Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 68 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 68 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4565-S4576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. WARNER:
S. 2669. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to extend to
persons over age 64 eligibility for medical care under CHAMPUS and
TRICARE; to extend the TRICARE Senior Prime demonstration program in
conjunction with the extension of eligibility under CHAMPUS and TRICARE
to such persons, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.

legislation regarding medicare-eligible military retirees

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, S. 2669, to
afford members the opportunity to examine the issues related to the
complicated military medical program. We desire to change the existing
program to encompass, in the future, retirees over age 65.
Beginning in World War II promises were made to military members that
they and their families would be provided health care if they served a
full career. Subsequent legislation was enacted which cut off medical
benefits at age 65, leaving them to depend on the Medicare system,
which has provided to be inefficient. This is a breach of promise made
on behalf of our country to retirees who devoted a significant portion
of their lives with careers in service to their country. I recognize
with profound sorrow how we broke this promise to these retirees.
I have gone back and carefully examined these issues. There is no
statutory foundation providing for entitlement to military health care
benefits. It does not exist. It is a myth. But good faith
representation was made to these members. Who made the commitment is
irrelevant. I know personally that these representations were made. I
served in the military and heard the same promises.
My Committee has made a determination, a bipartisan decision, that we
would fix the issue of health care for our older retirees, this year.
We have started with a series of bills, strengthening them as we went
along, listening to those beneficiaries who use the system. The
legislation I bring to the floor today repeals the restriction barring
65 and older military retirees and their families from continued access
to the military health care system. If enacted, this legislation will
provide an equal benefit for all military health care system
beneficiaries, retirees, reservists, guardsmen and families. This puts
all beneficiaries in the same class. It is fairly expensive, but we
need to do it.
The legislation is a quantum leap over the provisions included in the
Committee markup of the annual Defense bill. While the markup includes
a comprehensive drug benefit regardless of age, the legislation goes
further and provides uninterrupted access to complete health care
services.
As a result of my initiatives, all military retirees, irrespective of
age, will now enjoy the same health care benefit.
In Town Hall meetings, I have listened carefully to the health care
concerns of military retirees--particularly those over age 65 who have
lost their entitlement to health care within the current military
health care system. The constant theme that runs through their requests
is that, once they reach the point at which they are eligible for
Medicare, they are no longer guaranteed care from the military health
care system. This discriminatory characteristic of our current system--
that has been in effect since 1964--reduces retiree medical benefits
and requires a significant change in the manner in which health care is
obtained at a point in the lives of our older military retirees when
stability and confidence are most important. This bill, in effect,
repeals the 1964 law.
The bill that I am proposing today would eliminate the current
discrimination based on age and would permit military retirees
and their dependents to be served by the military health care system
throughout their lives. Under my proposal, it would not matter whether
the military retiree is 47 years old or 77 years old. He or she will be
covered by the military health care system while on active duty and
throughout their retirement. No new systems will be required, although
the existing military system may require assistance from the Congress
to strengthen its ability to serve all retirees. This bill eliminates
the confusing and ineffective transfer of funds from Medicare to the
Department of Defense. Military retirees will not be required to pay
the high cost of additional basic or supplemental insurance premiums to
ensure their health care needs are met. Military readiness will not be
adversely impacted and our commitment to those who served a full career
will be fulfilled.

In order to permit the Department of Defense to plan for restoring
the health care benefit to all retirees, my bill would be effective on
October 1, 2001. While some may advocate an earlier effective date, it
is simply not feasible to expand the medical coverage to the 1.8
million Medicare-eligible retirees overnight.
What is apparent to me is that the will of the Congress, reflecting
the will of the Nation, is that now is the time to act on this issue.
My bill would eliminate the discriminatory practice that caused concern
among our military retirees and will restore full benefits of the
military health care system to all retirees.
Access to military health care has reached a crisis point. With the
reduction in the number of military hospitals and with the growth in
the retiree population, addressing the health care needs of our older
retirees has become increasingly difficult. These beneficiaries should
be assured that their health care needs will be met. They were promised
a healthcare benefit, they served to earn a benefit, and our country
needs to fulfill the commitments that were made to them.
I am well aware of the legislative alternatives that have been
proposed to address military retiree health care needs. I have
struggled to examine the most acute needs of these beneficiaries and
have struggled to develop a plan that equally benefits all our
retirees, not just those fortunate enough to live near a military
medical facility, or those fortunate enough to be selected through some
sort of lottery to be allowed to participate in the various pilot
programs now underway. My goal is to provide health care through a
means that is available to all beneficiaries, in an equitable and
complete manner.
As I have made it clear throughout the year, improving the military
health care system has been the Committee's top quality of life
initiative this year. My Committee has held hearings and listened to a
variety of beneficiary representatives. I have traveled throughout my
state and listened to the concerns of retirees. I conducted an
extensive town hall meeting in Norfolk in March. I have met with many
retirees and their representatives at my office, during my travels, and
even in social settings. I have listened.
This extensive review has allowed me to examine carefully how to
approach this issue. The number one priority I

[[Page S4566]]

heard from retirees was the importance of access to pharmaceuticals.
This inspired me to develop S. 2087, which provided a mail order
pharmacy benefit for all military beneficiaries, including--for the
first time--all Medicare eligible retirees. S. 2087 also addressed a
number of other issues with the military health care system including
some critical improvements to the TRICARE program for both active duty
and retirees and their family members. I appreciate the bipartisan
support of so many of my colleagues in crafting and introducing this
critical first step.

In my many meetings with retirees, and through discussions with my
colleagues, I came to understand the need to further enhance S. 2087. I
proposed amendments to the budget resolution to increase the funding
available to address retiree health care needs. Then, again with
bipartisan support, I crafted a new piece of legislation which improved
and enhanced the pharmacy provisions of the original legislation. With
special assistance from Senator Snowe and Senator Kennedy, the new S.
2486 included an enhanced pharmacy benefit with no enrollment fees,
that included both retail and mail order programs. This improved
legislation addressed the major unmet need of retirees, access to
pharmaceuticals, and provides an equitable benefit, one that is not
discriminatory based on age. This legislation was included during
Committee consideration of the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense
Authorization Bill, with the overwhelming support of Committee members.
The bill now before the Congress compliments my earlier efforts and
those of the Committee. This bill, in conjunction with the provisions
in the Defense Authorization Bill, would provide a complete health care
benefit for all military retirees. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and my statement
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2669

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR CHAMPUS UPON THE
ATTAINMENT OF 65 YEARS OF AGE.

(a) Eligibility of Medicare Eligible Persons.--Section
1086(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) The prohibition contained in paragraph (1) shall not
apply to a person referred to in subsection (c) who--
``(A) is enrolled in the supplementary medical insurance
program under part B of such title (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.);
and
``(B) in the case of a person under 65 years of age, is
entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act pursuant to subparagraph (A)
or (C) of section 226(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b)(2))
or section 226A(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1(a)).''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraph (1) who
satisfy only the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (2), but not subparagraph (C) of such
paragraph,'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) of paragraph
(2) who do not satisfy the condition specified in
subparagraph (A) of such paragraph''.
(b) Extension of TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration
Program.--Paragraph (4) of section 1896(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg(b)) is amended by striking
``3-year period beginning on January 1, 1998'' and inserting
``period beginning on January 1, 1998, and ending on December
31, 2002''.
(c) Repeal of Related Demonstration Program.--Section 702
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2431; 10 U.S.C. 1079
note) is repealed.
(d) Effective Dates.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the amendments made by this section shall take effect on
October 1, 2001.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (b) shall take effect
on the date of the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. THOMAS:
S. 2670. A bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to
require major rules of agencies to be approved by Congress in order to
take effect, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.

the congressional regulatory review reform act of 2000

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation to curb Federal over-regulation by the executive branch of
Government and to restore congressional accountability for the
regulatory process.
The annual regulatory costs of the Federal Government on the private
sector have been estimated to be $200-$800 billion annually. The pace
and scope of over-regulation has accelerated under the Clinton
Administration. For example, the IRS has tried to raise taxes
administratively, the EPA has exceeded its authority with the Clean
Water Action Plan and the National Park Service is trying to eliminate
snowmobile use in our national parks, all without congressional
authorization. Increasingly, we have found that this administration
tries to advance through regulation and executive order an agenda it
cannot get done through the normal legislative process. In fact, there
are currently 137 major regulations in the works that will each have at
least a $100 million cost. That means these new regulations will impose
at least a $13.7 billion yearly impact on the economy.
Unfortunately, Congress has allowed this to happen. For years
Congress has delegated its most fundamental responsibility--the
creation of laws--to the executive branch. Consequently, rather than
just enforce laws, these unelected bureaucrats now also write the laws.
These regulatory bureaucracies have often been called the fourth branch
of Government. This fourth branch has misinterpreted, undercut and
directly contradicted the will of Congress time and time again. It is
well past time to end this ``regulation without representation.''
As many of my colleagues know, Congress passed the Congressional
Review Act in 1996 in an attempt to slow the executive regulatory
machine. For the first time, this law established a process by which
Congress can review and disapprove virtually all federal agency rules.
Unfortunately, the promise of the Act has not been fulfilled.
Between 1996 and 1999, 12,269 non-major rules and 186 major rules
were submitted to Congress by federal agencies. Only seven joint
resolutions of disapproval were introduced, pertaining to five rules.
None passed either House. In fact, none have even been debated on the
floor of either House.
The legislation I introduce today will address the flaws in the
Congressional Review Act and restore the proper balance between the
congressional and executive branches when it comes to rule-making. The
Congressional Regulatory Review Reform Act will require all major rules
(those with a $100 million annual impact as defined by the Office of
Management in consultation with GAO) to be approved by Congress before
they take effect. If Congress disapproves a rule, an agency will be
precluded from proposing the same or similar rule for a period of 6
months. A rule may be given interim effectiveness if the President
determines and certifies that a rule should take effect because of an
imminent threat to health and safety or emergency (this decision is not
judicially reviewable). Finally, the president is authorized to
establish, by executive order a program for the systematic review of
agency rules.
I believe that congressional review and accountability for federal
regulations will improve efficiency and lessen federal government
intervention in the daily lives of the American people. Congress cannot
allow the Executive Branch to continue to legislate through rules and
regulations. Congress must be responsible. Congress must take back its
constitutionally granted authority over the rule-making process.
This is not a partisan issue. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
suggested this idea as long ago as 1984. Nor is the purpose of this
legislation to overturn a great number of rules submitted by agencies.
It is intended to increase incentives regulators have to respond to the
views of the general public, rather than narrow interests and to make
Congress and the president more politically accountable for the
resulting rules.
Mr. President, I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in supporting
this commonsense, good government reform.
______

By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 2671. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to promote
pension opportunities for women, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.

[[Page S4567]]

the pension opportunities for women's equality in retirement act

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pension
Opportunities for Women's Equality in Retirement (POWER) Act of 2000.
This legislation is important because the current tax code often fails
to give women--especially women who take time off to raise children--
sufficient opportunities to earn a large enough pension to guarantee
their financial security in retirement.

The facts demonstrate that women need help in building pensions for
their future. In America today, two-thirds of women over 65 have no
pension other than Social Security. This translates into 300,000 women
in my home state of Missouri and 14 million women nationwide. At the
same time, the median income from assets for women age 65 and over is
only $860 a year. Retirement is often compared to a three-legged stool,
with the three legs being pensions, savings, and Social Security. Now,
everyone knows what happens to a three legged stool when one of the
legs is missing: it falls over. But these statistics shows that many,
too many, American women are trying to manage their retirements on only
one leg of the stool.
As a result of the lack of pensions and relatively low savings among
American women, older women are twice as likely as older men to be
living near or below the federal poverty threshold. Further, the
poverty rates for widows, divorced women, and never-married women are
significantly higher than the rate for all elderly women. The 20
million elderly American women--including 440,000 in Missouri--carry an
extremely high risk of poverty.
The causes for this risk can be found in the tax code and pension
rules. One of the key elements of pension building is called vesting.
Employees cannot build pension assets until they vest, or serve at a
particular job for a redetermined amount of time, often 5 years.
Employers have a perfectly good reason for vesting requirements--they
want to encourage job stability--and there is no inherent bias in these
requirements. But the effect of these requirements is to make it harder
for women to build up pension assets. The reason for this is that the
median job tenure for women is 3.8 years, well below the median job
tenure for men, as well as the 5 years most pension plans require for
vesting.
Another problem women face is that 59 percent of women have not
figured out how much they need to save for retirement. When workers,
men and women alike, are younger, they are frequently not thinking of
how much they need to save for retirement. Younger workers are
concerned with mortgages, school loans, children's needs. When these
workers get older, and start thinking about retirement, they often
increase the amount of money they will put away for retirement.
Unfortunately women, who have often spent less time in the workplace,
have less time in which to make the required `catch-up' contributions
that will help create a stable and secure retirement. This process is
made even harder by existing rules that limit the amounts of the catch-
up contributions.
Given the difficulties women, especially unmarried women, face in
their retirement years, I believe that it is time for the Congress to
step up and to ensure that retirement security law provides for higher
contribution limits for working women, easier catch-up to make up for
years women missed in the labor force, and increased portability of
pensions.
The POWER Act of 2000 will do three major things: First, the bill
will increase contribution limits, allowing workers to contribute more
money to retirement accounts during their working years, thereby
ensuring that their retirements will be more secure.
For workers who are over fifty, the bill allows additional pension
contributions of up to 50 percent more than allowed under current law.
This provision is particularly helpful to women who leave the labor
force to raise their children, and then want to ``catch-up'' when they
are older by increasing their contributions in the years leading up to
retirement. This bill also requires employers to vest employees
earlier, so that women, who have shorter average job tenures, can
accrue pension benefits earlier.
The bill's third section eases portability of pensions among workers
who switch jobs. The bill eases rollovers and requires that rollovers
apply to all retirement plans. In addition, the bill extends pension
rollovers to include post-tax as well as pre-tax distributions, and
calls for the post-tax distributions to be accounted for separately.
These provisions are not controversial. They have all passed both the
Senate and the House of Representatives as part of the Taxpayer Refund
and Relief Act. President Clinton vetoed that earlier bill. I disagree
with the President, but he is entitled to his opinion. On these
provisions, however, it is impossible to claim that these female-
friendly provisions will cost too much money. The provisions in this
bill will help all workers save more for retirement, and develop larger
pensions for their golden years.
This bill will particularly help women, who face a much greater risk
of poverty. While the POWER Act will help both women and men save for
retirement, it will correct specific pension inequalities in the
current law that particularly hurt women. Missouri's nearly 900,000
working women certainly will benefit through enhanced opportunities to
create financial security for retirement. In Missouri, 65 percent of
working age women are in the paid labor force. According to the
Missouri Women's Council, only 26 percent of older women receive a
pension, compared with 47 percent of men. In addition, the pensions
that women do receive are significantly less than those of men--$4,200
for women, on average, compared with $7,800 for men.
I hope that the Senate will take quick action on this matter, to help
American women provide for safe and secure retirements.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2672. A bill to provide for the conveyance of various reclamation
projects to local water authorities; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

THE SUGAR PINE DAM AND RESERVOIR CONVEYANCE ACT

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this
bill today which will provide for the transfer of the Sugar Pine Dam
and Reservoir Project in the Central Valley Project to the Forest Hills
Public Utility District. I continue to support the transfer of the
Bureau of Reclamation projects to the local water districts which
operate and benefit from them.

This bill is important in one other way. The language in this bill
will correct the financial inequity that affects CVP beneficiaries.
Some of the costs of constructing Bureau of Reclamation projects have
been allocated to other CVP contractors even though the projects have
never been operationally integrated into the CVP. Thus, Irrigation and
Municipal and Industrial (M&I) contractors such as Contra Costa Water
District, East Bay MUD, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Sacramento
MUD, City of Fresno and a number of others have incurred substantial
costs without ever receiving any benefit.
This bill has the bipartisan support of Congressman George Miller and
John Doolittle in the House. And I can think of no opposition to
assisting Forest Hills Public Utility District and other M&I
contractors with this legislation.
______

By Mr. REID:
S. 2673. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use as cemeteries,
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

the eureka county cemetery conveyance act

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Eureka County
Cemetery Conveyance Act.
The settlement of Beowawe, Nevada was destination and home to
pioneers that settled the isolated high desert of the central Great
Basin. The inhabitants of this community set aside a specific community
cemetery to provide the final resting place for friends and family who
passed away. The early settlers established and managed the cemetery in
the late 1800's. The Beowawe cemetery is on land currently managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

[[Page S4568]]

The site of these historic cemetery was established prior to the
creation of the BLM as an agency. The BLM was created in 1946. Under
current law, the agency must sell the encumbered land at fair market
value to this community. My bill provides for conveyance of this
cemetery to Eureka County, at no cost. It is unconscionable to me that
this community would have to buy their ancestors back from the Federal
government.
I sincerely hope that members of Congress recognize the benefit to
the local community that the conveyances would provide and pass this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2673

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the historical use by settlers and travelers since the
late 1800's of the cemetery known as ``Maiden's Grave
Cemetery'' in Beowawe, Nevada, predates incorporation of the
land on which the cemetery is situated within the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management; and
(2) it is appropriate that that use be continued through
local public ownership of the parcel rather than through the
permitting process of the Federal agency.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA.

(a) Conveyance.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), shall
convey, without consideration, subject to valid existing
rights, to Eureka County, Nevada (referred to in this section
as the ``county''), all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the parcel of land described in
subsection (b).
(b) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (a) is the parcel of public land (including any
improvements on the land) known as ``Maiden's Grave
Cemetery'', consisting of approximately 10 acres and more
particularly described as S1/2NE1/4SW1/4SW1/4, N1/2SE1/4SW1/
4SW1/4 of section 10, T.31N., R.49E., Mount Diablo Meridian.
(c) Use of Land.--
(1) In general.--The county shall continue the use of the
parcel conveyed under subsection (a) as a cemetery.
(2) Reversion.--If the Secretary, after notice to the
county and an opportunity for a hearing, makes a finding that
the county has discontinued the use of the parcel conveyed
under subsection (a) as a cemetery, title to the parcel shall
revert to the Secretary.
(d) Right-of-Way.--At the time of the conveyance under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall grant the county a right-
of-way allowing access for persons desiring to visit the
cemetery and other cemetery purposes over an appropriate
access route.
______

By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 2674. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code to provide for
realignment of the Department of Defense workforce; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

the department of defense civilian workforce realignment act of 2000

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Federal Government is facing
a little-known, yet serious problem that jeopardizes its ability to
provide services to the American people--a crisis in human capital. The
federal workforce has endured years of downsizing, hiring freezes, and
inadequate investment in the dedicated men and women who comprise the
federal civil service. As a result, the Federal Government is ill-
equipped to compete with the private sector for a new generation of
technology-savvy workers to replace the nearly 900,000 ``baby boomers''
who will be eligible for retirement from the civil service in the next
5 years.
To meet that challenge, I rise today to introduce legislation, along
with my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine, that will
help one critical department of our Federal Government--the Department
of Defense--get a head start in addressing its future workforce needs.
Our bill, the ``Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment
Act of 2000,'' provides the Department of Defense with greater
flexibility to adequately manage its civilian workforce and align its
human capital to meet the demands of the post-cold-war environment.
During the last decade, the Department of Defense underwent a massive
civilian workforce downsizing program that saw a cut of more than
280,000 positions. In addition, the Defense Department--like other
federal departments--was subject to hiring restrictions. Taken
together, these two factors have inhibited the development of mid-level
career, civilian professionals; the men and women who serve a vital
role in the management and development of our nation's military. The
extent of this problem is exhibited in the fact that right now, the
Department is seriously understaffed in certain key occupations, such
as computer experts and foreign language specialists. The lack of such
professionals has the potential to affect the Defense Department's
ability to respond effectively and rapidly to military threats to our
nation.
The need to address the pending human capital crisis in the federal
workforce is increasingly apparent, as more and more leaders
acknowledge that our past policies did not consider future federal
workforce needs. Indeed, in testimony before the Oversight of
Government Management Subcommittee, which I chair, the head of the
General Accounting Office, Comptroller General David Walker, stated,
``(I)n cutting back on the hiring of new staff in order to reduce the
number of their employees, agencies also reduced the influx of new
people with the new competencies needed to sustain excellence.''
The bill that Senator DeWine and I are introducing today will help
respond to these concerns by giving the Department of Defense the
assistance it needs to shape the ``skills mix'' of the current
workforce in order to address shortfalls brought about by years of
downsizing. Our bill will also help the Department meet its needs for
new skills in emerging technological and professional areas.
Another area of concern for the Department of Defense--as well as
many other federal agencies--is the serious demographic challenges that
exist in its workforce. The average Defense Department employee is 45
years old, and more than a third of the Department's workforce is age
51 or older. In the Department of the Air Force, for example, 45
percent of the workforce will be eligible for either regular retirement
or early retirement by 2005.
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH, is an excellent
example of the demographic challenge facing military installations
across the country. Wright-Patterson is the headquarters of the Air
Force Materiel Command, and employs 22,700 civilian federal workers. By
2005, 60 percent of the Base's civilian workforce will be eligible for
either regular retirement or early retirement. Although a mass exodus
of all retirement-eligible employees is not anticipated, there is a
genuine concern that a significant portion of the Wright-Patterson
civilian workforce, including hundreds of key leaders and employees
with crucial expertise, could decide to retire, leaving the remaining
workforce without experienced leadership and absent essential
institutional knowledge.
This combination of factors poses a serious challenge to the long-
term effectiveness of the civilian component of the Defense Department,
and by implication, the national security of the United States.
Military base leaders, and indeed the entire Defense establishment,
need to be given the flexibility to hire new employees so they can
begin to develop another generation of civilian leaders and employees
who will be able to provide critical support to our men and women in
uniform.
That is the purpose of the legislation we are introducing today. The
Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act addresses the
current imbalance between the federal workforce and the skills needed
to run the Federal Government in the 21st century, as well as the age
imbalance between new employees and the potential mass retirement of
senior public employees in the next 5 years. If we wait for this
``retirement bubble'' to burst before we begin to hire new employees,
then not only will we be woefully understaffed in a number of key
areas, but we will have fewer seasoned individuals left in the federal
workforce who can provide training and mentoring.
The provisions in our bill will allow the Defense Department to
conduct a smoother transition by bringing new employees into the
Department over

[[Page S4569]]

the next 5 years. The new employees will have the opportunity to work
with and learn from their more experienced colleagues, and invaluable
institutional knowledge will be passed along.
While this proposal does not address all of the human capital needs
of the Defense Department, it will help ensure that the Department of
Defense recruits and retains a quality civilian workforce so that our
Armed Forces may remain the best in the world. It is extremely
important to the future vitality of the Department's civilian workforce
and the national security of the United States that we address the
human capital crisis while we have the opportunity. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
printed in full in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2674

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense
Civilian Workforce Realignment Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR VOLUNTARY SEPARATIONS IN
REDUCTIONS IN FORCE.

Section 3502(f)(5) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``September 30, 2001'' and inserting
``September 30, 2005''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION, REVISION, AND EXPANSION OF AUTHORITIES FOR
USE OF VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAY AND
VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT.

(a) Extension of Authority.--Subsection (e) of section 5597
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking
``September 30, 2003'' and inserting ``September 30, 2005''.
(b) Revision and Addition of Purposes for Department of
Defense VSIP.--Subsection (b) of such section is amended by
inserting after ``transfer of function,'' the following:
``restructuring of the workforce (to meet mission needs, to
achieve one or more strength reductions, to correct skill
imbalances, or to reduce the number of high-grade,
managerial, or supervisory positions),''.
(c) Installment Payments.--Subsection (d) of such section
is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) shall be paid in a lump-sum or in installments;'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) if paid in installments, shall cease to be paid upon
the recipient's acceptance of employment by the Federal
Government as described in subsection (g)(1).''.

SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EMPLOYEE VOLUNTARY EARLY
RETIREMENT AUTHORITY.

(a) Civil Service Retirement System.--Section 8336 of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``except in the case
of an employee described in subsection (o)(1),'' after
``(2)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(o)(1) An employee of the Department of Defense who,
before October 1, 2005, is separated from the service after
completing 25 years of service or after becoming 50 years of
age and completing 20 years of service is entitled to an
immediate annuity under this subchapter if the employee is
eligible for the annuity under paragraph (2) or (3).
``(2)(A) An employee referred to in paragraph (1) is
eligible for an immediate annuity under this paragraph if the
employee--
``(i) is separated from the service involuntarily other
than for cause; and
``(ii) has not declined a reasonable offer of another
position in the Department of Defense for which the employee
is qualified, which is not lower than 2 grades (or pay
levels) below the employee's grade (or pay level), and which
is within the employee's commuting area.
``(B) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(A)(i), a separation
for failure to accept a directed reassignment to a position
outside the commuting area of the employee concerned or to
accompany a position outside of such area pursuant to a
transfer of function may not be considered to be a removal
for cause.
``(3) An employee referred to in paragraph (1) is eligible
for an immediate annuity under this paragraph if the employee
satisfies all of the following conditions:
``(A) The employee is separated from the service
voluntarily during a period in which the organization within
the Department of Defense in which the employee is serving is
undergoing a major organizational adjustment, as determined
by the Secretary of Defense.
``(B) The employee has been employed continuously by the
Department of Defense for more than 30 days before the date
on which the head of the employee's organization requests the
determinations required under subparagraph (A).
``(C) The employee is serving under an appointment that is
not limited by time.
``(D) The employee is not in receipt of a decision notice
of involuntary separation for misconduct or unacceptable
performance.
``(E) The employee is within the scope of an offer of
voluntary early retirement, as defined on the basis of one or
more of the following objective criteria:
``(i) One or more organizational units.
``(ii) One or more occupational groups, series, or levels.
``(iii) One or more geographical locations.
``(iv) Any other similar criteria that the Secretary of
Defense determines appropriate.
``(4) The determinations necessary for establishing the
eligibility of a person for an immediate annuity under
paragraph (2) or (3) shall be made in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
``(5) In this subsection, the term `major organizational
adjustment' means any of the following:
``(A) A major reorganization.
``(B) A major reduction in force.
``(C) A major transfer of function.
``(D) A workforce restructuring--
``(i) to meet mission needs;
``(ii) to achieve one or more reductions in strength;
``(iii) to correct skill imbalances; or
``(iv) to reduce the number of high-grade, managerial,
supervisory, or similar positions.''.
(b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--Section 8414 of
such title is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by inserting ``except in the
case of an employee described in subsection (d)(1),'' after
``(B)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) An employee of the Department of Defense who,
before October 1, 2005, is separated from the service after
completing 25 years of service or after becoming 50 years of
age and completing 20 years of service is entitled to an
immediate annuity under this subchapter if the employee is
eligible for the annuity under paragraph (2) or (3).
``(2)(A) An employee referred to in paragraph (1) is
eligible for an immediate annuity under this paragraph if the
employee--
``(i) is separated from the service involuntarily other
than for cause; and
``(ii) has not declined a reasonable offer of another
position in the Department of Defense for which the employee
is qualified, which is not lower than 2 grades (or pay
levels) below the employee's grade (or pay level), and which
is within the employee's commuting area.
``(B) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(A)(i), a separation
for failure to accept a directed reassignment to a position
outside the commuting area of the employee concerned or to
accompany a position outside of such area pursuant to a
transfer of function may not be considered to be a removal
for cause.
``(3) An employee referred to in paragraph (1) is eligible
for an immediate annuity under this paragraph if the employee
satisfies all of the following conditions:
``(A) The employee is separated from the service
voluntarily during a period in which the organization within
the Department of Defense in which the employee is serving is
undergoing a major organizational adjustment, as determined
by the Secretary of Defense.
``(B) The employee has been employed continuously by the
Department of Defense for more than 30 days before the date
on which the head of the employee's organization requests the
determinations required under subparagraph (A).
``(C) The employee is serving under an appointment that is
not limited by time.
``(D) The employee is not in receipt of a decision notice
of involuntary separation for misconduct or unacceptable
performance.
``(E) The employee is within the scope of an offer of
voluntary early retirement, as defined on the basis of one or
more of the following objective criteria:
``(i) One or more organizational units.
``(ii) One or more occupational groups, series, or levels.
``(iii) One or more geographical locations.
``(iv) Any other similar criteria that the Secretary of
Defense determines appropriate.
``(4) The determinations necessary for establishing the
eligibility of a person for an immediate annuity under
paragraph (2) or (3) shall be made in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
``(5) In this subsection, the term `major organizational
adjustment' means any of the following:
``(A) A major reorganization.
``(B) A major reduction in force.
``(C) A major transfer of function.
``(D) A workforce restructuring--
``(i) to meet mission needs;
``(ii) to achieve one or more reductions in strength;
``(iii) to correct skill imbalances; or
``(iv) to reduce the number of high-grade, managerial,
supervisory, or similar positions.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 8339(h) of such
title is amended by striking out ``or ( j)'' in the first
sentence and inserting ``( j), or (o)''.
(2) Section 8464(a)(1)(A)(i) of such title is amended by
striking out ``or (b)(1)(B)'' and ``, (b)(1)(B), or (d)''.
(d) Effective Date; Applicability.--The amendments made by
this section--
(1) shall take effect on October 1, 2000; and
(2) shall apply with respect to an approval for voluntary
early retirement made on or after that date.

[[Page S4570]]

SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON PAYMENTS FOR ACADEMIC TRAINING.

(a) Sources of Postsecondary Education.--Subsection (a) of
section 4107 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) any course of postsecondary education that is
administered or conducted by an institution not accredited by
a national or regional accrediting body (except in the case
of a course or institution for which standards for
accrediting do not exist or are determined by the head of the
employee's agency as being inappropriate), regardless of
whether the course is provided by means of classroom
instruction, electronic instruction, or otherwise.''.
(b) Waiver of Restriction on Degree Training.--Subsection
(b)(1) of such section is amended by striking ``if
necessary'' and all that follows through the end and
inserting ``if the training provides an opportunity for an
employee of the agency to obtain an academic degree pursuant
to a planned, systematic, and coordinated program of
professional development approved by the head of the
agency.''.
(c) Conforming and Clerical Amendments.--The heading for
such section is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 4107. Restrictions''.

(3) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``4107. Restrictions.''.

SEC. 6. STRATEGIC PLAN.

(a) Requirement for Plan.--Not later than six months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a strategic plan for the exercise of the authorities
provided or extended by the amendments made by this Act. The
plan shall include an estimate of the number of Department of
Defense employees that would be affected by the uses of
authorities as described in the plan.
(b) Consistency With DoD Performance and Review Strategic
Plan.--The strategic plan submitted under subsection (a)
shall be consistent with the strategic plan of the Department
of Defense that is in effect under section 306 of title 5,
United States Code.
(c) Appropriate Committees.--For the purposes of this
section, the appropriate committees of Congress are as
follows:
(1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(2) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today Senator Voinovich and I are
introducing the Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment
Act of 2000. This legislation is designed to give the Department of
Defense some of the administrative flexibility it needs to shape the
civilian workforce to meet the tremendous national defense challenges
that face our nation well into this century.
My colleague from Ohio and I, along with our Ohio colleagues in the
House, Mr. Hobson and Mr. Hall have been working on this issue for
almost two years. What has fostered this bipartisan unity is the
current workforce situation at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in
Dayton, Ohio. What we have seen there is a rather large microcosm of a
current and growing problem that affects the civilian workforce
throughout our defense infrastructure. At Wright-Patterson, this
problem threatens to diminish significantly the pool of talented
experts in critical research and development fields. As I have often
said, Wright-Patterson is the brain power behind our air power, and is
the central reason why our Air Force is second to none in technological
and aeronautical superiority.
Wright-Patterson has already lost a significant number of people who
constituted that brain power as a result of Cold War downsizing. In the
last decade alone, 8,000 positions at Wright-Patterson have been lost.
For the entire Department of Defense, approximately 280,000 positions
were lost during the same period. At the same time we were downsizing,
hiring restrictions prevented the Defense Department from establishing
a foundation of younger innovators. In short, the combination of
downsizing, retirement, and a hiring freeze has left a shallow talent
pool of young skilled workers.
The statistics tell the story. Today, for example, nearly one out of
10 civilian workers at Wright-Patterson's Aeronautical Systems Center
are under the age of 35, while more than one-third of the workforce is
over the age of 50. In less than five years, more than half of this
workforce will be eligible for retirement, but only 2.5 percent will be
under the age of 35. This trend is typical for all civilian functions
at Wright-Patterson.
The Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act would
extend, revise and expand the Defense Department's limited authority to
use voluntary incentive pay and voluntary early retirement. Our bill
would allow for the Department to utilize the added authority to
restructure the civilian workforce to meet missions needs and to
correct skill imbalances. Given the significant numbers of eligible
federal retirees the Department will face in just a few short years,
this legislation would give the Department the ability to better manage
this extraordinary transition period. Just as important, this smoother
transition period would allow for better and more effective development
of our younger workers, who will have a better chance to learn and gain
from the expertise of the older generation of innovators.
The legislation we are introducing, fundamentally for Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, is about maintaining technological
superiority. That superiority is the foundation of future Air Force
dominance in the skies. It's that simple. Weakening that foundation
places the lives of our pilots and the security of our nation at risk.
Our legislation is a positive step toward rebuilding and strengthening
that foundation with an investment in those who will make tomorrow's
discoveries and breakthroughs that will keep our pilots safe and our
nation secure.
I am pleased that the Department of the Air Force and the Department
of Defense have expressed the need for workforce realignment
legislation. I believe the legislation Senator Voinovich and I are
introducing today will meet the concerns they have expressed not just
to us, but also to other members of the House and Senate.
I want to thank Senator Voinovich for his efforts and leadership on
his legislation, and also want to extend my appreciation to his staff,
especially Aric Newhouse and Andrew Richardson, for their hard work.
The Miami Valley community also has been of great help in demonstrating
the importance of this issue not just to Wright-Patterson but also to
the entire region and the nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 2675. A bill to establish an Office on Women's Health within the
Department of Health and Human Services; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

women's health office act of 2000

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Women's Health Office Act of 2000 and I am pleased to be joined on this
legislation by my friend and colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski.
Companion legislation to this bill has been introduced in the House by
Congresswomen Connie Morella and Carolyn Maloney.
The Women's Health Office Act of 2000 provides permanent
authorization for offices of women's health in five federal agencies:
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the Agency for Health Care
Research and Quality (AHRQ); the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA); and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Currently, only two women's health offices in the federal government
have statutory authorization: the Office of Research on Women's Health
at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Office for Women's
Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA).
For too many years, women's health care needs were ignored or poorly
understood, and women were systematically excluded from important
health research. One famous medical study on breast cancer examined
hundreds of men. Another federally-funded study examined the ability of
aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom
were men, despite the fact that heart disease is the leading cause
among women.
Today, members of Congress and the American public understand the
importance of ensuring that both genders benefit equally from medical
research

[[Page S4571]]

and health care services. Unfortunately, equity does not yet exist in
health care, and we have a long way to go. Knowledge about appropriate
courses of treatment for women lags far behind that for men for many
diseases. For years, research into diseases that predominantly affect
women, such as breast cancer, went grossly underfunded. And many women
do not have access to reproductive and other vital health services.
Throughout my tenure in the House and Senate, I have worked hard to
expose and eliminate this health care gender gap and improve women's
access to affordable, quality health services. Ten years, ago, as co-
chairs of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues (CCWI),
Representative Pat Schroeder and I, along with Representative Henry
Waxman, called for a GAO investigation into the inclusion of women and
minorities in medical research at the National Institutes of Health.
This study documented the widespread exclusion of women from medical
research, and spurred the Caucus to introduce the first Women's Health
Equity Act (WHEA) in 1990. This comprehensive legislation provided
Congress with its first broad, forward-looking health agenda designed
to redress the historical inequities that face women in medical
research, prevention and services.

Three years later Congress enacted legislation mandating the
inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials at NIH through the
National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-43).
Also included in the NIH Revitalization Act was language establishing
the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health--language based on my
original Office of Women's Health bill that was introduced in the 104th
Congress.
And yet, despite all the progress that we have made, there is still a
long way to go on women's health care issues. Last month, the GAO
released a report--a ten-year update--on the status of women's research
at NIH (``NIH Has Increased Its Efforts to Include Women in Research,''
published on May 2, 2000). This report found that since the first GAO
report and the 1993 legislation, NIH has made significant progress
toward including women as subjects in both intramural and external
clinical trials.
However, the report notes that the Institutes have made less progress
in implementing the requirement that certain clinical trials be
designed and carried out to permit valid analysis by sex, which could
reveal whether interventions affect women and men differently. The GAO
found that NIH researchers will include women in their trials--but then
they will either not do analysis on the basis of sex, or if no
difference was found, they will not publish the sex-based results.
NIH has done a good job of improving participation of women in
clinical trials, but our commitment to women's health this is not about
quotas and numbers. It is about real scientific advances that will
improve our knowledge about women's health. At a time when we are on
track to double funding for NIH, it is troubling that the agency has
still failed to fully implement both its own guidelines and Congress's
directive for sex-based analysis. And as a result, women continue to be
shortchanged by federal research efforts.
The crux of the matter is that NIH's problems exist despite the fact
that it has an Office of Women's Health that is codified in law. If NIH
is having problems, imagine the difficulties we will have in continuing
the focus on women's health in offices that don't have this legislative
mandate, and that may change focus with a new HHS Secretary or Agency
Director.
Offices of Women's Health across the Public Health Service are
charged with coordinating women's health activities and monitoring
progress on women's health issues within their respective agencies, and
they have been successful in making federal programs and policies more
responsive to women's health issues. Unfortunately, all of the good
work these offices are doing is not guaranteed in Public Health Service
authorizing law. Providing statutory authorization for federal women's
health offices is a critical step in ensuring that women's health
research will continue to receive the attention it requires in future
years.

Codifying these offices of women's health is important for several
reasons: First, it re-emphasizes Congress's commitment to focusing on
women's health. Second, it ensures that Agencies will enact Congress's
intent with good faith. Finally, it ensures that appropriations will be
available in future years to fulfill these commitments.
By statutorily creating Offices of Women's Health, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Women's Health will be able to better monitor
various Public Health Service agencies and advise them on scientific,
legal, ethical and policy issues. Agencies would establish a
Coordinating Committee on Women's Health to identify and prioritize
which women's health projects should be conducted. This will also
provide a mechanism for coordination within and across these agencies,
and with the private sector. But most importantly, this bill will
ensure the presence of enduring offices dedicated to addressing the
ongoing needs and gaps in research policy, programs, and education and
training in women's health.
Improving the health of American women requires a far greater
understanding of women's health needs and conditions, and ongoing
evaluation in the areas of research, education, prevention, treatment
and the delivery of services. I urge my colleagues to join Senator
Mikulski and me in supporting this legislation, to help ensure that
women's health will never again be a missing page in America's medical
textbook.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join my good friend and
colleague, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of
2000. I'm pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing this bill
because it establishes an important framework to address women's health
within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Historically, women's health needs were ignored or inadequately
addressed by the medical establishment and the government. It is really
only in the last ten years that the health of women has begun to
receive more attention. A 1990 General Accounting Office (GAO) report
acknowledged the historical pattern of neglect of women in health
research, and especially the exclusion of women as research subjects in
many clinical trials. This was unacceptable. Women make up half or more
of the population and must be adequately included in clinical research.
That's why I fought to establish the Office of Research on Women's
Health (ORWH) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ten years ago.
We needed to ensure that women were included in clinical research, so
that we would know how treatments for a particular disease or condition
would affect women. Would men and women react the same way to a
particular treatment for heart disease? We had no way of knowing
because women were not being included in clinical trials.
While the ORWH began its work in 1990, I wanted to ensure that it
stayed at NIH and had the necessary authority to carry out its mission
of ensuring that women were included in clinical research. That's why I
authored legislation in 1990 and 1991 to formally establish the ORWH in
the Office of the Director of NIH. These provisions were later enacted
into law in the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993.
Last year, Senator Harkin, Senator Snowe, and I requested that GAO
examine how well the NIH and ORWH was carrying out the mandates under
the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. The results were mixed. While NIH
had made substantial progress in ensuring the inclusion of women in
clinical research, it had made less progress in encouraging the
analysis of study findings by sex. This means that women are being
included in clinical trials, but we are not able to fully reap the
benefits of inclusion because analysis of how interventions affect men
and women is not being done. While the NIH is taking steps to address
this, we are missing information from research done over the last few
years about how the outcomes of the research varied or not for men and
women.
NIH is but one agency in the DHHS. Other agencies in DHHS do not even
have women's health offices. How are these other agencies addressing
women's health? Only NIH and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) have statutory authorization for
offices dedicated to women's health. Other

[[Page S4572]]

agencies in HHS have a hodgepodge of women's health offices or
advisors/coordinators, some of whom have experienced cuts in their
funding. For example, funding for the Food and Drug Administration's
(FDA) Office of Women's Health has decreased from $2 million in Fiscal
Year 1995 to $1.6 million in Fiscal Year 2000. In addition, funding for
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Office of
Women's Health was cut more than 10% between Fiscal Year 1999 and
Fiscal Year 2000.
I believe we need a consistent and comprehensive approach to address
the needs of women's health in the DHHS. This bill that I join Senator
Snowe in introducing today would do just that. The Women's Health
Office Act of 2000 would provide authorization for women's health
offices in DHHS, CDC, the FDA, the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality (AHRQ), and the Health Resources and Serivces Administration
(HRSA).
This legislation establishes an important framework and build on
existing efforts. The HHS Office on Women's Health would take over all
functions which previously belonged to the current Office of Women's
Health of the Public Health Service. The HHS Office would be headed by
a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health who would also chair an
HHS Coordinating Committee on Women's Heath. The responsibilities of
the HHS Office would include establishing short and long-term goals,
advising the Secretary of HHS on women's health issues, monitoring and
facilitating coordination and stimulating HHS activities on women's
health, establishing a national Women's Health Information Center to
facilitate exchange of and access to women's health information, and
coordinating private sector efforts to promote women's health.
Under this legislation, the Offices of Women's Health in CDC, FDA,
HRSA, and AHRQ would be housed in the office of the head of each agency
and be headed by a Director appointed by the head of the respective
agency. The offices would assess the current level of activity on
women's health in the agency; establish short-term and long-term goals
for women's health and coordinate women's health activities in the
agency; identify women's health projects to support or conduct; consult
with appropriate outside groups on the agency's policy regarding women;
serve on HHS' Coordinating Committee on Women's Health; and establish
and head a coordinating committee on women's health within the agency
to identify womens' health needs and make recommendations to the head
of the agency. The FDA office would also have specific duties regarding
women and clinical trials. All the offices, including the HHS Office
beginning no later than Jan. 31. 2002, would submit a report every two
years to the appropriate Congressional committees documenting
activities accomplished. In addition, the bill authorizes
appropriations for all the offices through 2005
I believe that this bill will establish a valuable and consistent
framework for addressing women's health in the Department of Health and
Human Services. It will help to ensure that women's health research
will continue to have the resources it needs in the coming years. This
bill is a priority of the Women's Health Research Coalition. The
Coalition is comprised of nearly three dozen academic centers,
voluntary health associations and membership organizations with a
strong focus on women's health research and gender-based biology. I
encourage my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and myself in supporting
and cosponsoring this important legislation for women.
______

By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Helms,
Mr. Allard, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 2676. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide
for inflation adjustments to the mandatory jurisdiction thresholds of
the National Labor Relations Board; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

legislation regarding inflation adjustments to mandatory jurisdiction
thresholds of the national labor relations board

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 2676

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS TO MANDATORY JURISDICTION
THRESHOLDS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

Section 14(c)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (29
U.S.C. 164(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c)(1)(A) Mandatory Jurisdiction.--The Board shall assert
jurisdiction over any labor dispute involving any class or
category of employers over which it would assert jurisdiction
under the standards prevailing on August 1, 1959, with the
financial threshold amounts adjusted for inflation under
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Inflation Adjustments.--The Board, beginning on
October 1, 2000, and not less often than every 5 years
thereafter, shall adjust each of the financial threshold
amounts referred to in subparagraph (A) for inflation, using
as the base period the later of (i) the most recent calendar
quarter ending before the financial threshold amount was
established, or (ii) the calendar quarter ending June 30,
1959. The inflation adjustments shall be determined using
changes in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers
published by the Department of Labor and shall be rounded to
the nearest $10,000. The Board shall prescribe any
regulations necessary for making the inflation
adjustments.''.
____

[From the Dallas Morning News, Apr. 28, 2000]

Mike Huckabee: Government's Flawed Pursuit of Microsoft

(By Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas)

As a lifelong Southerner, I am proud our region is known
for its hospitality and common sense. It seems the Justice
Department could use a little of both in the handling of its
antitrust suit against the Microsoft Corp.
When Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson recently issued
his ruling, he gave credence to the flawed logic upon which
the government has built its case.
That flawed logic should have precluded the federal
government from bringing the case in the first place.
Washington bureaucrats shouldn't be in the business of
choosing winners and losers in the private sector. That
responsibility belongs to consumers.
The government's theory behind the case is that America's
high-technology industry has been victimized by Microsoft's
stifling competition and squelching innovation. Every piece
of the federal government's theory is an insult to the free-
enterprise system and the will of consumers.
First, there is no more competitive industry in the world
than America's high-tech market. That is as true today as it
was before the federal government's five-year, $30 million
attempt to regulate free enterprise. There are thousands of
companies selling software products today, far more than at
the start of the trial.
And in the time since the federal government and 19 state
attorneys general filed their suit, America's technology
industry has produced one-third of the nation's economic
growth.
Those facts hardly would support the government's
characterization of the information technology industry as a
shell of its former self.
As for innovation, consider the change in the simple matter
of personal computing since 1995. In 1995, the personal
computer was just starting to have its potential realized
with the development--among other innovations--of Windows 95.
Just as Windows 95 has since been rendered obsolete by
Microsoft itself, so now is the debate beginning about the
future of the personal computer as we know it. Many believe
the PC soon will be replaced by Internet-based appliances in
phones, televisions and hand-held computing devices. The
technology industry in 2000 looks nothing like it did in
1995.
Just as many of the technologies of the mid-'90s now are
obsolete, so are the issues the government has raised in this
case. The high-tech market has moved--and will continue to
move--too quickly for any government to keep tabs on it
through regulation. By the time federal bureaucrats get
around to fixing rules, the market will change them. That is
the way of the new economy, built on competition, innovation
and customer service.
The federal government's case against Microsoft attacks all
three principles.
Instead of the self-regulating competition that has enabled
Microsoft to lead the technology industry to its current
heights, the government favors either breaking up the company
or regulating away its freedom to innovate and compete. The
federal government's ``remedy'' would insert bureaucrats into
the technology market in ways never before imagined. Those
Washington bureaucrats would be involved in questions of
product design and marketing. That would empower pencil-
pushing Beltway bureaucrats to second-guess innocent computer
programmers and entrepreneurs. The new arrangement would
enable regulators to pick winners and losers in the
marketplace, stripping consumers of their rights.

[[Page S4573]]

In a free market, it is consumers, not bureaucrats, who
should control the destinies of individual industries and
companies. In response to consumers' influence over the
market, companies have lowered prices, created new products
and focused on customer services. The government's scheme
would negate those market forces. It also would preclude the
industry and the government from working together to bridge
the digital divide, since the industry probably would be
forced to raise prices to account for new regulatory
compliance costs. Higher prices would prohibit low-income
families from enjoying newer technologies, so poor families
would remain behind the technological curve.
The Justice Department has wasted the taxpayers' money and
attacked the interests of consumers, from the case's
inception to the intentional failure of government lawyers to
settle the case to the reckless breakup scheme it hatched to
punish Microsoft. The suit is a deliberate attempt by the
government to circumvent the economic authority of consumers
and entrepreneurs in the free market. It seems the least the
federal government could show the American people would be a
little bit of hospitality and common sense on this
issue.
______

By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 2677. A bill to restrict assistance until certain conditions are
satisfied and to support democratic and economic transition in
Zimbabwe; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

legislation to promote political and economic reform in zimbabwe

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on its surface, the turmoil and
death toll of Zimbabwe's brutal farm invasions is an economic and
racial battle. At its core, it is an engineered effort to distract from
the government's assault on a besieged democratic opposition movement.
The crisis in Zimbabwe has profound implications for Africa far beyond
the killings and lawlessness necessary to sustain it. It has the
potential to fundamentally compromise the future of the entire region
and the United States' most basic interests there. But it is a crisis
which we are ill-prepared to address, and time is not on our side.
President Robert Mugabe's orchestration and blessing of the invasions
of predominantly white-owned commercial farms--the backbone of
Zimbabwe's export economy--by so-called war veterans is actually a
shrewd maneuver to disguise behind the veil of a racial drama his
relentless attack on the democratic institutions and rule of law in
Zimbabwe. By successfully casting the issue as one of race rather than
his own lawlessness. President Mugabe has paralyzed the very forces
which should otherwise call his bluff.
Most notable among the paralyzed are other African heads of state--
and Kofi Annan. The deliberate introduction of a racial element to the
controversy has left them in an untenable position: if they dare
criticize behavior they find outrageous or even dangerous, they would
seemingly side against black Africans on behalf of ``colonial'' whites.
Thus neighboring heads of state--some of whom have shown great
commitment to democracy and racial reconciliation in their own
countries--are unhappily muted, even seemingly compelled to support
President Mugabe's antics.
Yet the near paralysis of the United States is of greatest concern.
Over 10,000 Zimbabwean troops from the thin green line which keeps
Laurent Kabila in power in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The
volatile Kabila, in turn, determines whether or not the war in Congo
ends peacefully--a goal to which the administration has staked
considerable political capital during ``the month of Africa'' at the
United Nations. Thus, President Mugabe has presented us with a
ludicrous choice between support for democracy in Zimbabwe and the
chance to prevent Kabila from plunging Congo back into full scale war.
The United States is frozen lest we provoke them.
Relatively small Zimbabwe's ability to direct the fate of Congo and
the entire central African region is testament to its weight on the
continent and why its internal chaos is reason for great concern.
Zimbabwe can be a force for good or bad in southern Africa, the region
which will in turn, drive either the progress or further demise of the
entire continent south of the Sahara. Zimbabwe is currently a driving
force for its demise. The best chance to reverse that is through
support for the democratic forces challenging a leader whose
increasingly destructive acts imperil the continent. The United States'
policy imperative in Zimbabwe could not be clearer, but we are
seemingly unprepared to take the necessary steps to aggressively defend
democracy and our national interests.
First, the United States must be willing to ``decouple'' our support
for democracy in Zimbabwe from the war in Congo. As in any hostage
situation, you never let the captor dictate the terms. That will
require commitment of considerable political capital and diplomatic
muscle. It will require taking some necessary risks.

Second, the United States should not wait until after ballots are
cast for parliament on June 24 and 25 to declare whether the elections
were ``free and fair'' or even ``flawed but representative.'' The
government's attempt to steal the election now through violence,
intimidation, and brazen manipulation of procedures are in daily news
reports. Silence on that point makes us accomplices in its attempts to
maintain its grip on power and false pretense of democracy. More
insidious, the world is helping to pave the way for the same deception
and violence in the critical 2002 presidential elections by essentially
demonstrating how little we expect when it comes to democracy in
Africa. It stands in shameful contrast to our expectations and actions
in South Africa in 1994.
Third, we must explicitly link international financial support and
cooperation with Zimbabwe to the fate of its democratic institutions.
With the virtual end of support from international lending institutions
and economic aid, we have precious few ``sticks'' at our disposal. The
``carrots'' are real, through. We must use them to communicate that
democracy brings immediate benefits and to entice and generously shore
up any gains made, including progress on real land reform. In the 20
years since independence, land reform, which is broadly supported in
Zimbabwe and among donors, has been slow and has benefitted ruling
party insiders.
It is critical that the United States be clear about its support for
peaceful democratic transition in Zimbabwe. That fact must be
communicated to the Zimbabwean government in no uncertain terms, and to
the Zimbabwean people. They should know that we back them in their
struggle for democracy.
But it must be more than just words. The United States should be
prepared to meet the needs of those fighting for democracy, and to be
there to assist them should they have the opportunity to govern.
Mr. President, to that end, Senators Feingold and Helms have joined
me in introducing the Zimbabwe Democracy Act. The legislation contains
several critical democratic support mechanisms which we should act
quickly to put in place.
First, it unequivocally states the policy of the United States is to
support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggles to effect peaceful,
democratic change, achieve broad-based and equitable economic growth,
and restore the rule of law.
It suspends bilateral assistance to the government of Zimbabwe;
suspends any debt reduction measures for the government of Zimbabwe;
and instructs the U.S. executive directors of the multilateral lending
institutions to vote against the extension of any credit or benefits to
the government of Zimbabwe until rule of law and democratic
institutions are restored.
It includes explicit exceptions for humanitarian, health and
democracy support programs. It authorizes a legal assistance fund for
individuals and institutions which are suffering under the breakdown of
rule of law. The legal fees for torture victims, independent media
supporting free speech and other democratic institutions challenging
election results or undemocratic laws can be paid from the funds.

It provides new authority for broadcasting of objective and reliable
news to listeners in Zimbabwe.
It doubles next year's funding for democracy programs in Zimbabwe.
It expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should
support election observers to the parliamentary and presidential
elections.
It prepares the United States to act decisively to support democracy.
If the President certifies to Congress that rule of law has been
restored, freedom of speech and association is respected,

[[Page S4574]]

free elections have been conducted, Zimbabwe is pursuing an equitable
and legal land reform program, and the army is under civilian control,
a series of programs to support democratic transition and aggressively
promote economic recovery are initiated:
Suspended assistance is restored.
The Secretary of Treasury is directed to undertake a review of
Zimbabwe's bilateral debt for the purposes of elimination of that debt
to the greatest extent possible.
It directs the U.S. executive directors at the multilateral
institutions to propose and support programs for the elimination of
Zimbabwe's multilateral debt, and that those institutions initiate
programs to support rapid economic recovery and the stabilization of
the Zimbabwe dollar.
It allocates an initial US$16 million for alternative land reform
programs under the Inception Phase of the Land Reform and Resettlement
Program--including acquisition and resettlement costs.
It directs the establishment of a ``Southern Africa Finance Center''
in Zimbabwe which will serve as a joint office for the Export-Import
Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade
Development Agency to pursue, facilitate and underwrite American
private investment in Zimbabwe and the region.
Mr. President, the future stability of Zimbabwe is in the United
States national interest. That future is dependent on the viability of
the democratic legal and economic institutions in Zimbabwe which are
currently under assault. It is clear that the United States must
support those individuals and institutions, both during the current
assaults and especially if they gain in elections.
This legislation offers clear support for democratic institutions and
the rule of law now, and it provides aggressive future United States
economic and institutional support for a transition to democracy,
including real land reform based on equitable distribution and title to
the land.
In the end, President Mugabe may simply dismiss all international and
internal pressure. He has both the power to do so and increasingly
seems to have the inclination, despite the costs. Even so, the United
States cannot be intimidated or compromised. We must act decisively and
quickly to support the democratic institutions upon which he is waging
war. It is upon the fate of those institutions and individuals which so
much of Africa's future depends.
______

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2682. A bill to authorize the Broadcasting Board of Governors to
make available to the Institute for Medial Development certain
materials of the Voice of America; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

legislation regarding the voice of america/africa archives

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with
Senator Boxer, a bill to authorize the Broadcasting Board of Governors
to make available to a private entity archival materials from the
Africa Division of the Voice of America. This bill is also being
introduced today in the other body by Representative Cynthia McKinney,
who initiated this proposal and asked me to introduce the Senate
version of the bill.
The bill authorizes the Broadcasting Board of Governors to make
available to the Institute for Media Development, a non-profit
organization, archival materials of the Africa Division of the Voice of
America (VOA). These materials, currently stored at the VOA in analog
form, will be put into modern digital form and made available to
scholars through the University of California, Los Angeles, and any
other institution of higher learning approved by the Board.
I believe this is a very useful public-private partnership that will
result in a positive benefit to scholars of African studies. As I am
sure my colleagues are aware, the Voice of America is not broadcast in
the United States. Programs which may be of interest to students and
scholars of African politics, history, literature and foreign policy
are often inaccessible. Moreover, there is no systematic means, much
less the funds, to make such archival material available. And once the
programs are aired, there is no guarantee that the analog tape on which
they are recorded will be preserved. History may literally be lost, if
news shows and interviews with prominent figures in various African
countries are not preserved. Storing these recordings in a central
archive should prove invaluable in years to come.
There will be no cost to the U.S. Government. The bill requires that
the government be reimbursed for any expenses it incurs in making such
materials available, and for the indemnification of the government in
the event that the materials are used in a manner that violates the
copyright laws of the United States. I would not anticipate that such
copyright violations will occur, because the bill also makes clear that
materials made available may be used only for academic and research
purposes and may not be used for public or commercial broadcast
purposes.
I am pleased that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations
has agreed to place this legislation on the agenda of the committee
later this week. I hope the Committee, and then the full Senate, will
give its approval.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed at this point in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2682

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN MATERIALS OF THE VOICE OF
AMERICA.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, the
Broadcasting Board of Governors (in this Act referred to as
the ``Board'') is authorized to make available to the
Institute for Media Development (in this Act referred to as
the ``Institute''), at the request of the Institute,
previously broadcast audio and video materials produced by
the Africa Division of the Voice of America.
(2) Deposit of materials.--Upon the request of the
Institute and the approval of the Board, materials made
available under paragraph (1) may be deposited with the
University of California, Los Angeles, or such other
appropriate institution of higher education (as defined in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a)) that is approved by the Board for such purpose.
(3) Supersedes existing law.--Materials made available
under paragraph (1) may be provided notwithstanding section
501 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange
Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461) and section 208 of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (22
U.S.C. 1461-1a).
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Authorized purposes.--Materials made available under
this Act shall be used only for academic and research
purposes and may not be used for public or commercial
broadcast purposes.
(2) Prior agreement required.--Before making available
materials under subsection (a)(1), the Board shall enter into
an agreement with the Institute providing for--
(A) reimbursement of the Board for any expenses involved in
making such materials available;
(B) the establishment of guidelines by the Institute for
the archiving and use of the materials to ensure that
copyrighted works contained in those materials will not be
used in a manner that would violate the copyright laws of the
United States (including international copyright conventions
to which the United States is a party);
(C) the indemnification of the United States by the
Institute in the event that any use of the materials results
in violation of the copyright laws of the United States
(including international copyright conventions to which the
United States is a party);
(D) the authority of the Board to terminate the agreement
if the provisions of paragraph (1) are violated; and
(E) any other terms and conditions relating to the
materials that the Board considers appropriate.
(c) Crediting of Reimbursements to Board Appropriations
Account.--Any reimbursement of the Board under subsection (b)
shall be deposited as an offsetting collection to the
currently applicable appropriation account of the Board.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority provided under this Act shall cease to have
effect on the date that is 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 2683. A bill to deauthorize a portion of the project for
navigation, Kennebunk River, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 2684. A bill to redesignate and reauthorize as anchorage certain
portions of the project for navigation, Narraguagus River, Milbridge,
Maine;

[[Page S4575]]

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Legislation Regarding Maine River Navigation Projects

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills
that are important to my State of Maine. The first piece of legislation
pertains to the Narraguagus River dredge in Milbridge and will
reauthorize former Corps project areas so as to design a portion of the
11-foot channel as anchorage. The town has provided the Corps with
harbor use data that indicates that the 11-foot channel need only be
dredged to 9 feet.
I have already requested $30,000 for FY01 Energy and Water
appropriations to complete plans and specifications for a maintenance
dredge of the 11-, 9- and 6-foot channel from Narraguagus Bay to the
town landings and the 6-foot anchorages in Milbridge. The project
serves the important commercial fishing and lobstering fleet,
acquaculture operations, and fish packing facility, and a small
recreational fleet.
The second bill concerns the Kennebunk River in Kennebunkport that
deauthorizes a small elongated section of the Federal Navigation
Channel. Not only would this allow much needed moorings from a nearby
marina to remain where they have been positioned, but most importantly,
the deauthorization would be the last piece needed so that the
important dredge project can go forward.
This is a very active channel, Mr. President, and the dredge is
extremely important for the safe passage not only for fishermen, but
also for the tour boats, transporting up to 150 people, which go in and
out of the busy harbor area throughout the spring, summer and fall
months. Anyone who has been to the ``Port'' during the heavy tourist
season can tell you it is a very popular attraction, particularly the
tour boat trips that take tourists out past the breakwater for a view
of the Maine coastline. The New England District Corps has given its
approval for the deauthorization as has the town and the Joint River
Commission.
I look forward to the speedy passage of these two non-controversial
bills separately and to support their inclusion into legislation
reauthorizing the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, for which
passage is being considered in this Congress.
______

By Mr. THURMOND:
S.J. Res. 46. A joint resolution commemorating the 225th birthday of
the United States Army; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

commemorating june 6, 2000, as the united states army's 225th birthday

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today on the anniversary of D-Day, June
6th, 1944, I have the great privilege to introduce a joint resolution
honoring the United States Army on its 225th birthday.
Before there was a United States of America, there was an American
Army, born on June 14th, 1775. On the town square of Cambridge,
Massachusetts, a small group of American colonists came together to
form an army, under the authority of the Continental Congress. This
June 14th, we will look back over those 225 years and see clearly that
the forming of the colonial Army was the prelude to the birth of our
nation. As the Army's slogan for this commemoration says, it was the
``Birth of an army and the birth of freedom.''
Like Members of this body, to be a soldier is to believe in something
other than what we can achieve for ourselves as individuals. I am proud
to help celebrate the Army birthday, marking more than two centuries of
selfless service to the United States of America. More than 42 million
Americans have raised their right hands to take an oath, both in times
of crisis and in times of peace.
As I introduce this resolution, I ask that each of you please join me
next month to extend the heartfelt thanks of this Congress to each and
every soldier for their outstanding service to our nation!
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to note that
Senator Thurmond, who took the floor and introduced a joint resolution
commending our Armed Forces, is someone who should also be commended
personally today. This is the 56th anniversary of Senator Thurmond's
landing in the D-Day invasion.
As we consider the construction of the museum in New Orleans, LA, to
pay tribute to those soldiers and all those involved in the D-Day
invasion, we should take a moment on the floor of the Senate to pay
tribute to our colleague from South Carolina, who had such a
distinguished career in the military. It is almost inconceivable to
think he was there as a volunteer to fly a glider into the D-Day
invasion--probably one of the more dangerous assignments of the men and
women in uniform who made that invasion such a success. The fact that
he is here today is a tribute to not only his longevity, but his
continued dedication to this country.
On behalf of a generation--frankly, I wasn't born when that occurred
but have been the beneficiary of that victory--I say to my colleague
from South Carolina that we are in deepest debt to him for his personal
service to this country, and for his courage in participating in that
D-Day invasion. I commend not only him but also all of those who made
that invasion such a success, and hope that on this 56th anniversary
all of the people involved, and their families who waited expectantly
to hear the results of that invasion, will be remembered in the
thoughts and prayers of every American family.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words.
I would do it again, if necessary.
Mr. DURBIN. There is no doubt in the mind of any Member of the Senate
that Senator Thurmond would volunteer again, as he just promised that
he would. I thank the Senator again.

S.J. Res. 46

Whereas on June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress,
representing the citizens of 13 American colonies, authorized
the establishment of the Continental Army;
Whereas the collective expression of the pursuit of
personal freedom that caused the authorization and
organization of the United States Army led to our Nation's
Declaration of Independence and the codification of our basic
principles and values in the Constitution of the United
States;
Whereas for the past 225 years, our Army's central purpose
has been to fight and win wars that were typically fought and
won on distant, foreign battlefields, while at home, the Army
provided for the Nation's security;
Whereas whatever the mission, the Nation turns to its Army
for decisive victory, regardless of whether those are
measured in the defeat of foreign Army forces or the timely
delivery of humanitarian assistance at home or abroad;
Whereas the 172 battle streamers carried on the Army's flag
are testament to the valor, commitment, and sacrifice of
those who have served and fought under its banner;
Whereas Valley Forge, New Orleans, Mexico City, Gettysburg,
Verdun, Bataan, Normandy, Pusan, Ia Drang Valley, Grenada,
Panama, and Kuwait are but a few of the places where American
soldiers have won extraordinary distinction and respect for
our Nation and our Army;
Whereas ``Duty, Honor, Country'' are more than mere words,
they are the creed by which the American soldier lives and
serves;
Whereas while no one can predict the cause, location, or
magnitude of future battles, there is one certainty --
American soldiers of character, selflessly serving the
Nation, will continue to be the credentials of our Army;
Whereas the Army is prepared to answer the Nation's call,
and such calls have been increasing in number and disparity
in recent years;
Whereas the threats are less distinct and less predictable
than the past, but more complex and just as real and
dangerous;
Whereas our Army, the world's most capable and respected
ground force, is in the midst of an unparalleled
transformation as it prepares for the new challenges of the
next century and a different world;
Whereas future forces will be prepared to conduct quick,
decisive, highly sophisticated operations anywhere, anytime;
and
Whereas our Army will be ready to fight and win our
Nation's call to service at home and abroad: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That
Congress--
(1) recognizes the valor, commitment, and sacrifice that
American soldiers have made throughout the history of the
Nation;
(2) commends the United States Army and American soldiers
for 225 years of selfless service; and
(3) calls upon the President to issue a proclamation
recognizing the 225th birthday of the United States Army and
calling upon the people of the United States to observe that
anniversary with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
______

By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:

[[Page S4576]]

S.J. Res. 47. A joint resolution disapproving the extension of the
waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974
with respect to Vietnam; to the Committee on Finance.

legislation regarding the trade act of 1974 with respect to vietnam

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce
a resolution concerning our trade relationship with the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam. On June 2, 2000, the President of the United
States formally recommended a waiver of the application of the Trade
Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam. I am deeply troubled by the
President's decision to grant this waiver in light of Vietnam's
continuing poor record on human rights. One need only look at the 1999
U.S. State Department report on human rights practices in Vietnam to
recognize that the Vietnamese Government once again has failed to meet
recognized standards with respect to such fundamental rights as freedom
of emigration, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, to name only
a few, which are so often taken for granted in our great country.
I would like to quote from this revealing report to emphasize my
point. The State Department declared the following regarding Vietnam:
``The Government's human rights record remained poor; . . . and serious
problems remain . . . The Government continued to repress basic
political and some religious freedoms and to commit numerous abuses . .
. the Government arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens, including
detention for peaceful expression of political and religious views . .
. The Government significantly restricts freedom of speech, the press,
assembly, and association . . . The Government restricts freedom of
religion and significantly restricts the operation of religious
organizations other than those entities approved by the State . . .
Citizens' access to passports frequently was constrained by factors
outside the law, such as bribery and corruption. Refugee and immigrant
visa applicants sometimes encountered local officials who arbitrarily
delayed or denied passports based on personal animosities or on the
officials' perception that an applicant did not meet program criteria
or in order to extort a bribe.'' The list of violations outlined by our
State Department goes on, but I will stop here.
Mr. President, the resolution I have introduced keeps faith with the
original Congressional intent of the Trade Act of 1974. Our dedication
to fundamental human rights must be resolute, even when it means one
powerful interest group or another does not get its way. Unfortunately,
the President's decision to grant this waiver once again undermines the
United States' long-standing dedication to human rights and sends a
message to the rest of the world that the United States is more
interested in profits over principles. Finally, rewarding Communist
Vietnam by allowing U.S. tax dollars to subsidize business operations
in Hanoi, while at the same time their leaders hold back key POW/MIA
records from the war, is a disgrace to the men and women who valiantly
served our country and were honored just last week on Memorial Day.
This Presidential waiver should be overturned by the Congress, as is
our right under the law.

____________________