[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9522-9533]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 9523]]

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 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

[[Page 9524]]

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.


    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

[[Page 9525]]

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).
  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

[[Page 9526]]

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 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.

[[Page 9527]]

       ``(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.

     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

[[Page 9528]]

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 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

[[Page 9529]]

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 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

[[Page 9530]]

     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.
       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

[[Page 9531]]

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, 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 Media 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

[[Page 9532]]

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; 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

[[Page 9533]]

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:
  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.

                          ____________________