mean to get too tedious, but this is a long list of everybody involved in agriculture who has come to the conclusion that this bill is a good bill and we should pass it. We have the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Barley Growers Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Farmers Union, the National Grain Sorghum Producers, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Sunflower Association, the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents, the Rural Community Insurance Services, the Society of the American Florists. If Members will vote for this, they will get a floral bouquet, as well as bouquets of credits from all these organizations. We have the U.S. Canola Association. I could go on with other lists, but I think I have made my point. These groups told us to do the following. This also represents all the producers from all regions of the country, every commodity group, that told us, No. 1, to make higher levels of coverage more affordable. We want to encourage our farmers and ranchers to buy up more crop insurance, certainly not less. Second, to provide an equal subsidy for both yield and revenue insurance products. It is the revenue insurance product that may well be the foundation for the next farm bill. I am not saying that will be the case, but certainly that is an option. So to improve those products, it seems to me, is very important. The chairman has gone over this in his remarks. Third, to develop steps to address the problems associated with a lack of production history for a farmer that is just beginning and concerns that an adequate policy does not exist to address multiple years of disasters. How many times have we had a farmer come and testify before the committee and say: Look. I can't get any crop insurance. I have been hit. The Good Lord was not willing, and the creeks did rise or they didn't rise, and we got into all sorts of multiple disasters and I could not get the crop insurance. Fourth, the creation of new and expanded crop insurance policies for specialty crops and improvement in what is called the Noninsured Assistance Program, which covers many specialty crops. I am going to come back to that because when we put together this bill, Senator Kerrey and I knew we had to reach out to every region of the country. We knew there was a lot of consternation and frustration on the part of Members who represented farmers from the Northeast and producers also from the South that the current Crop Insurance Program was not favorable to their interests, that it was discriminatory. So we sat down with staff. I remember in one of the first meetings we had, why, Senator Kerrey told me: Pat, we have to reach out to these groups. We have to cover the specialty crop producers, more especially, since the Northeast and the Eastern part of the country went through such tough times in regards to last year and the drought. We have tried to do that. It seems to me to be a paradox of enormous irony that the very region of the country we are reaching out to, now we have distinguished Senators who are privileged to represent the farmers and the ranchers and the producers, the specialty crop folks from that part of the country, saying: Well, wait a minute. We're worried that this bill does not address our concerns. Address them? We reached out to them. This is the most favorable crop insurance reform, I won't say that could be imagined, but these are the very folks to whom we reached out. Next the farmers told us: We want some increased emphasis in specialty crop policy research and development; use the good offices and the expertise and skill of the Department of Agriculture for pilot projects with regard to research and development for specialty crops, not only the program crops, the wheat, barley, corn, and feed grains, all of that, cotton and rice, but the specialty crop folks; they deserve that. And that is in the bill. They asked for major changes in the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation's board of directors, more farmer input, if you will. That has certainly taken place. They asked to streamline and remove the roadblocks in the product approval process. Somebody could come up with a new pilot project and it would lay around 6 months, 8 months, a year, and we couldn't get any approval. We have deadlines now to be approved. We take some significant steps to address the fraud and abuse of the program. The chairman has pointed out that we don't want a situation where if you are going to reform crop insurance, you simply encourage people from challenged lands, if that is the proper term for it, to farm the program, if you will. We have very strong language in regard to fraud and abuse. I cannot imagine any producer who, once they take a look at the penalties, would ever go down that road. It is my hope the bill does all the things I have said and more. I have the rest of my statement here. I will not ask that it be put in the Record at this point because I would rather simply go into the details when we have the bill before us and have a time agreement. I hope we can get the time agreement. Again, I think it is a paradox of enormous irony that when you reach out to certain sections of the country, you find yourself in a real quandary. You scratch your head and have a lot of frustration. You have some degree of concern that Senators from the very part of the country you have included in the major crop insurance reform--and by ``included,'' I mean asking those Senators and their staff to come to us and to provide some answers; they have done so, and we have put it in the bill. Now it seems that this is where the concern is coming from, and we are holding up the bill. I can go into all of the provisions we have for specialty crops; i.e., the matter of concern with regard to folks in the Northeast. I will not do that. I am going to save that until we have some of the Senators on the floor to point out to them just what we have done. But there are four big ticket items, and additional items of interest, about 15 of them. I think it is very salutary to the concerns of producers in that area. Both Senator Harkin and the chairman of the committee, Senator Lugar, indicated that this bill should be on the unanimous consent calendar. We had the debate in the committee. The chairman had a different approach in regard to a risk management approach. It was a very legitimate option. We have committed some funds to see if we can go forward with that kind of option step by step. But the majority of the bill pretty much mirrors what they have done in the House. Now, how did the House do this? Did they have a big debate? Did regions of the country have some problems with this? No, the House of Representatives, in their infinite wisdom, passed this by unanimous consent. With all due respect to my colleagues in the other body, a body in which I was privileged to serve, they have a lot of trouble deciding when to adjourn, let alone doing anything by unanimous consent. I hope they take that in the spirit in which I say those comments. They passed it by unanimous consent. That means any one Member out of 435 could have stood up and objected. Nobody did that because they knew that this was on the agenda. We promised this 4 years ago, the editorial ``we,'' both Democrats and Republicans, when the new farm bill was passed. Despite all of the criticisms we have heard in regard to the new farm bill--and this is not the time to get in to that discussion or debate--both Senator Lugar and I held up the chart-- certainly Senator Lugar referred to it--which said, if you go to a more market oriented farm policy, these are the things you have to have with it to give the farmer the risk management tools to compete. It was supposed to be done 4 years ago after the 1994 reform. We did not do that, ``we'' meaning the administration and leadership on both the Democrat and Republican side. We all bear part of that responsibility. There were honest differences of opinion. Sometimes things take a little longer. But if the House of Representatives can pass this by unanimous consent without one objection, what are we doing here holding up this bill, especially when we are reaching out to the very people who are raising the objections. If Senators have some problems with this, please come down and talk to Senator Kerrey and me and the distinguished chairman and Senator Harkin. We think we have some very good answers for you. We think we have done what you want us to do. I don't know when enough is not enough, but it seems to me we ought to do that. One of the biggest reasons why we should do this, you never know what the weather is going to do. You never know when a section of the country could be hard hit. We provide that assistance under disaster bills. Ours is not a disaster bill. It addresses some of the concerns farmers have in regard to going through disasters in that it gives them a risk management tool. They control that, along with their lender and their insurance company. They can better guard against the natural disasters that can happen. But everybody here knows what has happened when we have a disaster, more especially in the even-numbered years. When we have a disaster, it is a disaster to try to devise a disaster program that is fair and is equitable. That was a concern on the part of the Senators from the Northeast during the last disaster bill that was passed in the last year to provide assistance to hard-pressed farmers. They believe they were discriminated against. I think they have a point. But the proper way to address that is not on the crop insurance reform we have constructed to be in their best interest. That is a separate issue. If we passed the crop insurance reform and the money is in the budget through the efforts of the good Senators mentioned by the distinguished chairman, we have $6 billion there. It is not over budget. But if we have add-ons with different amendments, obviously we will be over budget. That is not the answer to this. In addition, if you have the crop insurance risk management tools in place, in my personal view, you are not going to have the tremendous need or the tremendous support for annual disaster bills. We got along for 2 years, I think, after passage of the farm bill, where we didn't have to spend $1 for disasters. Obviously, we have a lot of folks who would predict that it doesn't happen every year. But if the farmer has the proper risk management tools, yes, it is going to cost some money, but it will save the taxpayer much more money in the long run rather than treating this on an annual basis in terms of disaster bills. This is in the best interest of the taxpayer. I think I have pretty well made my point. I will save the rest of my statement when we do get agreement. I will say again that I hope we do get the agreement soon. I wish to pay special credit to Senator Kerrey and to his assistant, Bev Paul, along with a young man who assisted me in this effort, Mike Seyfert. They have worked day after day, hour after hour, back and forth between every commodity group, every farm organization, every Senator, every region. It has been tedious work. How many Senators will get a blind phone call from somebody trying to sell you insurance? I think probably insurance is not the most favorable topic about which to be talking. Crop insurance does tend to be a high glazer, as we can see by the lack of colleagues on the floor. So they have taken this rather tedious subject, this detailed and complex subject and have worked out a major reform. Senator Kerrey has done a splendid job. We have both, as I said before, tried to truly listen to our producers to come up with something we think will be the answer. I think this is one of the major reforms in farm program policy. I thank Senator Kerrey and the dedicated staff, both his and mine, and certainly the staff of Senator Lugar. We have worked through a very difficult time. Well, now is the time. As I said, we ought to do it by unanimous consent. I hope we can get this thing done and we can work out the agreement. I know people are working overtime to get this done, but tempus and the weather fugit. That means we can't dilly-dally around with this. I must say, given the considerations that it is an even numbered year and the amount of angst and frustration on the part of our farmers and ranchers, this has been promised for years. So the people who hold up this bill should know there is a groundswell of support for the bill, and there will also be, I suspect, a tad bit of criticism for the people who are holding it up. That is just a thought. At this point, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, first I thank my good friend and colleague for his very kind comments, and I associate myself with his remarks, most especially with regard to the editorial that appeared in the Washington Post. I think he set the record straight. I indicated in my earlier remarks there were some provisions of this bill I would like to outline, and I would like to do so at present as a coauthor of the legislation. I said at that particular time we spent a great deal of time--by ``we,'' I mean Senator Kerrey, I, and our staff--sitting down with producers and our farmers and ranchers and virtually every interest group that has a remote interest in this bill. They told us to do the following things: One, to make a higher level of coverage more affordable; Two, to provide an equal subsidy for both yield and revenue insurance products; Three, to develop steps to address the problems associated with a lack of production history for beginning farmers and concerns that an adequate policy does not exist to address the multiple years of disasters. They also told us to try to create new and expanded crop insurance policies for specialty crops and improvements in the Noninsured Assistance Program which covers many of the specialty crops. They warned of some increased emphasis in specialty crop policy research and development; Major changes in the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation board of directors, certainly with more farmer input; To streamline and to remove the roadblocks and the product approval process; And to take significant steps to address fraud and abuse in the program. As I indicated earlier when I went through this list, I think we have done that. I believe, and it is my hope, that the bill now before the Senate does accomplish those goals. Let me go over specifically what is included in this bill. We made higher levels of coverage more affordable so we will, hopefully, avoid calls for disaster assistance in the future. In my earlier remarks, I tried to emphasize to Senators that once we have national comprehensive risk management available to producers, hopefully we will not get into the expenditures we have had in the past with annual disaster bills. We made the adjustments to the APH to address multiple years of disaster. We made significant changes to the Noninsured Assistance Program, including the elimination of the area trigger. Now that is a rather complex description of a problem that is of tremendous concern to the specialty crop producer. That was the No. 1 complaint we heard from producers who use this program. We provided $150 million in pilot program funding to create pilots to develop new policies, especially for specialty crops. We provided $20 million per year in new funding to provide research grants to develop new risk management strategies for specialty crops. We changed the membership at the corporation's board of directors to include, as I mentioned before: Four farmers from geographic regions to be selected by the Secretary of Agriculture, one member active in the crop insurance industry, one member with reinsurance expertise, and then the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, the Under Secretary for Rural Development, and the chief economist at the Department of Agriculture. We have streamlined the product approval process and set deadlines by which decisions must be made on new policies that are submitted for approval. We allow companies to charge minimal fees to other companies selling their products in order to allow the recovery of research and development costs. This should also encourage expanded policy development which is a very important goal of the bill. I also thank my colleagues from the Northeast in reaching an accommodation to address their concerns. We have had a considerable discussion here. They have released their hold on the bill. However, I will have printed in the Record the provisions for specialty crops with which we worked so long and hard. I pay special credit to Mr. Santorum, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania. Senator Santorum obviously came to us after the conference bill was passed during the last session of Congress and said: Look, this is not adequate. He didn't say that; he said it in a little stronger language. He said: If we are truly going to have a national program, we have to address the concerns of the Northeast. We heard Senator Santorum. We paid a great deal of attention to specialty crop producers, not only in Pennsylvania but all throughout the Northeast. We put together, as I certainly tried to indicate in my previous remarks, a plan where we really reached out. I thank Senator Santorum for all of his advice, his counsel, his expertise, and that of his staff. This particular provision for specialty crops would not have happened had we not had his input, advice, and counsel. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these provisions, with the understanding that Senator Santorum should receive full credit.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, this legislation also establishes monetary penalties. If we are worried about fraud and abuse, we have penalties up to $10,000 and potential disbarment from the program and all USDA programs for any producer, any agent, any loss adjuster, or approved insurance provider who is found to have defrauded the program. These provisions in terms of fraud and abuse are strong; they are clear. Those who attempt to defraud the program and taxpayers will be punished. Every year, our producers put the seed in the ground and they believe if the good Lord is willing and the creeks don't rise or we don't have a drought, they will produce a crop. When the events do occur, they must have the tools to manage these risks. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed by 23 different farm and commodity organizations, agricultural lending organizations, and organizations associated with the insurance industry who support the bill.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. I know we are going through a very difficult time in farm country. This is something we have tried to do for almost 20 years, and I think it is the strongest bill possible, and I thank him very much for his comments.

Mr. ROBERTS. Our lending organizations and all of the groups and commodity organizations have spoken loudly. They have all continually expressed the need to improve the risk management tools available to our producers. I believe this legislation does accomplish this goal. I am proud of this bill. It is a strong bill. It is a fair bill. It improves the program for both the taxpayers and our farmers and ranchers. It shows us that despite all of the differences we sometimes have on both sides of the aisle, as some of my colleagues have already said, we can listen to our constituents; we can take their ideas; we can work in a bipartisan manner to improve the programs available to America's farmers and ranchers. After hundreds of hours of discussion and deliberations, I believe we have achieved the strongest bill possible. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation in behalf of their constituents. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise to acknowledge the accomplishments of the Kansas Air National Guard, specifically, the 190th Air Refueling Wing. The enormous sacrifice and dedication of the 190th personnel reflects great credit upon themselves, the 190th Air Refueling Wing and the Kansas Air National Guard. These dedicated Americans participated in two consecutive deployments from February 24 to April 9, 1999 in support of Operation Northern Watch and Operation Allied Force. The 190th Air Refueling Wing deployed again from July 11 to August 20, 1999 in support of Operation Northern Watch. The 190th flew 209 combat support sorties and off loaded over 10 million pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft during the three deployments. Their service directly impacted the success of Operation Northern Watch in Iraq and Operation Allied Force in Kosovo. I know my colleagues join me in paying tribute to the 190th Air Refueling Wing and their remarkable dedication to duty and service to our great country.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, in closing, I again thank my colleague for undertaking this effort. As usual, his remarks have been on point. They have provided focus. They have been very thought provoking. I would like to recount a personal experience. Last spring, Senator Stevens led a Senate delegation to the Balkans, to Macedonia. Obviously, we didn't go into Kosovo at that particular time. Along with other Senators, we visited the Albanian refugees and the various refugee camps. This one was Brazda. Standing in the cold and in the mud amidst a circle of refugees, there came an old man with a stocking cap. It was pulled over his head. He was recounting, through his interpreter, his tale of human misery. He had refused to join his wife and family in fleeing their home. He didn't want to leave home. He urged them to leave the home because of his worry about their safety. Two sons had fled to the mountains. He did not know, since he fled at the last moment, where his family was. He was wearing the shoes of a long-time friend who was killed in the violence. His home was burned. His savings and life's wherewithal were destroyed. And with tears in his eyes he grabbed me by the lapels and he said: ``I believe in God, I believe in America, and I believe in you.'' That face will always be with me. Yet today, we see the continuing ethnic violence so prevalent in that part of the world. The Senator from Georgia mentioned Samuel P. Huntington's book, ``The Clash of Civilizations: The Remaking of the World Order.'' The central theme of that book is that culture and cultural identities, which we see so prevalent in the Balkans and in other places around the globe, which at the broadest level are civilization identities, are shaping the patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflicts in the post-cold-war world. We should focus on that. I recommend his book to every Senator. It should be required reading. He has five corollaries to his main point which will help us shape our future foreign and defense policy: One, in the post-cold war world, for the first time in history, global politics has become multipolar, multi-civilizational; Westernization is not producing a universal civilization--a shock, perhaps, to many who call themselves decisionmakers in regard to Western civilization. Two, the balance of power among civilizations is shifting. The West is declining in relative influence. Asian civilizations are expanding their economic, military, and political strength. The Nations of Islam are exploding demographically, with destabilizing consequences for Muslim countries and their neighbors, and nonwestern civilizations generally are reaffirming the value of their own cultures. Three, a civilization-based world order is emerging. Societies sharing cultural affinities tend to really cooperate with each other. Efforts to shift societies from one civilization to another are unsuccessful. And countries group themselves around the lead or core states of their civilization. The West's universalist pretensions increasingly bring it into conflict with other civilizations. Finally, the survival of the West depends on Americans reaffirming their Western identity and westerners accepting their civilization as unique but not universal, and uniting to renew and preserve it against challenges from nonwestern societies. Avoidance of global war of civilizations depends on world leaders accepting and cooperating to maintain the multi-civilizational character of global politics. Simply put, Samuel Huntington says, leaders in Western nations, Members of the Senate, the President of the United States and his Cabinet, maybe we ought to concentrate on strengthening and preserving our values where they are cherished, they have been nourished, and they work well, instead of trying to impose them on countries where they are not welcome. If we do that, we will take a giant step in trying to set appropriate priorities in regard to our vital national security interests. I thank the Senator from Georgia. We have concluded our remarks. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding. Mr. President, Senator Cleland has very effectively outlined the evolution of our nation's foreign policy, from Washington and Adams (chary of foreign involvement and alliances) to the Monroe Doctrine to Wilson's idealism and all of the so called ``ism's''--economism, realism, humanitarianism, minimalism, unilateralism, regionalism, isolationism with intervention and non intervention tossed in. Now, that is quite a foreign policy tossed salad. But, the point is, discussion and definition must preface clarity, purpose and consensus and Senator Cleland has done just that along with a Clelandism, a new concept he will define in his closing remarks, ``Realistic Restraint.'' In setting the framework for discussion on the global role our nation will play in the 21st century, the benchmark used by virtually all observers is the post-cold-war period. Ashton Carter, professor of science and international affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and an Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the first Clinton administration, put it very well when he recently wrote: The kindest thing that might be said of American behavior ten years into the post-Cold War world is that it is A- STRATEGIC, responding dutifully to the (crisis du jour) with little sense of priority or consistency. A less charitable characterization would be that the United States has its priorities but they are backwards, too often placing immediate intervention in minor conflicts over a ``preventive-defense strategy focused on basic, long term threats to security. This formula has become awkward, even embarrassing, as the years go by. It is an admission that we do not know where we are going strategically, only whence we have come. It is time to declare an end to the end. In his recent article, ``Adapting U.S. Defense to Future Needs,'' Professor Carter has recommended identifying an ``A-list'' of security priorities to fill the current strategic vacuum. I was struck by the similarity between Professor Carter's A, B, and C lists determining threats to our national security and the recommendations by the Commission on America's National Interests four years previous that I mentioned in my opening remarks. And, Professor Carter did us another favor in his article by quoting George Marshall at the time of America's previous great strategic transition following the Second World War. In 1947 at Princeton University, General Marshall said: Now that an immediate peril is not plainly visible, there is a natural tendency to relax and to return to business as usual. But, I feel that we are seriously failing in our attitude toward the international problems whose solution will largely determine our future. The report by the Commission on America's National Interests in 1996 expressed a similar view: The confusion, crosscurrents, and cacophony about America's role in the world today is strikingly reminiscent of two earlier experiences in this century: the years after 1918 and those after 1945. We are experiencing today the third post- war transition of the twentieth century. In the twenty years after 1918, American isolationists forced withdrawal from the world. America's withdrawal undermined the World War I peace settlement in Europe and contributed mightily to the Great Depression, the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy, and the resumption of war in Europe after what proved to be but a two-decade intermission. After 1945, American leaders were determined to learn and apply those lessons of the interwar period. Individuals who are known now as the ``wise men,'' including Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, Secretaries of State George Marshall and Dean Acheson, and Senator Arthur Vandenberg, fashioned a strategy of thoughtful, deep American engagement in the world in ways they judged vital to America's well-being. As a result, two generations of Americans have enjoyed five decades without world war, in which America experienced the most rapid economic growth in history, and won a great victory in the Cold War. To address this historical challenge and responsibility, what did the Commission recommend? We recommended the following: Challenges to American national interests in the decade ahead. Developments around the world pose threats to U.S. interests and present opportunities for advancing Americans' well-being. Because America's resources are limited, U.S. foreign policy must be selective in choosing which issues to address. The proper basis for making such judgments is a lean, hierarchical conception of what U.S. national interests are and are not. Media attention to foreign affairs tends to fixate on issues according to the vividness of a threat, without pausing to ask whether the U.S. interest threatened is really important. Thus second- and third-order issues like Bosnia or Haiti become a consuming focus of U.S. foreign policy to the neglect of issues of higher priority, like China's international role or the unprecedented risks of nuclear proliferation. Based on its assessment of specific threats to and opportunities for U.S. national interests in the final years of the century, the Commission has identified five cardinal challenges for the next U.S. president: To cope with China's entry onto the world stage; to prevent loss of control of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-usable materials, and to contain biological and chemical weapons proliferation; to maintain sound strategic partnerships with Japan and the European allies; to avoid Russia's collapse into civil war or reversion to authoritarianism; and to maintain singular U.S. leadership, military capabilities, and international credibility. Note the similarity in agreement in regard to Professor Carter's recent article in which he says, 4 years later: The public imagination, reflected in the press, abhors the post-Cold War's conceptual vacuum. Under CNN's relentless gaze, and in the absence of any widely accepted strategic principles, the accumulation of a decade's worth of telegenic events has begun to furnish the public with a conception of strategic priorities that differs from an A-list as defined here. Citizens watching the news (and even those few who still read it) can be forgiven if they have begun to get the impression that the security challenges of the new era (the post-Post-Cold War era) arise in such places as Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, Haiti, Rwanda and Somalia. These are the issues that have dominated the security headlines in the 1990s. Indeed, there is even talk of the post-Cold War's first presidential doctrine, the so-called ``Clinton Doctrine'', dealing with precisely this issue. According to President Bill Clinton: ``Whether you live in Africa or Central Europe or any other place, if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion, and it is within our power to stop it, we will stop it.'' The Kosovos and their ilk are undoubtedly important problems: they represent not only atrocities that offend the human conscience, but if allowed to fester can undermine the foundations of regional and international stability. However, it is also true that such problems, while serious, do not threaten America's vital security interests. Carter went on to say there are four dangers that he puts on the A list, the top priority concerns in regard to vital national security interests: No. 1, the danger that Russia might descend into chaos, isolation and aggression as Germany did after the First World War; No. 2, the danger that Russia and other Soviet successor States might lose control of the nuclear and chemical and biological weapons legacy of the former Soviet Union; No. 3, the danger that, as China emerges, it could spawn hostility rather than becoming engaged in the international system; the danger that the weapons of mass destruction will proliferate and present a direct military threat to U.S. forces and territory; and finally, the danger that catastrophic terrorism of unprecedented scope and intensity might occur on U.S. territory. Professor Carter indicated these A-list problems do not take the form of traditional military threats and they have not, as a general rule, made headlines or driven our defense programs during the decade-old post-cold-war era. While neither imminent nor certain, the A-list problems will, to quote Marshall again, ``largely determine our future.'' Both Professor Carter and the commission report go on to stress many additional policy recommendations. I commend both the report and the article to my colleagues. In trying to better prioritize our national security obligations, I think we are faced with two clear policy alternatives: The first I call the so-called Powell doctrine, named after retired Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Colin Powell, who focused on the dangers of military engagement and recommended limiting commitments that put America's men and women in uniform in harm's way to absolutely vital national interests; the second being the so-called Clinton doctrine, which emphasizes more of a global policing role for the United States. This debate does recall others. It was 40 years ago that President Eisenhower's emphasis on strategic deterrence was challenged by President John Kennedy's advocacy of something called ``flexible response.'' However, the difference is that once in office, the Kennedy administration increased defense spending, while in the last 10 years after engagement and sending more American service men and women overseas than any other President took place in tandem with cutting our military by one-third. Our current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Henry Shelton summed up the situation very well when he told the John F. Kennedy School of Government recently: The military makes a great hammer in America's foreign policy tool box, but not every problem we face is a nail. He went on to say: As a world superpower, can we dare to admit that force cannot solve every problem we face. I think that the decision to use force is probably the most important decision our nation's leaders can make. The fundamental purpose of our military forces is to fight and win the nation's wars. General Shelton went on to echo what both the commission on America's interests and Professor Carter have said: Military intervention should be used for vital national interests, important national interests, and they have been used for humanitarian efforts. But the general cautioned that such efforts should be limited in duration and clearly defined. The general referred to the Dover test, named after Dover Air Force Base, the point of entry of the bodies of service members that are killed in action overseas. The general said: The question is, Is the American public prepared for the sight of our most precious resources coming home in flagged-draped caskets into Dover? He said this should be among the first things raised by Washington decisionmakers. Both Senator Cleland and I agree very strongly. The historical analogies aside, there is one clear difference in today's global world and what faced our political and military leaders of yesterday. That is what I call the information age of the CNN effect. Joseph S. Nye, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, said in a recent article: Today the free flow of information and shortened news cycles have a huge impact on public opinion, placing some items at the top of the public agenda that might otherwise warrant a lower priority. Our political leaders are finding it harder than ever to maintain a coherent set of priorities on foreign policy issues that determine what is in the national interest. The so-called ``CNN effect'' makes it harder to keep some items off the top of the public agenda that might otherwise warrant a lower priority. Now, with the added interactivity of activist groups on the Internet, it will be harder than ever for leaders in democracies to maintain a consistent agenda of priorities. In closing, let me say that while this forum is intended to focus on debate and discussion, events of the day have a way of forcing the agenda. I paraphrase from the distinguished admiral who heads up the Defense Intelligence Agency when he said before a recent hearing: We must pay attention to uncertainties in regard to Russia, China, Europe, the Middle East, and Korea. They must be addressed. We must deal with rogue states and individuals who do not share our vision of the future and are willing to engage in violence. Rapid technology development and the proliferation in information technology, biotechnology, and communications, tactical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, pose a significant threat. A 50-percent reduction in global defense spending means both our adversaries and allies have not kept pace with the United States, but as we see after the war in Kosovo, it will result in asymmetric threats from our adversaries and reduced help from our allies. Demographic developments will stress the infrastructure and leadership in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Disparities in global weather and resource distribution will get worse. The reaction to the United States and western dominance will spur anti-U.S. sentiments now more pronounced since Kosovo, the law of unintended effects. International drug cultivation and production and transport and use will remain a major source of crime and instability. And lastly, ethnic and religious and cultural divisions will remain a prime motivation for conflict. To be sure, the Senate of the United States cannot solve all the problems, but these problems do indeed comprise current and emerging threats to our national security, international stability, and to peace. The question is, Can we reach consensus in this body to address them in a rational fashion as the leader in the free world? I think my colleague has some closing remarks, as I do.

Mr. ROBERTS. First, Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, for the opportunity to join together in what we both hope will be a successful endeavor. As Senator Cleland stated, our objective is to try to achieve greater attention, focus, and mutual understanding in this body on America's global role and our vital national security interests and, if possible, begin a process of building a bipartisan consensus on what America's role should be in today's ever-changing, unsafe, and very unpredictable world. At the outset, I share Senator Cleland's sense of personal limitation in addressing this topic. As he has said, even the finest minds and most expert American foreign policymakers have had considerable difficulty in defining both what role the United States should play in the so-called ``New World Disorder'' or reaching a consensus on what criteria to use in defining our vital national interests. Now having said that, I do not know of another Senator better suited to this effort than Max Cleland. He brings to this exchange of ideas an outstanding record of public service, of personal sacrifice, and of courage and commitment. On the Senate Armed Services Committee, he has demonstrated expertise and a whole lot of common sense in addressing the quality of life issues so important to our men and women in uniform and, in turn, to our national security. As members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, we both share a keen interest in foreign policy and national security. In my own case, I was privileged to serve as a member of the 1996 Commission on America's National Interests. It was chaired by Ambassador Robert Ellsworth, Gen. Andrew Goodpaster, and Rita Hauser, and was sponsored by the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom, and the RAND Corporation. The Commission was composed of 15 members, including Senators John McCain, Bob Graham, and Sam Nunn. In brief, our Commission focused on one core issue: What are U.S. national interests in today's world? The conclusion in 1996, 4 years ago--and the Senator, I think, will see some real similarities to some of our concerns as of today--in the wake of the cold war, the American public's interest in foreign policy declined sharply, and our political leaders have focused on domestic concerns. America's foreign policy was adrift. The defining feature of American engagement in the world since the cold war has been confusion, leading to missed opportunities and emerging threats. The Commission went on to say there must be a regrounding of American foreign policy on the foundation of solid national interests. They went on to conclude that there must be greater clarity regarding the hierarchy of American national interests and, with limited resources, a better understanding of what national interests are and, just as important, are not. Then the Commission prioritized what we felt represented vital national interests. It is interesting to note that the conflicts such as Bosnia and Kosovo did not make the priority cut at that time. That was 4 years ago. However, the real genesis for this forum that Senator Cleland and I have tried to initiate resulted from frustrations over continued and increasing U.S. military involvement and intervention both in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf and all around the world. Absent was what we consider to be clear policy goals, not only from the executive, but also from the Congress. We found ourselves on the floor of the Senate, and in committee, coming to the same conclusion reached by the esteemed and beloved longtime chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, who said this, following the war in Vietnam: I shall never again knowingly support a policy of sending American men in uniform overseas to fight in a war where military victory has been ruled out and when they do not have the full support of the American people. Yet we continue to see our military becoming involved and taking part in peacekeeping missions, and other missions, where incremental escalation has led to wars of gradualism, where our vital national interests are questionable, and where the unintended effects of our involvement have been counterproductive to national security. We met in Senator Cleland's office and discussed at length the proper role of the Senate in regard to the use of American troops. We talked about the War Powers Act. We talked about the future of NATO. We talked about our policy in the Persian Gulf. We noted, with considerable frustration, that Senators seemed to be faced with votes, but votes that were already foregone conclusions. Few were willing to oppose funding for U.S. troops--not many in the Senate or the House will do that--yet many Senators had strong reservations and questions about U.S. policy, our military tactics, and the lack of what some called the end game. We instructed our staffs to research the War Powers Act and any other possible alternatives that would provide an outlet for future policy decisions. Senator Cleland persevered, and along with Senator Snowe of Maine, authored and won passage of an amendment mandating that the administration report to the Congress on any operation involving 500 or more troops, and that report would include clear and distinct objectives, as well as the end point of the operation. In my own case, I authored and won approval of an amendment stating no funds could be used for deployment of troops in the Balkans until the President reported to Congress detailing the reasons for the deployment, number of military troops to be used, the mission and objectives of the forces, the schedule and exit strategy, and the estimated costs involved. Again, these amendments were after the fact, but they at least represented a bipartisan effort on the part of Senators who realized then and realize now that we simply must do a better job of working with the executive and searching for greater mutual understanding in the Senate in regard to foreign policy and our national security interests. In saying this, let me stress that this body and our country are fortunate to have the benefit of Senators with both expertise and experience with regard to foreign relations and national security. That certainly doesn't reside only with the two Senators here involved. When they speak, we listen. But the problem is, they do not speak enough, and when they do, many do not listen. The unfortunate conclusion I have reached is that too many Americans are not only uninterested in world events but uninformed as well. More and more today in the Congress, it seems to me that foreign policy, trade, and national security issues are driven by ideology, insular and parochial interests, protectionism, and isolationist views. Both the administration and the Congress seem to be lacking a foreign policy focus, purpose, and constructive agenda. The one notable exception has been the hearings held by the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, who has held extensive hearings on ``Lessons Learned'' with regard to Kosovo. It is a paradox of enormous irony that the vision of knitting a multiethnic society and democracy out of century-old hatreds in Kosovo is in deep trouble. The danger of Kosovo is the fact that it may become another Somalia. These hearings have attracted little more than a blip on the public radar screen and little, if any, commentary or debate in the Senate. So as Senator Cleland has pointed out, over the course of the coming year he and I will engage in a series of floor dialogues relating to the general direction of U.S. foreign and national security policy in the 21st century. We begin today by discussing the framework for the U.S. global role. In the following months, as the Senator has said, we will discuss the defining national interests, deployment of U.S. forces, the role of multilateral organizations, the role of the Executive, Congress and the public, and the role of trade, economics, and arms control. As Senator Cleland has stressed, this is just an outline. We invite all Senators to engage in this series. The concept is one of a forum, a dialogue, that will and should include a wide variety of viewpoints. For instance, given the flashpoint situation today in Kosovo, with about 5,000 to 6,000 American troops at risk--and we may be calling in the Marines. I believe that topic certainly demands attention and discussion, however, in a different and separate forum. There should be some discussion and consideration in the Senate in that regard. As Senator Cleland has pointed out, we all know that foreign policy and national security are legitimate concerns that should be addressed in the Presidential and congressional campaigns; at least I hope they are addressed. But beyond this election year, the Senate will again be faced with our constitutional responsibilities in shaping this Nation's role in global affairs, national security, international stability, and peace. Simply put: Our national interest depends on reaching a bipartisan consensus. My colleague and I both hope this forum will contribute to achieving that goal and, in doing so, also contribute to greater public support and understanding. I thank the Senator for yielding and understand he has some additional remarks, as I do following his remarks.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Scott Kindsvater, an outstanding pilot. He is a major in the Air Force who happens to come from Dodge City, KS, America. He is a congressional fellow from the Air Force, serving in my office in regard to this particular issue.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Environment and Public Works Committee legislation to name the Old Executive Office Building after one of Kansas' sons, former President Dwight David Eisenhower. Although Congress is portrayed in the press as mired in gridlock over budget caps and campaign finance reform, the Senate does rise above the daily political battles and pass commonsense bipartisan legislation that the American public is often unaware of because it lacks the sizzle for front page headlines or evening news sound bites. The Senate passage of S. 1652 formally recognizes former President Eisenhower's dedication and faithfulness to the United States. This Kansan rose from his commission as a second lieutenant of Infantry at West Point to Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces, where he directed one of the most ambitious invasions in military history. At the end of his military career, Eisenhower embarked on his successful candidacy for President of the United States. Eisenhower's biographer, Stephen Ambrose, wrote in his introduction to ``Eisenhower The President'' that ``Dwight Eisenhower is one of only two Republicans (the other was Grant) to serve two full terms as President. Along with the two Roosevelts, he is the only twentieth-century President who, when he left office, still enjoyed wide and deep popularity. And he is the only President in this century who managed to preside over eight years of peace and prosperity.'' America liked Ike. We in Kansas are always honored when we can share our admiration for Dwight David Eisenhower with the rest of the Nation including the Dwight David Eisenhower National Highway System and the Eisenhower Presidential Center in Abilene, Kansas. My own family has strong ties to Ike and the Eisenhower years. My father, Wes, played a key role in Eisenhower's presidential nomination and his election. He served as Republican national chairman for Ike. Naming the Old Executive Office Building after former President Eisenhower is fitting because this building is almost as historic as the White House. Former Presidents Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Taft, Johnson, Ford, and Bush, and Eisenhower himself, all had offices in this building before becoming President. This ornate building is one of the most impressive buildings in Washington and some believe its style epitomizes the optimism and exuberance of the post-Civil War period when it was constructed. Throughout his government career, Ike also conveyed these feelings to his troops and the American people therefore this recognition is well-deserved. I am glad that my Senate colleagues agreed to expedite the passage of this bill and hope the other body takes quick action. It builds on last week's celebration in Kansas of former President Eisenhower where the State of Kansas made his birthday Dwight D. Eisenhower Day in Kansas. More importantly, our state leaders provided schools with curricula on Eisenhower to teach and remind children of this great leader. For my colleagues reading and information, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Topeka Capital Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1593, the campaign finance reform bill. As a reminder to Members, two cloture motions were filed on the second pending amendment on Friday. Therefore, pursuant to rule XXII, those votes will occur on Tuesday, 1 hour after the Senate convenes, unless a consent agreement is reached to set those votes for a time certain. The majority leader has announced that the first vote today will occur at 5:30 p.m. It is hoped that the 5:30 vote, or votes, will be in relation to the amendments to the pending legislation. However, if votes regarding the campaign finance reform bill are not possible, the Senate will vote on any legislative or executive items available for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. We have also heard a number of complaints from my constituents about this business called OASIS. For those who don't know, again, OASIS is a system of records containing all this data on the physical, mental, and functional status of Medicare and Medicaid patients receiving care from home health care agencies. So HCFA then implemented OASIS, as I understand it, as a tool to help the agency improve the quality of care and form the basis for a new home health prospective payment system. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. But the problem, as the Senator has pointed out, is that the collection of data is burdensome and expensive for agencies; it invades the personal privacy of patients, and it must be collected for non-Medicare patients--that is the part I don't understand--as well as those served by Medicare. Why on earth would they require that? I don't understand this. You talk about an unfunded mandate. This has to be at least in the top 10. The Kansas House of Representatives actually passed a resolution earlier this year that asked Congress to rescind HCFA rules requiring OASIS. I have it right here. It is not often that an entire legislature of a State passes a resolution telling some alphabet soup agency back here, wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense; you are causing an awful lot of regulatory overkill and causing home health care agencies to go out of business. Let's see. The State of Kansas is very concerned about the health and well-being of the senior and disabled citizens. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ``whereases,'' translated: Whoa, HCFA, don't do this. It is an unfunded mandate. This was passed by the House of Representatives of the State of Kansas and it was resolved ``that the Secretary of State be directed to provide an enrolled copy of this resolution to the President of the United States, Secretary of Health and Human Services, President of the United States Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Minority leaders of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives,'' saying please don't enforce these OASIS regs the way they are being enforced. It is signed by the distinguished speaker of the House in Kansas and the President of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield to me for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. I ask the distinguished Senator from Maine, didn't we fix the problems last year when we passed the omnibus appropriations bill? I think we both made speeches at that particular time. What is the status?

Mr. ROBERTS. I want to go back to my statement earlier when I said in that June HCFA responded in regard to the outcry on the part of the home health care agencies in regards to the regulation on the conditions of participation with OASIS. As I indicated before, the agency still must spend the time taking the assessment. So I asked staff. I said: Wait a minute. Why is it, if they suspended it, you still have to take the assessment? I don't know where they are storing all of this paperwork. Maybe they burn it at Christmas time That may be a good idea. But, at any rate, write the mail; don't send it. And I asked staff: Why are we still doing this if, in fact, you don't send it in? It is a privacy issue. Look at the questions that are involved. These are privacy issues, and they haven't figured that out yet. So if, in fact, there are privacy issues, it would seem to me we had better settle those first or we are going to have lawsuits, big time. Why issue the regulation and then say to people: Well, we have a bunch of privacy issues that we haven't thought through, but keep on filling them out, and when we figure out the privacy issue, why, then we will get back to you. I am extremely sympathetic to the concerns raised by my constituents that these new policies will harm seniors. But let's give HCFA a break. I have been pretty critical and a little sarcastic, and I have to admit that I have a bias. I have been working on this ever since I have had the privilege of being in public service. Even back when I was an administrative assistant to Congressman Keith Sebelius, we used to have these HCFA directives coming out to the rural health care delivery system. I can remember one right off the bat on behalf of cost containment. Give HCFA a break. They are in charge of cost containment. We are all good at passing laws and then passing a lot of regulations, and saying, OK, you have to really put up with these, and it is up to HCFA to put out the regulations. And when we find they don't work, the people come to us and complain about it. I can remember one rather incredible thing when they said we are not going to pay anybody any Medicare reimbursement unless the patient admissions are reviewed by hospitals on a 24-hour basis by three doctors. We thought about that a little and said: We think we are for this--because we didn't have any doctors. I figured, well, what the heck. If we go ahead and accept this regulation, maybe they could provide the three. Then there was the other great example of the sole provider and community hospital--talking about Goodland, KS, America, out on the prairie at the top of the world, a great place to live, a great farming community miles from nowhere. We asked again--it was HHS at that particular time--can you give us this decree, or this ruling to make this hospital eligible for a little more in payments? They said: Well, no, because everybody out there--I am not making this up--has four- wheel drives, and it is pretty flat in Kansas. What? As opposed to Colorado, I say to the distinguished Presiding Officer, who serves as an outstanding Senator. Four-wheel drive, and it is flat, and because they have lizards, windstorms. Our weather out there is a little tough for some bird in, like Virginia, down here to make that assessment. So I have a little bias here, but I want to give HCFA a break. I want to ask the Senator, are these policy changes necessary to achieve the Medicare savings goals? Medicare is a top concern; strengthen and preserve it. We have all worked very hard to do that. Are these policies necessary to achieve the savings that we want to achieve to strengthen and preserve Medicare?

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield for one additional observation and a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would be happy to respond to the distinguished Senator. Unfortunately, she is correct. Any Medicare-approved health care agency must comply with all Medicare conditions of participation. That is MCP--probably another acronym, and I will not venture to say what that sounds like--including the collection of OASIS. This means patients who do not participate in Medicare are still subject to Medicare assessment. In June, HCFA amended this regulation to say that these agencies don't have to--here again, this is what we have a lot of trouble with-- transmit the data on non-Medicare patients for the time being, but they still must spend the time taking these assessments. Hello.

Mr. ROBERTS. I see that page, as I have gone over this. I tell the distinguished Presiding Officer, nurses in Colorado must ask the questions of these patients about their feelings--it sounds like a Barbara Streisand song--such as if they have ever felt depressed, had trouble sleeping, or even if they have ever attempted suicide. The thought occurs to me that Members of this distinguished body from time to time feel depressed and have trouble sleeping. I hope that would not be the case with regard to suicide. I am being too sarcastic. Do we really think we need to ask a nurse to bother a physical therapy patient for this information so that he or she can send the answers over to some computer someplace in Baltimore that will then use this information to develop a prospective payment system, and we can't find out when it is going to be proposed? Who in Baltimore reads these? I asked that in regard to HCFA, in regard to all of their requirements back when it was Health, Education, and Welfare in regard to Kansas City. I wanted to go to Kansas City and say: Who reads this stuff? What do they do with it? Maybe the Senator and I could go to Baltimore and figure that out. Why on Earth would we ask a nurse to bother a physical therapy patient for this information so they can send the answers? It hasn't anything to do with physical therapy patients. Why is that?

Mr. ROBERTS. Emotional status?

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I have 2 or 3 more questions. I have a copy of OASIS. This is not relief. I understand the time requirements. I want you to look at this. This OASIS document includes an 18-page initial assessment that must be completed by a registered nurse, and a 13-page follow-up assessment that is required every 60 days. This is perpetual reporting, a perpetual reporting machine, well-boiled by HCFA. And this is on top of assessments already required by States. The paperwork burden is immense. I am curious about what is included in this assessment. Is the Senator aware of the nature of the questions in this assessment? I think I know the answer. I have read through this OASIS--the third degree, or whatever you want to call it. Will the Senator speak to the nature of the questions in the assessment?

Mr. ROBERTS. I am sure that this burden is being felt by agencies nationwide, not only in Kansas. I am not sure the legislatures of each State have been passing resolutions to say we need relief from OASIS, but I ask the Senator if she has any idea how long it takes for nurses to collect this information?

Mr. ROBERTS. For all of those who are listening and watching this debate, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine for her--I wrote it down--untiring, persevering, never-give-up leadership with regard to this effort to resolve our problems with HCFA. What an acronym. We have all heard of Peter and the dike. This is Susan at the dam, the HCFA dam. In fact, we could probably turn that around in regard to what is happening. I want to ask a question. Do you mean this new interim payment system--and we will go through this in some detail. I want folks to remember interim payment system, IPS. That is the acronym. Everything has to be an acronym in Washington. I don't call it IPS. I call it the ``IPS mess''. It not only rewards but actually penalizes the home health care agencies for their past, not bad behavior but good behavior; is that right?