[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 25, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1588-S1599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 2112. A bill to prohibit racial profiling by Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement agencies; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, today, Senator Breaux and I introduced 
a bill entitled the ``Uniting Neighborhoods and Individuals to 
Eliminate Racial Profiling Act of 2004'' (UNITE) that I believe will 
put us on the road to preventing problems caused by racial profiling 
and help begin reconciliation in communities torn apart by racial 
unrest.
  Rooted in the belief that education and dialogue are the most 
effective tools for bridging racial divides, our bill bans racial 
profiling by Federal, State and local law enforcement officers. Our 
bill also provides important new tools to help law enforcement leaders 
train their officers in eliminating the practice, including the 
creation of a National Task Force on Racial Profiling within the U.S. 
Department of Justice, a Racial Profiling Education and Awareness 
Program, a nondiscriminatory State-based administrative complaint 
procedure that allows individuals to file complaints with the State, 
and a grant program to assist State and local law enforcement agencies 
in developing programs to eliminate racial profiling.
  I am personally aware of this issue because of the time I spent as 
Mayor of Cleveland. I worked for 10 years to promote understanding and 
positive race relations, and my work there has spurred me to continue 
on this path at the national level. We've heard all too often of 
situations in cities and towns across the country in which poor race 
relations are creating serious divisions between communities and law 
enforcement agencies. Despite the shared interest we all have in 
fighting crime and making neighborhoods safer, mistrust and wariness 
often stands in the way of cooperation.
  To name just a few examples: A January 21, 2004 state study of racial 
profiling in Massachusetts has found that minority drivers are 
disproportionately ticketed and searched by police officers in dozens 
of communities, including Boston. According to a joint study completed 
by the Council on Crime and Justice (CCJ) and the Institute on Race & 
Poverty (IRP) at the University of Minnesota Law School and released on 
September 24, 2003, African-American, Latino and to a lesser extent 
American-Indian motorists are stopped and their cars searched at rates 
significantly greater than white motorists. The study found that racial 
profiling is widespread throughout Minnesota and cuts across urban, 
suburban and rural police boundaries. In February, 2004, a study was 
released by the Steward Research Group analyzing data from 413 Texas 
law enforcement agencies. The study found that based on racial 
disparities in stop and search rates, there is a pattern of racial 
profiling by law enforcement agencies across Texas.
  While studies such as these are not widespread among the States, I do 
believe these results, along with many other cases clearly indicate 
that we have a nationwide problem. And while the overwhelming number of 
police officers discharge their duties professionally and without bias, 
I think we need to address those that do not.
  As I mentioned before, my experience as Mayor of Cleveland and 
Governor of Ohio has taught me that reaching the hearts and minds of 
people is the most effective means of dealing with intolerance and the 
problems that result.
  As mayor of Cleveland I established the city's first urban coalition, 
the Cleveland Roundtable, to bring together representatives of the 
City's various racial, religious and economic groups to create a common 
agenda. When we found that members of the police department weren't 
receiving proper diversity training, we completely revised the police 
academy program, establishing sensitivity training for all Cleveland 
police officers and creating six police district community relations 
committees to open lines of communication between police officers and 
community members. We eventually put all City employees through this 
diversity training, and you know what? It worked.
  As governor, in my first State of the State Address I said, ``We must 
never forget that the infrastructure of good race relations and human 
understanding is more important than any roads or bridges we might 
build.'' We launched efforts to increase community outreach by law 
enforcement in order to foster a cooperative, rather than adversarial, 
relationship between citizens and law enforcement. Through our biannual 
``Governor's Challenge,'' conferences I worked to bring members of 
local communities together with law enforcement officials and members 
of the business community in order to educate and break down barriers 
that lead to intolerance. We recognized and shared ``best practices'' 
procedures so that communities could benefit from the success of 
others--all with an emphasis on rewarding those that are doing a good 
job. We made wonderful progress and outstanding communities were 
recognized for their efforts.
  As I said earlier, the overwhelming majority of state and local law 
enforcement agents throughout the nation discharge their duties 
professionally and justly. I salute them for their dedication efforts 
in what is one of America's toughest jobs. It is unfortunate that the 
misdeeds of a minute few have such a corrosive effect on the police-
community relationship. Based on my experiences in Ohio--10 years as 
Mayor of Cleveland and 8 years as Governor of Ohio, I know what works. 
Through education and dialogue we can help turn situations around so 
that groups who

[[Page S1589]]

once thought they had little in common can realize how much they 
actually have to gain by working together to make our communities safer 
places to live.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator 
Voinovich, to introduce the Uniting Neighborhoods and Individuals to 
End Racial Profiling Act, also known as the UNITE Act.
  In the fall of 2002, there was a meeting in my office with a number 
of African-American leaders from Louisiana. They told me that the 
single most important issue they want to resolve is racial profiling.
  I turned to Senator Voinovich, who has been a leader on this in Ohio 
and in the Senate, to come up with the first, truly bipartisan racial 
profiling bill to be introduced in the Senate. After more than a year 
of hard work, we have finally come up with a bill that meaningfully 
responds to the issue of racial profiling while striking the right 
balance between the concerns of law enforcement and the minority 
community. Most importantly, our UNITE Act will begin to end racial 
profiling in this country.
  This bill strives to fix the real incidents of racial profiling 
through education, public outreach and oversight. It also combats the 
perception that law enforcement is engaging in racial biased policing. 
By banning racial profiling, putting safeguards in place and providing 
the public with a meaningful complaint procedure, this bill responds to 
the concerns of minority communities and hopefully helps rebuild their 
trust in law enforcement agencies.
  I believe we have crafted the first, reasonable and passable solution 
to the issue of racial profiling.
  I hope as we unveil this legislation publically for the first time 
today, that both the civil rights and law enforcement communities will 
see this bill as a good starting point to find a solution to this 
serious problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues, law 
enforcement and the civil rights community to get this legislation 
passed and signed by the President this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Levin):
  S. 2113. A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from 
operating in the State of Michigan; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with 
my distinguished colleague, Senator Carl Levin, that would protect my 
State of Michigan from being forced to participate in an experiment 
that could lead to the unraveling of Medicare as we know it.
  This project, mandated under the Medicare reform bill approved in 
late 2003, effectively replaces Medicare in the designated 
demonstration area with private voucher coverage in six sites in 2010. 
I have strongly opposed the portion of the Medicare bill that 
authorizes this project, and I particularly oppose Michigan seniors 
being forced to participate in this ill-advised experiment.
  If Michigan is included in one of these areas, then older and sicker 
seniors who want to stay in traditional Medicare will be forced to pay 
higher premiums. This is wrong, and my bill will stop this from 
happening to my constituents.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 2114. A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from 
operating in the State of New Mexico; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) or premium 
support demonstration that was included in the Medicare prescription 
drug bill last year from operating in the State of New Mexico.
  There are many problems with the demonstration that I will describe 
which will have the result of fundamentally undermining the traditional 
Medicare program and directly conflicts with the President's commitment 
in his State of the Union address in 2003 when he said, ``Seniors happy 
with the current Medicare system should be able to keep their coverage 
just the way it is.'' That would not be the case in what is being 
referred to as the comparative cost adjustment program.
  What is the comparative cost adjustment program? Starting in 2010, 
the Medicare prescription drug bill provided for a six-year 
demonstration in selected demonstration sites where private health 
plans and traditional Medicare would supposedly compete on the basis of 
price. The demonstration will be conducted in up to six metropolitan 
areas in which at least 25 percent of eligible beneficiaries are 
enrolled in some type of managed care plan.
  Albuquerque, NM, already has an enrollment in private plans that 
exceeds 25 percent and so would obviously be a targeted community for 
the demonstration. Santa Fe, NM, could also be on the demonstration 
list by 2010 as its current reported managed care enrollment is at 17 
percent and that is why Congressman Tom Udall is joining us here today 
in introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives.
  Congressman Udall and I oppose our Medicare beneficiaries being 
subjected to a grand experiment, just as similarly proposed premium 
support demonstrations have been blocked in recent years in Baltimore, 
Denver, Phoenix, and Kansas City, Missouri.
  Just as members of Congress blocked those proposed demonstrations, 
the legislation I am introducing today would protect the entire State 
of New Mexico from being subjected to such an experiment. I understand 
that other Senators and Congressmen are introducing similar legislation 
today to protect the citizens of their respective states as well.
  I am opposed to the comparative cost adjustment or premium support 
demonstration being imposed upon the Medicare beneficiaries in New 
Mexico because the demonstration: 1. fails to truly provide for a level 
playing field of competition between traditional Medicare and private 
health plans; 2. leads to much higher volatility and uncertainty in the 
Medicare program as beneficiaries would have their premiums vary 
dramatically according to the plan chosen during the demonstration from 
year to year and from region to region; 3. directly contradicts 
President Bush's guarantee and the promise of the current multi-million 
advertising campaign by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
that people can keep their traditional Medicare as is; and, 4. pushes 
traditional Medicare in such regions into what health economists refer 
to as a ``death spiral.''
  Proponents of the premium support demonstration argue that the intent 
of the experiment is, according to the conference report, ``to test 
whether competition between private plans and the original Medicare FFS 
program will enhance competition in Medicare, improve health care 
delivery for all Medicare beneficiaries, and provide for greater 
beneficiary savings and reduction in government costs. . . . ''
  The conference report adds that the demonstration ``will level the 
playing field between all options available to Medicare 
beneficiaries.''
  Unfortunately, the demonstration will not focus competition or choice 
on either price or quality precisely because it fails to provide for a 
level playing field. Under the guise of making Medicare more efficient, 
the legislation dramatically overpays private health plans in 
comparison to traditional Medicare.
  In fact, during testimony before the Senate Finance Committee a few 
weeks ago, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson 
acknowledged that both the Congressional budget Office and the Office 
of Management and Budget believe the prescription drug bill creates a 
situation whereby every percentage increase of enrollment by Medicare 
beneficiaries will cost the Medicare program and American taxpayers 
billions of dollars. How is this possible?
  The bill creates this situation by intentionally paying private 
health plans, on average, an estimated 107 percent of the cost of 
traditional Medicare. Health plans are receiving disproportionate share 
hospital payments, graduate medical education funding, and other 
complicated formula adjustments that ensure payments well in excess of 
the Medicare fee-for-service program.

[[Page S1590]]

  In addition, health plans, by enrolling healthier patients than 
traditional Medicare, receive an additional estimated benefit of about 
eight percent over fee-for-service Medicare. Numerous studies, 
including those by the General Accounting Office, find that high-cost 
beneficiaries--including the functionally disabled, the mentally 
impaired, and the chronically ill--were less likely to join a Medicare 
HMO.

  When you combine all the factors, health plans will be paid at least 
115 percent of the cost of traditional Medicare.
  This makes absolutely no sense, particularly when you consider that 
the bill provides for this despite the fact that studies by Marilyn 
Moon, Karen Davis, and other respected health care analysts have 
consistently shown that traditional Medicare provides Medicare 
beneficiaries a less expensive product with greater patient 
satisfaction and greater access to providers than private health plans.
  Although the demonstration would strip out graduate medical education 
payments to HMOs, it fails to fully eliminate excessive payments to 
health plans caused by risk selection and includes disproportionate 
share hospital payments in the FFS benchmark--inevitably raising FFS 
premiums in comparison to private health plans.
  Furthermore, there is no level playing field if HMOs enroll healthier 
and lower cost patients than traditional Medicare and do not have to 
make the billions of dollars in disproportionate share hospital 
payments that traditional Medicare must make.
  Second, a hallmark of the Medicare program has been its beneficiary 
satisfaction ratings despite the lack of prescription drugs or 
preventive health benefits. Medicare beneficiaries strongly prefer the 
guarantee and predictability of coverage and the greater level of 
access to providers than is provided by private health plans.
  The demonstration undermines this because it would lead to 
differential premiums among Medicare beneficiaries in different regions 
of the country based on rapidly changing health plans options offered 
and chosen annually.
  In fact, premiums will fluctuate under the demonstration on an annual 
basis because the government contribution will be based on the bids of 
all plans during a particular year. As a result, even if a plan's costs 
does not increase from one year to the next, the amount paid by a 
beneficiary can change due to changes in other health plans in the 
region and changes in the region's benchmark.
  This makes absolutely no sense and is the second reason why I oppose 
the premium support demonstration.
  Third, as noted before, in the President's 2003 State of the Union 
address, he committed that Medicare beneficiaries would be able to keep 
their Medicare coverage as is. Moreover, the Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, or CMS, is currently spending millions of dollars in 
an advertising campaign with the assertion that ``you can always keep 
your same Medicare coverage.''
  The comparative cost adjustment program or premium support 
demonstration completely undermines traditional Medicare and should, as 
a result, be repealed. Neither the President nor the Federal Government 
should be telling our Nation's Medicare beneficiaries one thing when 
the reality is clearly something different, particularly under the 
demonstration program.
  This occurs due to the ``death spiral'' that health care economists 
note will likely occur under the demonstration. If, as numerous studies 
indicate, private health plans continue to enroll healthier and less 
costly Medicare beneficiaries than fee-for-service Medicare, then fee-
for-service Medicare would be more likely to have higher premiums. Over 
time, if sicker individuals stay with traditional Medicare and 
healthier ones move away as premiums rise, traditional Medicare is 
likely to enter in what is known as a ``death spiral.'' Despite the 
President's guarantee that ``[s]eniors happy with the current Medicare 
system should be able to keep their coverage just the way it is . . 
.,'' that would clearly not be the case in these comparative cost 
adjustment program demonstrations.
  If the administration and Congress wants real competition, private 
plans should be required to compete with traditional Medicare in a 
manner where both traditional Medicare and private plans are paid the 
same amount on a risk adjusted basis for the same services. If that 
were the case, Medicare beneficiaries could select whether they would 
like to enroll in traditional Medicare or in a competing private health 
plan based on factors such as quality, access, and cost.
  Unfortunately, the administration and proponents of premium support 
know that private plans cannot successfully compete with traditional 
Medicare. Ironically, in the name of reforming Medicare through 
competition, they have purposely tilted the playing field toward 
private health plans. Taxpayers should not have to bear the billions of 
dollars in additional Medicare spending that overpayment to private 
plans will cost them over the next 10 years and Medicare beneficiaries 
should not be subjected to a grand premium support experiment in 2010 
where the winner has already been pre-determined.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a document from Families USA be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2114

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE 
                   COST ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN NEW MEXICO.

       (a) In General.--Section 1860C-1(b) of the Social Security 
     Act, as added by section 241 of the Medicare Prescription 
     Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) No cca areas within new mexico.--A CCA area shall not 
     include an MSA any portion of which is within the State of 
     New Mexico.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
     Act of 2003.
                                  ____


                [Report from FamiliesUSA, June 24, 2003]

   What Happens When Traditional Medicare Has To Bid Against Private 
                                 Plans?


       an example of how the house bill would privatize medicare

       The U.S. House of Representatives is considering 
     legislation that would force the traditional Medicare program 
     to bid competitively against private insurance plans, 
     beginning in 2010. This proposal, embedded in the House 
     Medicare prescription drug bill, may sound reasonable, but 
     let's look at how it would really work.
       We start with five Medicare beneficiaries, with the 
     following yearly medical expenses: Bill--$1,000; Jane--
     $4,000; Joan--$5,000; James--$6,000; and Sam--$10,000. 
     Amongst them, they have total medical expenses of $26,000, or 
     an average of $5,200 each.
       Now imagine that Congress has enacted the House Medicare 
     drug bill, which requires the traditional Medicare fee-for-
     service program to enter into competitive bidding with 
     private insurance plans.
       So traditional Medicare would bid $5,200 per person for 
     Bill, Jane, Joan, James, and Sam, since that's been the 
     average cost of caring for these five folks.
       But a private plan, DollarCare, knowing roughly what the 
     traditional Medicare bid is, bids $5,000 per member. Since 
     they are clever about their marketing (they advertise at 
     athletic clubs and recreational facilities), DollarCare 
     enrolls healthy beneficiaries (like Bill) who only cost 
     $1,000 each. This ensures that they have a high profit 
     ($5,000 bid -$1,000 expenses = $4,000 profit per enrollee). 
     The existing Medicare law requires DollarCare to give Bill 
     some extra benefits; these extra benefits make the plan more 
     attractive to other people when they hear about the 
     ``extras.'' (Jane, Joan, James, and Sam decide to stick with 
     traditional Medicare so they can keep their long-time family 
     doctors.)
       And there's another wrinkle. The new House bill rewards 
     beneficiaries who choose ``cheaper'' plans. Here's how it 
     works: Each year, the government will compute a new 
     ``benchmark'' by calculating the average payment for each 
     Medicare beneficiary. In the beginning, the benchmark is 
     $5,200 (that's what Medicare has been paying, on average, for 
     the five people). Because the DollarCare bid of $5,000 is 
     $200 under the ``benchmark'' of $5,200, Bill and the 
     government get to split the difference: Bill gets to pocket 
     75 percent of the savings ($150), and the government/Medicare 
     saves the other 25 percent ($50).
       So a year passes, and it's time for a second round of 
     competitive bids. What happens to the bids in the second 
     year? The four people left (Jane, Joan, James, and Sam) had 
     combined expenses of $25,000, so traditional Medicare submits 
     a bid of $6,250 per person, the average cost for caring for 
     these four people. DollarCare has a good thing going, so they 
     bid $5,000 again.

[[Page S1591]]

       Then the benchmark is adjusted to reflect the average per-
     person cost of everyone in Medicare--those in traditional 
     Medicare and those in private plans. The new benchmark is 
     $6,000 (Bill in DollarCare at $5,000 and the four others 
     still in traditional Medicare at $6,250).
       Now all the people in traditional Medicare have to pay an 
     extra $250 in premiums because their ``plan'' (that is, the 
     traditional Medicare program) has submitted a bid $250 higher 
     than the benchmark plan ($6,000). Meanwhile, lucky Bill gets 
     75 percent of the $1,000 ``savings,'' the difference between 
     DollarCare's $5,000 bid and the $6,000 benchmark.
       DollarCare keeps advertising at gyms and other recreational 
     facilities and attracts fairly healthy Jane.
       Obviously, traditional Medicare's premiums will spiral 
     upward as this process repeats itself each year. Traditional 
     Medicare will become a plan of the very sick, very frail, 
     very elderly--those who need lots of services, want to keep 
     their long-time doctors, etc.
       This is the beginning of an insurance death spiral that 
     will ultimately destroy the traditional Medicare fee-for-
     service program. The older, chronically ill people who need 
     the types of services offered by traditional Medicare will 
     face ever-spiraling costs. As the premiums for traditional 
     Medicare rise, the price tag will drive them into private 
     plans like DollarCare, even though studies have shown that 
     private plans are not good for the very old, chronically ill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 2115. A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from 
operating in the State of South Dakota; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask uanimous consent that the 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. 2115

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE 
                   COST ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN SOUTH DAKOTA.

       (a) In General.--Section 1860C-1(b) of the Social Security 
     Act, as added by section 241 of the Medicare Prescription 
     Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 
     108-173), is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) No cca areas within south dakota.--A CCA area shall 
     not include an MSA any portion of which is within the State 
     of South Dakota.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
     Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2116. A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from 
operating in the State of California; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in accordance with the Medicare 
legislation that Congress passed and the President signed into law last 
year included, beginning in 2010, a ``premium support'' demonstration 
project in up to 6 areas of the country. If included in this project, 
seniors will face increased premiums if they choose to stay in 
traditional ``fee-for-service'' Medicare instead of joining an HMO. 
They call it a ``demonstration project'' but it ought to be called a 
``demolition project'' because this plan will demolish Medicare for 
millions of seniors.
  CBO estimates that 1 to 1.5 million Medicare beneficiaries are likely 
to be involved in the demolition project. In reality, the numbers could 
be much higher--one in six Medicare beneficiaries could be forced to 
participate in this experiment. In California, 12 of its metropolitan 
statistical areas (MSAs) now qualify for the demonstration project. If 
the two largest MSAs are chosen for this demonstration project, 1.4 
million Californians will be forced into this experiment and will be 
faced with a Hobson's choice. They will be required to join an HMO or 
pay higher premiums.
  We know what happens in these situations. Healthy people will choose 
the HMO, leaving sicker seniors in fee-for-service plans. As costs in 
traditional Medicare spiral even higher due to its pool of sicker 
seniors, the costs of Medicare will rise. Medicare will be weaker.
  That brings us to the real question: Why is this necessary? Is it 
because seniors can't choose HMOs under the current system? No. Seniors 
can choose to join an HMO right now if they wish. I'll tell you why: It 
is a backdoor attempt to achieve Newt Gingrich's vision for a Medicare 
that will ``whither on the vine.''
  Twenty-two of my colleagues are introducing bills to exempt their 
States from this demolition project. Along with them, I am introducing 
a bill that will exempt California as well. I do not want California 
seniors to be forced to swallow the bitter choice between high costs or 
lower quality HMO service.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 2117. A bill to amend part C of title XVII of the Social Security 
Act to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from 
operating in the State of New Jersey; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues from New 
Jersey, Senator Frank Lautenberg, and Congressmen Frank Pallone and Rob 
Andrews, who are introducing comparable legislation in the House of 
Representatives today, to introduce a bill to protect from 
privatization the Medicare program that more than 1 million New Jersey 
seniors rely on.
  As a result of a provision in the new Medicare law, more than 1 
million Medicare beneficiaries nationwide, including 186,000 New Jersey 
Medicare beneficiaries who live in Camden, Salem, Burlington and 
Gloucester counties, will be subject to a risky Medicare privatization 
scheme beginning in 2010. This scheme, which is called premium support, 
will give seniors a set Medicare premium payment--similar to a 
voucher--that would be based on a combination of the prices that 
private plans in their area charge and the cost of Medicare fee-for-
service in their area. Seniors choosing to enroll in a plan that costs 
more than the amount of that voucher would have to pay the difference.
  While it may seem like an easy and straightforward choice to seniors 
who currently enjoy and thrive on traditional Medicare to choose to 
remain in the fee-for-service program, under this privatization scheme, 
those seniors who make that choice will end up paying significantly 
higher premiums than their counterparts in private plans. Because the 
private plans will be able to cherry pick the healthiest seniors to 
enroll in their plans and will receive huge subsidies from the federal 
government, they will be able to provide lower cost health care than 
the traditional Medicare program. That means that sicker, older 
beneficiaries will remain in the traditional Medicare, thereby 
increasing costs in that program, while younger, healthier 
beneficiaries will choose to enroll in private plans where they will 
pay lower premiums.
  That's right, Under this privatization scheme, seniors who choose to 
remain in the Medicare program they know and trust will pay more--
significantly more than they pay now--for their coverage.
  Not only will these seniors pay significantly higher premiums than 
they do now for fee-for-service Medicare, and much more than they would 
if they enrolled in a private plan, but also depending on where a 
senior lives they will pay a different price for the same Medicare 
coverage that a senior in a neighboring community might pay. So, for 
the first time in history, seniors in some areas will pay higher 
premiums for their Medicare coverage than seniors in other areas.
  How much more will seniors who want to stay in the traditional 
Medicare program pay? According to documents released by the Centers 
for Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary on August 9, 2003, 
seniors living in Gloucester and Hudson counties in New Jersey could 
pay as much as $1,700 more than they pay now for traditional Medicare. 
Yet, seniors in these counties could, depending on the plan they 
select, join an HMO for a premium that is $2,000 less. Why is that? 
This is because private plans will select healthier seniors will offer 
fewer choices than traditional Medicare and, at the same time will 
receive grossly inflated payments from the government.

[[Page S1592]]

  In fact, the new Medicare law overpays private plans by $1,920 per 
beneficiary--at a total cost of $14 billion to taxpayers--so that these 
plans may compete with Medicare. This sounds like socialized 
privatization to me. Indeed, in the last 6 months I have struggled to 
understand the logic behind paying private plans more than we pay 
Medicare. The only logical reason I've come up with is that this is the 
perfect plan to make the Medicare program fail--to give my Republican 
colleagues the read meat they need to raid and privatize Medicare.
  This is not competition. It is a plan to force seniors into private 
plans and out of the Medicare program they trust. There is no real 
choice here. Very few seniors will have the luxury of choosing to pay 
$2,000 more a year for traditional Medicare. Most seniors will be 
forced into managed care plans.
  Seniors in my State want no part of this privatization scheme. Baby 
boomers in my State want no part of this. New Jerseyans want to know 
that the Medicare program, as we know it, will be there for them when 
they need it. My legislation provides that assurance. Under my bill, no 
New Jersey county and no New Jersey senior will be subject to this 
disastrous privatization scheme.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and the many other 
bills that Democratic members are introducing today to exempt their 
States from this program and to protect and preserve the Medicare 
program for our seniors today and our seniors tomorrow.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 2121. A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from 
operating in the State of Nevada; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, there is nothing more important we could do 
for our senior citizens than help them with the soaring cost of health 
care, especially the high cost of prescription drugs.
  Unfortunately the Medicare bill passed by this Congress and signed 
into law by President Bush doesn't do this. In fact, for many seniors 
this law will do more harm than good.
  One provision of this new and overly complicated law establishes 
``comparative cost adjustment'' demonstration programs that will take 
place in six metropolitan areas. ``Comparative cost adjustment'' is 
just a fancy term that really means: How much you pay for your Medicare 
premiums depends on where you live.
  In other words, some Medicare recipients will pay more than others 
for the exact same coverage, simply because of where they live.
  Medicare premiums for seniors living in the six regions selected to 
participate in the pilot program would be based on a set payment--like 
a voucher--from the government. This payment would be based on a 
combination of the prices charged by private plans and the cost of 
Medicare fee-for-service in their area.
  Seniors would enroll in either a private plan or in fee-for-service 
Medicare. But those who chose a plan that cost more than the defined 
contribution would have to pay the difference out of their own pockets.
  And since senior citizens in the fee-for-service program tend to be 
older and sicker than those who enroll in Medicare HMOs, costs for that 
group would probably be higher, and the defined contribution likely 
would not cover the entire cost of the fee-for-service premium.
  So over time, seniors who want to remain in the traditional Medicare 
program, because they want to keep choosing their own doctor or for any 
other reason, would have to pay more and more out of their own pockets.
  Under this experimental program, I fear that traditional Medicare 
would become too expensive for many patients simply because of where 
they happen to live. We have a large population of retirees in north 
and south Nevada, and I am told there is a good chance one or both of 
these areas will be selected for this experimental pilot program. That 
would place a disproportionate burden on seniors in my State who are 
already struggling to make ends meet and pay for their health care.
  So the legislation I am introducing today will prohibit any of the 
six demonstration programs from occurring in Nevada.
  Senior citizens in Nevada should not have to pay more than their 
neighbors for the same Medicare services. I will keep fighting to 
protect Nevadans from being used as guinea pigs in this ill-advised 
experiment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 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. 2121

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE 
                   COST ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN NEVADA.

       (a) In General.--Section 1860C-1(b) of the Social Security 
     Act, as added by section 241 of the Medicare Prescription 
     Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 
     108-173), is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) No cca areas within nevada.--A CCA area shall not 
     include an MSA any portion of which is within the State of 
     Nevada.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
     Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 2122. A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security 
Act to prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) program from 
operating in the State of Hawaii; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
prohibit the comparative cost adjustment program, which is commonly 
known as premium support, from operating in Hawaii.
  The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 
2003 included the creation of premium support demonstration programs in 
select metropolitan statistical areas starting in 2010. In these 
demonstration programs, seniors would be provided with a defined 
contribution payment for Medicare Part B rather than a defined benefit. 
Seniors would receive a set minimum payment to be used towards 
enrolling in either traditional fee-for-service Medicare or a managed 
care plan. Seniors that choose options that are more expensive than the 
defined premium would have to pay the difference themselves.
  Many of the older and less healthier seniors stay in the traditional 
fee-for-service Medicare rather than enrolling in Medicare managed care 
programs. The defined contribution premium will likely not be able to 
cover the entire cost of their fee-for-service premium. So, they may 
not be able to afford to stay in the traditional Medicare program and 
will be forced to enroll in lowest-cost health maintenance 
organization, HMO, or preferred provider organization, PPO, in their 
community. Seniors deserve to have their right to choose whether to 
remain in traditional Medicare or enroll in a managed care program 
based on their health care needs and not be forced into managed care 
programs because they are not able to pay the increased premium 
required for traditional Medicare.
  Now, seniors across the country pay the same premium for Medicare 
Part B services. After the implementation of the premium support 
demonstration programs, this will not be the case. Not only are there 
likely to be wide variations in Medicare Part B premium rates for 
beneficiaries across the country, but there will even be differences 
among seniors within the same State. This is unjust. Seniors that 
receive the same benefits should be paying the same premium in an 
entitlement program such as Medicare.
  Proponents of the premium support plan believe that this will help 
control Medicare costs and save money. However, this proposal will only 
work if more of the costs are shifted to seniors who will have to pay 
higher premiums or have their benefits reduced.
  It is my hope that these demonstration projects are never implemented 
in any state. My legislation would ensure that the residents of Hawaii 
are protected from having this demonstration program impair their 
Medicare Part B choices. I am pleased that several of my colleagues 
have also introduced

[[Page S1593]]

legislation to protect seniors in their states from the premium support 
demonstration projects.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 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. 2122

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPERATION OF MEDICARE COMPARATIVE 
                   COST ADJUSTMENT (CCA) PROGRAM IN HAWAII.

       (a) In General.--Section 1860C-1(b) of the Social Security 
     Act, as added by section 241 of the Medicare Prescription 
     Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 
     108-173), is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) No cca areas within hawaii.--A CCA area shall not 
     include an MSA any portion of which is within the State of 
     Hawaii.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
     Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Biden):
  S. 2127. A bill to build operational readiness in civilian agencies, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Stabilization 
and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act. Senator Biden  is an 
original co-sponsor and his involvement in the Committee's work on this 
issue and the resulting legislation is deeply appreciated.
  Over the past decade the United States has undertaken a series of 
post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction operations that have 
been critical to U.S. national security. In the Balkans, Afghanistan, 
and now in Iraq, the U.S. government has cobbled together plans, people 
and resources in an ad hoc fashion with the Defense Department in the 
lead.
  The efforts of those engaged have been valiant, but these emergencies 
have been complex and time sensitive. Our ad hoc approach has been 
inadequate to deliver the necessary capabilities to deal speedily and 
efficiently with complex emergencies. The purpose of this bill is to 
establish a more robust civilian capability to respond quickly and 
effectively to post-conflict situations or other complex emergencies.
  The prevailing inclination to deal with these problems through ad hoc 
methods has stemmed, in part, from our bipartisan hope that post-
conflict stabilization efforts will not be required of us on a frequent 
basis. But we should not engage in wishful thinking. Crises are 
inevitable, and in most cases, U.S. national security interests will be 
threatened by sustained instability. The war on terrorism necessitates 
that we not leave nations crumbling and ungoverned. Our tolerance for 
failed states has been reduced by a global war against terrorists. We 
have already seen how terrorists can exploit nations afflicted by 
lawlessness and desperate circumstances. They seek out such places to 
establish training camps, recruit new members, and tap into a black 
market where all kinds of weapons are for sale.

  In this international atmosphere, the United States must have the 
right structures, personnel, and resources in place when an emergency 
occurs. A delay of a few weeks, or even days, in our response can mean 
the difference between success and failure. As a Nation, we have 
accepted stabilization and reconstruction challenges in the Balkans, 
Iraq and Afghanistan, but we need to go a step further and create 
structures that can plan and execute strategies to deal with future 
emergencies.
  While recognizing the critical challenges that our military has 
undertaken with skill and courage, we must acknowledge that certain 
non-security missions would have been better served by a civilian 
response. Our post-conflict efforts frequently have had a higher than 
necessary military profile. This is not the result of a Pentagon power 
grab or institutional fights. Rather, the military has led post-
conflict operations primarily because it is the only agency capable of 
mobilizing large amounts of people and resources for these tasks. As a 
consequence, the resources of the Armed Services have been stretched 
and deployments of military personnel have had to be extended beyond 
expectations. If we can improve the surge capacity and capabilities of 
the civilian agencies, they can take over many of the non-security 
missions that have burdened the military.
  The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations embarked on a bipartisan 
experiment beginning in late 2003, assembling an impressive array of 
experts from inside and outside of government to provide advice on how 
best to achieve this goal. This Policy Advisory Group held a series of 
discussions in which Senators, group members, and invited experts spoke 
frankly about their ideas to improve the U.S. response to post-conflict 
reconstruction problems and complex emergencies. The bill that Senator 
Biden and I are introducing draws on these discussions and the comments 
of participants. I believe that we need structural change, accomplished 
through legislation, to guarantee improvements in our capabilities.
  Serving as members of the Policy Advisory Group were Ambassador James 
Dobbins, Director of International Security and Defense Policy at the 
RAND Corporation; Dr. John Hamre, President and CEO of CSIS; Gen. 
George Joulwan, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe; Gen. William 
Nash, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Preventive Action of 
the Council on Foreign Relations; Mr. Walter Slocombe, former Senior 
Advisor for National Security to the Coalition Provisional Authority; 
and Dr. Arnold Kanter of the Scowcroft Group. Other participants 
included Mr. Marc Grossman, Undersecretary of State for 
Political Affairs; Mr. Andrew Natsios, Administrator of USAID; Dr. 
Joseph Collins, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability 
Operations; Mr. James Kunder, Deputy Assistant Administrator of USAID; 
Mr. J. Clint Williamson, Director of Transnational Crime Issues on the 
NSC; Dr. Hans Binnendijk of the National Defense University; Ms. Sheba 
Crocker of CSIS; Mr. Frank Kramer of Shea and Gardner; Mr. Bernd 
McConnell, formerly with USAID and now with the Department of Defense; 
Mr. Larry Nowels of the Congressional Research Service; Ambassador 
Robert Oakley of the Institute for National Security Studies at the 
National Defense University; Mr. Robert Perito of the U.S. Institute of 
Peace; and Ms. Julia Taft of the UNDP.

  Although I have tried to incorporate as many of the insights of the 
group as possible, not every participant will agree with every 
provision in the bill. This is not surprising given that one of our 
goals in constructing the group was guaranteeing a diverse set of 
perspectives. Nevertheless, there were several themes developed that 
achieved, or at least approached, a consensus: The civilian foreign 
affairs agencies should be better organized for overseas crisis 
response and the Secretary of State should play a lead role in this 
effort. There should be improved standing capacity within the civilian 
agencies to respond to complex emergencies and to work in potentially 
hostile environments. The agencies must be capable and flexible enough 
to provide a robust partner to the military when necessary or to lead a 
crisis response effort when appropriate. The rapid mobilization of 
resources must be shared by the civilian agencies and the military. 
While the need to ensure security will continue to fall on the 
shoulders of the military, the post-conflict demands on the military 
for stabilization and reconstruction would be lessened by tapping into 
the expertise of civilian forces.
  During this process, the Bush Administration was extremely helpful 
and forthcoming. Officials from the State Department, the Defense 
Department, the NSC, and USAID attended as guests of the group and 
participated in their private capacities. The participation of these 
officials does not constitute an official endorsement of this 
legislation by their employing agencies, but the final product was 
greatly improved by their collective experience and wisdom. We are 
extremely grateful to the Administration for its willingness to engage 
the Foreign Relations Committee during this process.

  This bill urges the President to create a Stabilization and 
Reconstruction

[[Page S1594]]

Coordinating Committee to be chaired by the National Security Advisor. 
This Coordinating Committee would have policy oversight responsibility 
for ensuring appropriate interagency coordination in the planning and 
execution of stabilization and reconstruction efforts. The Coordinating 
Committee would have representation from the Department of State, 
USAID, and the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Treasury, Agriculture, 
and Defense and other agencies as appropriate.
  This bill would authorize the creation of an office within the State 
Department to be the focal point for coordinating the civilian 
component of stabilization and reconstruction missions. The Office 
would be headed by a Coordinator who is appointed by the President and 
reports directly to the Secretary of State. The Coordinator would also 
work to ensure that civilian components of the United States Government 
are prepared for joint civilian/military operations if they become 
necessary.
  The bill would authorize the Secretary of State to establish a 
Response Readiness Corps with both active duty and reserve components 
available to be called upon at a moments notice to respond to emerging 
international crises. In the reserves would be both federal government 
officials from the non-foreign affairs agencies who have volunteered to 
participate and members recruited from the private sector based on the 
applicable skills each could contribute to the mission.
  The bill urges the Foreign Service Institute to work with both the 
National Defense University and the United States Army War College to 
establish an educational and training curriculum to bring together 
civilian and military personnel to enhance their stabilization and 
reconstruction skills and increase their ability to work together in 
the field.
  I introduce this bill today to set in motion legislative efforts to 
strengthen the capacity of our civilian agencies to handle complex 
emergencies overseas, including post-conflict stabilization and 
reconstruction efforts. I am hopeful that this legislation will garner 
further bipartisan support. Its intent is not to critique past 
practices, but rather to improve our stabilization and reconstruction 
capacity for the future. We recognize that the bill does not address 
many facets of this issue that fall under the jurisdiction of the 
military and the Armed Services Committee. I know that my colleagues on 
that committee have thought about many of these issues, and they may 
recommend additional steps.
  The inevitable post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction demands 
of future crises will require a formidable capacity to respond to 
challenges--both military and diplomatic. It is crucial to our success 
that the necessary resources and plans be put in place now. Let us give 
the President the tools he needs to carry out these most demanding 
foreign policy missions.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 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. 7127

       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 ``Stabilization and 
     Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. FINDING; PURPOSE.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the resources of the 
     United States Armed Forces have been burdened by having to 
     undertake stabilization and reconstruction tasks in the 
     Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries of the world 
     that could have been performed by civilians, which has 
     resulted in lengthy deployments for Armed Forces personnel.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide for the 
     development, as a core mission of the Department of State and 
     the United States Agency for International Development, of an 
     effective expert civilian response capability to carry out 
     stabilization and reconstruction activities in a country or 
     region that is in, or is in transition from, conflict or 
     civil strife.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development.
       (2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives.
       (3) Department.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     the term ``Department'' means the Department of State.
       (4) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 105 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (5) Secretary.--Except as otherwise specifically provided 
     in this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of 
     State.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the civilian element of United States joint civilian-
     military operations should be strengthened in order to 
     enhance the execution of current and future stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities in foreign countries or regions 
     that are in, or are in transition from, conflict or civil 
     strife;
       (2) the capability of civilian agencies of the United 
     States Government to carry out stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities in such countries or regions should 
     also be enhanced through a new rapid response corps of 
     civilian experts supported by the establishment of a new 
     system of planning, organization, personnel policies, and 
     education and training, and the provision of adequate 
     resources;
       (3) the international community, including nongovernmental 
     organizations, and the United Nations and its specialized 
     agencies, should be further encouraged to participate in 
     planning and organizing stabilization and reconstruction 
     activities in such countries or regions;
       (4) the President should establish a new directorate of 
     stabilization and reconstruction activities within the 
     National Security Council to oversee the development of 
     interagency contingency plans and procedures, including plans 
     and procedures for joint civilian-military operations, to 
     address stabilization and reconstruction requirements in such 
     countries or regions;
       (5) the President should establish a standing committee to 
     exercise responsibility for overseeing the formulation and 
     execution of stabilization and reconstruction policy in order 
     to ensure appropriate interagency coordination in the 
     planning and execution of stabilization and reconstruction 
     activities, including joint civilian-military operations, of 
     the United States Government, and should provide for the 
     committee--
       (A) to be chaired by the Assistant to the President for 
     National Security Affairs; and
       (B) to include the heads of--
       (i) the Department;
       (ii) the United States Agency for International 
     Development;
       (iii) the Department of Labor;
       (iv) the Department of Commerce;
       (v) the Department of Justice;
       (vi) the Department of the Treasury;
       (vii) the Department of Agriculture;
       (viii) the Department of Defense; and
       (ix) other Executive agencies as appropriate;
       (6) the Secretary and the Administrator should work with 
     the Secretary of Defense to establish a personnel exchange 
     program among the Department, the United States Agency for 
     International Development, and the Department of Defense, 
     including the regional commands and the Joint Staff, to 
     enhance the stabilization and reconstruction skills of 
     military and civilian personnel and their ability to 
     undertake joint operations; and
       (7) the heads of other Executive agencies should establish 
     personnel exchange programs that are designed to enhance the 
     stabilization and reconstruction skills of military and 
     civilian personnel.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE FOR STABILIZATION AND 
                   RECONSTRUCTION CRISES.

       Chapter 1 of part III of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     (22 U.S.C. 2351 et seq.) is amended by inserting after 
     section 617 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 618. ASSISTANCE FOR A STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION 
                   CRISIS.

       ``(a) Authority.--If the President determines that it is 
     important to the national interests of the United States for 
     United States civilian agencies or non-Federal employees to 
     assist in stabilizing and reconstructing a country or region 
     that is in, or is in transition from, conflict or civil 
     strife, the President may, in accordance with the provisions 
     set forth in section 614(a)(3), notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, and on such terms and conditions as the 
     President may determine, furnish assistance to respond to the 
     crisis and authorize the export of goods and services needed 
     to respond to the crisis.
       ``(b) Special Authorities.--To provide assistance 
     authorized in subsection (a), the President may exercise the 
     authorities contained in sections 552(c)(2), 610, and 614 of 
     this Act without regard to the percentage and aggregate 
     dollar limitations contained in such sections.
       ``(c) Authorization of Funding.--
       ``(1) Initial authorization.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated, without fiscal year limitation, $100,000,000 in 
     funds that may be used to provide assistance authorized in 
     subsection (a).
       ``(2) Replenishment.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary 
     to replenish funds expended as provided under paragraph (1). 
     Funds authorized to be appropriated under this paragraph 
     shall be available without fiscal year limitation for the 
     same purpose and

[[Page S1595]]

     under the same conditions as are provided under paragraph 
     (1).''.

     SEC. 6. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL STABILIZATION AND 
                   RECONSTRUCTION.

       Title I of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956 is amended by adding after section 58 (22 U.S.C. 2730) 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 59. INTERNATIONAL STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION.

       ``(a) Office of International Stabilization and 
     Reconstruction.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish within 
     the Department of State an Office of International 
     Stabilization and Reconstruction.
       ``(2) Coordinator for international stabilization and 
     reconstruction.--The head of the Office shall be the 
     Coordinator for International Stabilization and 
     Reconstruction, who shall be appointed by the President, by 
     and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The 
     Coordinator shall report directly to the Secretary and shall 
     have the rank and status of Ambassador-at-Large.
       ``(3) Functions.-- The functions of the Office of 
     International Stabilization and Reconstruction include the 
     following:
       ``(A) Monitoring, in coordination with relevant bureaus 
     within the Department of State, political and economic 
     instability worldwide to anticipate the need for mobilizing 
     United States and international assistance for the 
     stabilization and reconstruction of countries or regions that 
     are in, or are in transition from, conflict or civil strife.
       ``(B) Assessing the various types of stabilization and 
     reconstruction crises that could occur and cataloging and 
     monitoring the non-military resources and capabilities of 
     Executive agencies that are available to address such crises.
       ``(C) Planning to address requirements, such as 
     demobilization, policing, human rights monitoring, and public 
     information, that commonly arise in stabilization and 
     reconstruction crises.
       ``(D) Coordinating with relevant Executive agencies (as 
     that term is defined in section 105 of title 5, United States 
     Code) to develop interagency contingency plans to mobilize 
     and deploy civilian personnel to address the various types of 
     such crises.
       ``(E) Entering into appropriate arrangements with other 
     Executive agencies to carry out activities under this section 
     and the Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management 
     Act of 2004.
       ``(F) Identifying personnel in State and local governments 
     and in the private sector who are available to participate in 
     the Response Readiness Corps or the Response Readiness 
     Reserve established under subsection (b) or to otherwise 
     participate in or contribute to stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities.
       ``(G) Ensuring that training of civilian personnel to 
     perform such stabilization and reconstruction activities is 
     adequate and, as appropriate, includes security training that 
     involves exercises and simulations with the Armed Forces, 
     including the regional commands.
       ``(H) Sharing information and coordinating plans for 
     stabilization and reconstruction activities with rapid 
     response elements of the United Nations and its specialized 
     agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and other foreign 
     national and international organizations.
       ``(I) Coordinating plans and procedures for joint civilian-
     military operations with respect to stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities.
       ``(J) Maintaining the capacity to field on short notice an 
     evaluation team to undertake on-site needs assessment.
       ``(b) Response to Stabilization Emergency.--If the 
     President makes a determination regarding a stabilization and 
     reconstruction crisis under section 618 of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, the President may designate the 
     Coordinator, or such other individual as the President may 
     determine appropriate, as the coordinator of the United 
     States response. The individual so designated, or, in the 
     event the President does not make such a designation, the 
     Coordinator for International Stabilization and 
     Reconstruction, shall--
       ``(1) assess the immediate and long-term need for resources 
     and civilian personnel;
       ``(2) identify and mobilize non-military resources to 
     respond to the crisis; and
       ``(3) coordinate the activities of the other individuals or 
     management team, if any, designated by the President to 
     manage the United States response.''.

     SEC. 7. RESPONSE READINESS CORPS.

       (a) In General.--Section 59 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (as added by section 6) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Response Readiness Force.--
       ``(1) Response readiness corps.--
       ``(A) Establishment and purpose.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development, is authorized to 
     establish a Response Readiness Corps (hereafter referred to 
     in this section as the `Corps') to provide assistance in 
     support of stabilization and reconstruction activities in 
     foreign countries or regions that are in, or are in 
     transition from, conflict or civil strife.
       ``(B) Composition.--The Secretary and Administrator of the 
     United States Agency for International Development should 
     coordinate in the recruitment, hiring, and training of--
       ``(i) up to 250 personnel to serve in the Corps; and
       ``(ii) such other personnel as the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator, may designate as members 
     of the Corps from among employees of the Department of State 
     and the United States Agency for International Development.
       ``(C) Training.--The Secretary shall train the members of 
     the Corps to perform services necessary to carry out the 
     purpose of the Corps under subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Compensation.--Members of the Corps hired under 
     subparagraph (B)(i) shall be compensated in accordance with 
     the appropriate salary class for the Foreign Service, as set 
     forth in sections 402 and 403 of the Foreign Service Act of 
     1980 (22 U.S.C. 3962 and 22 U.S.C. 3963), or in accordance 
     with the relevant authority under sections 3101 and 3392 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(2) Response readiness reserve.--
       ``(A) Establishment and purpose.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with the heads of other relevant Executive 
     agencies, is authorized to establish and maintain a roster of 
     personnel who are trained and available as needed to perform 
     services necessary to carry out the purpose of the Corps 
     under paragraph (1)(A). The personnel listed on the roster 
     shall constitute a Response Readiness Reserve to augment the 
     Corps.
       ``(B) Federal employees.--The Response Readiness Reserve 
     may include employees of the Department of State, including 
     Foreign Service Nationals, employees of the United States 
     Agency for International Development, employees of any other 
     Executive agency (as that term is defined in section 105 of 
     title 5, United States Code), and employees from the 
     legislative and judicial branches who--
       ``(i) have the training and skills necessary to enable them 
     to contribute to stabilization and reconstruction activities; 
     and
       ``(ii) have volunteered for deployment to carry out 
     stabilization and reconstruction activities.
       ``(C) Non-federal personnel.--The Response Readiness 
     Reserve should also include at least 500 personnel, which may 
     include retired employees of the Federal Government, 
     contractor personnel, nongovernmental organization personnel, 
     and State and local government employees, who--
       ``(i) have the training and skills necessary to enable them 
     to contribute to stabilization and reconstruction activities; 
     and
       ``(ii) have volunteered to carry out stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities.
       ``(3) Use of corps and reserve.--
       ``(A) Response readiness corps.--The members of the Corps 
     shall be available--
       ``(i) if responding in support of stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities pursuant to a determination by the 
     President regarding a stabilization and reconstruction crisis 
     under section 618 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, for 
     deployment in support of such activities; and
       ``(ii) if not responding as described in clause (i), for 
     assignment in the United States, United States diplomatic 
     missions, and United States Agency for International 
     Development missions.
       ``(B) Response readiness reserve.--The Secretary may deploy 
     members of the reserve under paragraph (2) in support of 
     stabilization and reconstruction activities in a foreign 
     country or region if the President makes a determination 
     regarding a stabilization and reconstruction crisis under 
     section 618 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.''.
       (b) Employment Authority.--The full-time personnel 
     authorized to be employed in the Response Readiness Corps 
     under section 59(b)(1)(B)(i) of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act of 1956 (as added by subsection (a)) are in 
     addition to any other full-time personnel of the Department 
     or the United States Agency for International Development 
     authorized to be employed under any other provision of law.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report on the status 
     of efforts to establish the Response Readiness Corps and the 
     Response Readiness Reserve under this section. The report 
     shall include recommendations--
       (1) for any legislation necessary to implement subsection 
     (a); and
       (2) related to the regulation and structure of the Response 
     Readiness Corps and the Response Readiness Reserve, including 
     with respect to pay and employment security for, and benefit 
     and retirement matters related to, such individuals.

     SEC. 8. STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION TRAINING AND 
                   EDUCATION.

       Section 701 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 
     4021) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(g) Stabilization and Reconstruction Curriculum.--
       ``(1) Establishment and mission.--The Secretary, in 
     cooperation with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 
     of the Army, is authorized to establish a stabilization and 
     reconstruction curriculum for use in programs of the Foreign 
     Service Institute, the National Defense University, and the 
     United States Army War College.
       ``(2) Curriculum content.--The curriculum shall include the 
     following:

[[Page S1596]]

       ``(A) An overview of the global security environment, 
     including an assessment of transnational threats and an 
     analysis of United States policy options to address such 
     threats.
       ``(B) A review of lessons learned from previous United 
     States and international experiences in stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities.
       ``(C) An overview of the relevant responsibilities, 
     capabilities, and limitations of various Executive agencies 
     (as that term is defined in section 105 of title 5, United 
     States Code) and the interactions among them.
       ``(D) A discussion of the international resources available 
     to address stabilization and reconstruction requirements, 
     including resources of the United Nations and its specialized 
     agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private and 
     voluntary organizations, and foreign governments, together 
     with an examination of the successes and failures experienced 
     by the United States in working with such entities.
       ``(E) A study of the United States interagency system.
       ``(F) Foreign language training.
       ``(G) Training and simulation exercises for joint civilian-
     military emergency response operations.''.

     SEC. 9. SERVICE RELATED TO STABILIZATION AND RECONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Promotion Purposes.--Service in stabilization and 
     reconstruction operations overseas, membership in the 
     Response Readiness Corps under section 59(b) of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (as added by section 
     7), and education and training in the stabilization and 
     reconstruction curriculum established under section 701(g) of 
     the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (as added by section 8) 
     should be considered among the favorable factors for the 
     promotion of employees of Executive agencies.
       (b) Personnel Training and Promotion.--The Secretary and 
     the Administrator should take steps to ensure that, not later 
     than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, at 
     least 10 percent of the employees of the Department and the 
     United States Agency for International Development in the 
     United States are members of the Response Readiness Corps or 
     are trained in the activities of, or identified for potential 
     deployment in support of, the Response Readiness Corps. The 
     Secretary should provide such training to Ambassadors and 
     Deputy Chiefs of Mission.
       (c) Other Incentives and Benefits.--The Secretary and the 
     Administrator may establish and administer a system of awards 
     and other incentives and benefits to confer appropriate 
     recognition on and reward any individual who is assigned, 
     detailed, or deployed to carry out stabilization or 
     reconstruction activities in accordance with this Act.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORITIES RELATED TO PERSONNEL.

       (a) Contracting Authority.--The Secretary, or the head of 
     another Executive agency authorized by the Secretary, may, 
     upon a determination by the President regarding a 
     stabilization and reconstruction crisis under section 618 of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, procure the services of 
     individuals or organizations by contract to carry out the 
     purposes of this Act. Individuals so performing such services 
     shall not by virtue of performing such services be considered 
     to be employees of the United States Government for purposes 
     of any law administered by the Office of Personnel Management 
     (except that the Secretary or other authorized Executive 
     agency head may determine the applicability to such 
     individuals of any law administered by the Secretary or other 
     authorized Executive agency head concerning the performance 
     of such services by such individuals).
       (b)  Experts and Consultants.--Upon a determination by the 
     President regarding a stabilization and reconstruction crisis 
     under section 618 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the 
     Secretary and Administrator may, to the extent necessary to 
     obtain services without delay, employ experts and consultants 
     under section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without 
     requiring compliance with any otherwise applicable 
     requirements for that employment as the Secretary or 
     Administrator may determine, except that such employment 
     shall be terminated after 60 days if by that time the 
     applicable requirements are not complied with.
       (c) Authority to Accept and Assign Details.--The Secretary 
     and the Administrator are authorized to accept details or 
     assignments of employees of Executive agencies, members of 
     the uniformed services, and employees of State or local 
     governments on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis in 
     order to meet the purposes of this Act. The assignment of an 
     employee of a State or local government under this subsection 
     shall be consistent with subchapter VI of chapter 33 of title 
     5, United States Code.
       (d) Dual Compensation Waiver.--
       (1) Annuitants under civil service retirement system and 
     federal employees retirement system.--Notwithstanding 
     sections 8344(i) and 8468(f) of title 5, United States Code, 
     the Secretary and the Administrator may waive the application 
     of the provisions of sections 8344 (a) through (h) and 8468 
     (a) through (e) of title 5, United States Code, with respect 
     to annuitants under the Civil Service Retirement System or 
     the Federal Employees Retirement System who are assigned, 
     detailed, or deployed to carry out stabilization and 
     reconstruction activities in accordance with this Act during 
     the period of their reemployment.
       (2) Annuitants under foreign service retirement and 
     disability system and foreign service pension system.--The 
     Secretary may waive the application of subsections (a) 
     through (d) of section 824 of the Foreign Service Act (22 
     U.S.C. 4064), for annuitants under the Foreign Service 
     Retirement and Disability System or the Foreign Service 
     Pension System who are reemployed on a temporary basis in 
     order to be assigned, detailed, or deployed to carry out 
     stabilization and reconstruction activities in accordance 
     with this Act.
       (e) Extension of Certain Foreign Service Benefits.--The 
     Secretary may extend to any individuals assigned, detailed, 
     or deployed to carry out stabilization and reconstruction 
     activities in accordance with this Act the benefits or 
     privileges set forth in sections 412, 413, 704, and 901 of 
     the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 972, 22 U.S.C. 
     3973, 22 U.S.C. 4024, and 22 U.S.C. 4081) to the same extent 
     and manner that such benefits and privileges are extended to 
     members of the Foreign Service.
       (f) Compensatory Time.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary and the Administrator may, subject to 
     the consent of an individual who is assigned, detailed, or 
     deployed to carry out stabilization and reconstruction 
     activities in accordance with this Act, grant such individual 
     compensatory time off for an equal amount of time spent in 
     regularly or irregularly scheduled overtime work. Credit for 
     compensatory time off earned shall not form the basis for any 
     additional compensation. Any such compensatory time not used 
     within 26 pay periods shall be forfeited.
       (g) Increase in Premium Pay Cap.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to compensate an employee detailed, assigned, or 
     deployed to carry out stabilization and reconstruction 
     activities in accordance with this Act without regard to the 
     limitations on premium pay set forth in section 5547 of title 
     5, United States Code, to the extent that the aggregate of 
     the basic pay and premium pay of such employee for a year 
     does not exceed the annual rate payable for level II of the 
     Executive Schedule.
       (h) Acceptance of Volunteer Services.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, or the head of an Executive 
     agency authorized by the Secretary, may, upon a determination 
     by the President regarding a stabilization and reconstruction 
     crisis under section 618 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961, accept volunteer services to carry out stabilization 
     and reconstruction activities under this Act and section 59 
     of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 without 
     regard to section 1342 of title 31, United States Code.
       (2) Types of volunteers.--Donors of voluntary services 
     accepted for purposes of this section may include--
       (A) advisors;
       (B) experts;
       (C) consultants; and
       (D) persons performing services in any other capacity 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       (3) Supervision.--The Secretary, or the head of an 
     Executive agency authorized by the Secretary, shall--
       (A) ensure that each person performing voluntary services 
     accepted under this section is notified of the scope of the 
     voluntary services accepted;
       (B) supervise the volunteer to the same extent as employees 
     receiving compensation for similar services; and
       (C) ensure that the volunteer has appropriate credentials 
     or is otherwise qualified to perform in each capacity for 
     which the volunteer's services are accepted.
       (4) Applicability of provisions relating to federal 
     government employees.--A person providing volunteer services 
     accepted under this section shall not be considered an 
     employee of the Federal Government in the performance of 
     those services, except for the purposes of the following 
     provisions of law:
       (A) Chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, relating to 
     compensation for work-related injuries.
       (B) Chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, relating 
     to tort claims.
       (C) Chapter 11 of title 18, United States Code, relating to 
     conflicts of interest.

     SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $80,000,000 for personnel, education and training, equipment, 
     and travel costs for purposes of carrying out this Act and 
     the amendments made by this Act.
       (b) Office of International Stabilization and 
     Reconstruction.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     in subsection (a), $8,000,000 is authorized to be made 
     available to pay the salaries, overhead, travel, per diem, 
     and related costs associated with establishing and operating 
     the Office of International Stabilization described in 
     section 59 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 
     1956 (as added by sections 6 and 7).

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Stabilization and Reconstruction Civilian Management Act of 2004, a 
bill that will increase the ability of our civilian agencies to 
effectively respond to complex emergencies and stabilize countries in 
the wake of war or crisis.
  I commend and express my gratitude to Chairman Lugar for his 
leadership on this issue. Since December of last year, the chairman and 
I have been engaged in discussions with experts from

[[Page S1597]]

in and outside government on whether the United States is adequately 
organized and equipped, and its personnel trained, to deal with post-
conflict reconstruction. Our premise was this: in the last decade, the 
United States has taken on post-conflict stabilization missions in 
countries such as Bosnia, East Timor, Haiti, Somalia, and now 
Afghanistan and Iraq. In the decade to come, whether we like it or not, 
nation building will remain vital to our national security.
  We have learned a lot from our efforts. And we have made a lot of 
mistakes in the process. One lesson that I think is clear is that we 
have not done a very good job of turning our experience into tools for 
the future. So the chairman and I put together a group of outside 
advisers who had held senior positions in the last two administrations; 
we also invited officials from this administration to give their ideas. 
The bill we are introducing today is the product of those 
consultations. I wish to thank all of the participants of the group for 
their invaluable input to this bipartisan initiative.
  Addressing the needs present in post-conflict reconstruction--and in 
particular, in countries that are on the verge of becoming failed 
states--is one of the greatest challenges we face today. It matters to 
the people living in those nations, and it matters to the American 
people. A bipartisan commission organized by the Center for Strategic 
and International Studies and the Association of the U.S. Army found, 
to no one's surprise, that ``failed states matter--for national 
security as well as for humanitarian reasons. If left to their own 
devices, such states can become sanctuaries for terrorist networks, 
organized crime and drug traffickers, as well as pose grave 
humanitarian challenges and threats to regional stability.''
  We should not have to reinvent the wheel every time we are faced with 
a stabilization crisis--it's inefficient and ineffective. Rather than 
address crises on an ad hoc basis--cobbling together plans, procedures, 
and personnel--as we have been doing, we need to be forward-thinking, 
comprehensive, and strategic.
  The thrust of this legislation is to do precisely that. The bill 
authorizes the creation of an office within the State Department that 
will be the focal point for creating plans and procedures to respond to 
crises, and it establishes a corps of active duty and reserve personnel 
who will be able to deploy rapidly when and where critical needs arise.
  Mr. President, this bill is not a cure-all. But I believe it is a 
good start to addressing a critical need: that of strengthening our 
civilian capacity to handle complex emergencies overseas. Again, I 
thank Chairman Lugar and the members of our policy advisory group for 
their work on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Inhofe):
  S. 2128. A bill to define the term ``natural born Citizen'' as used 
in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for 
the Office of President; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, as we take time to celebrate President's 
Day and remember the contributions of two of our greatest leaders 
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, I rise along with my colleagues 
Senator Landrieu and Senator Inhofe to introduce legislation that will 
guarantee children born to and adopted by American citizens the 
opportunity to become this country's next great president. The purpose 
of this bill is to define the term ``natural born Citizen'' as used in 
Article II of the Constitution to include any person born in the United 
States, any person born outside the United States to citizen parents, 
and any foreign-born child adopted by citizen parents.
  For many decades legal scholars have debated the meaning of the term 
``natural born Citizen.'' There are many law review articles that 
examine the issue from every angle and come to several different 
conclusions. Some scholars, such as Pinkney G. McElwee in his article 
entitled Natural Born Citizen and Isidor Blum's article published in 
the New York Law School Journal, conclude that the term ``natural 
born'' is synonymous with ``native born.'' Others, such as Charles 
Gordon in the Maryland Law Review and Warren Freedman in the Cornell 
Law Quarterly, decide that the definition of ``natural born'' includes 
all people who are citizens at birth. And these scholars disagree as to 
who is a citizen at birth.
  The issue came to the public's attention when George Romney was 
seeking the Republican nomination for President in 1968. He was born of 
American missionary parents in Mexico. Some questioned his eligibility 
to be President under the Constitutional requirement that a President 
be a ``natural born citizen.'' The issue was never decided since Mr. 
Romney did not become the Republican nominee. Although at least two 
Federal court decisions have suggested what the term ``natural born 
citizen'' means, the issue has never been squarely resolved by a court.
  Today the question remains unanswered. This bill presents us with an 
historic opportunity. In this bill, we have the opportunity to end the 
uncertainty surrounding the qualifications for the presidency, and 
provide a fair and equal chance to children of American citizens to 
pursue their dreams.
  There is obviously a need for clarification. In the absence of a 
judicial interpretation, Congress can express a legislative 
interpretation of Constitutional terms. We should not wait for an 
election to be challenged and the courts to decide what ``natural 
born'' means. This bill answers the need for clarification and gives 
certainty to our citizens whose children may be born abroad such as 
armed service members, foreign service members, expatriate families, 
and certainty to families that have adopted foreign born children, that 
their children, too, are eligible to seek the office of President of 
the United States.
  Part of the American dream is that any child of an American can grow 
up to be anything he or she wants to be including President of the 
United States. That it does not matter what your last name is, or how 
much property you own, or how wealthy you are. That the son or daughter 
of the humblest upbringing could one day lead this great country. This 
is why America is truly the land of opportunity. It should not matter 
if you are born to American parents in a foreign country or adopted by 
American parents from a foreign country. In either case, you are a 
child of America.
  This bill makes clear that a child born to American citizens abroad 
is eligible to hold the office of the presidency. The term ``natural 
born'' was used by the framers of the Constitution to reinforce their 
wish that the president would feel loyalty and allegiance to the United 
States. That the president would have a ``native feeling.'' Children 
born to American citizens abroad, especially those born to members of 
the American armed forces and foreign service, certainly have that 
``native feeling.'' They are as patriotic as any American. Statutorily, 
they are citizens from birth, raised by Americans with American values. 
And they should have the same opportunities as children born on 
American soil. They should not be denied the chance to seek the highest 
office in our land because they happened to be born while their parents 
were stationed or working abroad.
  The Constitution also requires that the president have resided in the 
United States for fourteen years. This provision shows us that the 
framers believed that the president need not spend his whole life in 
the United States. It is possible for a person to reside in another 
country for a time and still be eligible to be President of the United 
States. So it follows that an American child born abroad should be just 
as eligible to be president just as any child born in the United States 
that happens to reside abroad for a time. This bill makes it clear that 
such a child is eligible to be president.

  This bill also makes clear that foreign born children adopted by 
American families will have the same opportunities as biological 
children of American citizens. All of the same arguments apply for 
foreign adopted children that apply for children born biologically to 
citizen parents abroad. These children are no less loyal to the United 
States. They are raised by Americans in America. They are not any less 
of a citizen than any other American. And they should be no less

[[Page S1598]]

eligible to be president than any other American child.
  Furthermore, adoption law says that once a child is fully and finally 
adopted, they are entitled to the same rights, duties and 
responsibilities as biological children. They are to be treated as 
``natural issue'' of their adoptive parents. All blood ties are severed 
from their biological families. As such, foreign adopted children 
living in America are treated as if born to their adoptive American 
parents. But there is one remaining difference. Without this bill, they 
will be unable to pursue the opportunity to run for President. Removal 
of this inequality is the last step needed to truly provide equality to 
the foreign adopted children of American citizens.
  In 1990, Americans adopted more than 7,000 children from abroad. By 
2002, that number grew to more than 20,000 children. These children are 
members of American families, and should be treated as such. They 
should be allowed to have the same dreams as any other American child, 
including the dream that they, too, could grow up to be President of 
the United States. This bill makes sure they can.
  Foreign adopted children and children born to American citizens 
abroad are as invested in the well-being of this country as the rest of 
us. These children grow up with the benefits of being an American 
citizen, and they contribute back to this country. They grow up to work 
here, pay their taxes here, and raise their children here. These 
children could grow up to be America's next great writers, actors, 
scientists, lawyers or doctors. They could be ministers or mill 
workers, farmers or Senators. They should also be allowed to grow up to 
be the President.
  This bill ensures that children born to or adopted by American 
parents have claim to the full meaning of the American dream. That not 
only can they have the freedom to speak, the freedom to worship in any 
style they wish, the freedom to own a home and pursue happiness, but 
that they can also have the freedom to choose to run for president.
  Over my years as a Senator, my office has received letters and 
inquiries from many foreign adopted children and their families seeking 
a change in the law to allow them to pursue the office of President of 
the United States. I ask my colleagues today to join with us in support 
of this bill to make America truly the land of opportunity for all its 
citizens' children whether born here, born abroad or adopted abroad.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 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. 2128

       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 ``Natural Born Citizen Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ``NATURAL BORN CITIZEN''.

       (a) In General.--Congress finds and declares that the term 
     ``natural born Citizen'' in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 
     of the Constitution of the United States means--
       (1) any person born in the United States and subject to the 
     jurisdiction thereof; and
       (2) any person born outside the United States--
       (A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States 
     citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or
       (B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States 
     citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to 
     transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act 
     of Congress.
       (b) United States.--In this section, the term ``United 
     States'', when used in a geographic sense, means the several 
     States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, 
Senator Nickles and Landrieu, in introducing this bill, which will 
profoundly impact generations to come. It will clarify who is eligible 
to become President of the United States of America. The term ``natural 
born citizen'' as used in the Constitution, would be defined as any 
person born in the United States, any person born outside the United 
States to citizen parents, and any foreign-born child adopted by 
citizen parents.
  In the absence of a judicial interpretation of constitutional 
language, Congress can express a legislative interpretation of 
constitutional terms. In the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress used 
this ability to define ``natural born'' to include children born abroad 
to citizen parents. Although this language was not kept in the 
naturalization laws, the ability of Congress to define this term was 
not challenged.
  This bill is intended to further describe the term ``natural born 
citizen'' as it relates to Presidential qualification. The Framers used 
this phrase to support the criteria that the President be loyal and 
faithful to the United States. Children born to military, or State 
Department parents living abroad have exceeding loyalty to the United 
States. They should not be punished for their parents' willingness to 
serve their country abroad.
  Furthermore, internationally adopted children should not bear this 
penalty either. In recent years, the number of children adopted by 
Americans from overseas has grown to more than 20,000. They are 
considered ``natural issue'' of their adoptive parents and share a 
similar loyalty to the United States. These children should have the 
same rights, duties, responsibilities, and privileges as biological 
children. They should be able to pursue their dreams.
  About two and a half years ago, my daughter adopted a little girl 
from Ethiopia. While my granddaughter shares most freedoms granted by 
the Constitution with her biologically born brothers, including the 
freedom of speech, the freedom to worship, and the freedom to pursue 
happiness, she does not have the freedom to pursue any job she wants. 
Without this interpretation she does not have the freedom to run for 
President of the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to join in support of this bill to allow all 
American citizens, no matter where they are born, an equal opportunity 
to pursue their dreams, including to run for President of the United 
States.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2129. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
to require the provision of a child safety device in connection with 
the transfer of a handgun and to provide safety standards for child 
safety devices; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we would all agree that we need to protect 
our children from violence. However, too many of our children continue 
to be injured or killed by guns. That is why I am introducing the Child 
Safety Device Act.
  This is a very simple measure. Every handgun sold must come with a 
child safety device. This can be a lock using a key or combination, a 
device that locks electronically, a lock box, or technology that is 
built into the gun itself. With this safety measure in place, we can 
reduce the number of accidental gun deaths among our children.
  More than 22 million children live in homes with guns. And more than 
3.3 million of them live in homes where the guns are always or 
sometimes kept loaded and unlocked. The result is the accidental deaths 
of 182 young people each year--that's one every 48 hours.
  We ``childproof'' our medicine bottles; we put gates up near stairs; 
we make sure that toys are not toxic. But we don't require that guns 
come with safety devices. We should.
  And to ensure that those devices are effective, my bill requires that 
the Consumer Product Safety Commission establish standards for their 
design, manufacture, and performance. When parents use a child safety 
device, they should have confidence that it works as intended.
  The Child Safety Device Act will improve the safety of our children--
and it will help save lives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mr. Levin, Mr. Miller, Mr. Biden, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Collins, Ms. Stabenow, 
        Mr. Burns, Mr. Smith, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Frist, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Specter, Mr. Fitzgerald, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Allard, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Stevens, 
        Mr. Graham of South Carolina, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bennett, Mr. 
        Sessions, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Johnson):

[[Page S1599]]

  S.J. Res. 28. A joint resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary of 
the Allied landing at Normandy during World War II; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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:

                              S.J. Res 28

       Whereas June 6, 2004, marks the 60th anniversary of D-Day, 
     the first day of the Allied landing at Normandy during World 
     War II by American, British, and Canadian troops;
       Whereas the D-Day landing, known as Operation Overlord, was 
     the most extensive amphibious operation ever to occur, 
     involving on the first day of the operation 5,000 naval 
     vessels, more than 11,000 sorties by Allied aircraft, and 
     153,000 members of the Allied Expeditionary Force;
       Whereas the bravery and sacrifices of the Allied troops at 
     5 separate Normandy beaches and numerous paratrooper and 
     glider landing zones began what Allied Supreme Commander 
     Dwight D. Eisenhower called a ``Crusade in Europe'' to end 
     Nazi tyranny and restore freedom and human dignity to 
     millions of people;
       Whereas that great assault by sea and air marked the 
     beginning of the end of Hitler's ambition for world 
     domination;
       Whereas American troops suffered over 6,500 casualties on 
     D-Day; and
       Whereas the people of the United States should honor the 
     valor and sacrifices of their fellow countrymen, both living 
     and dead, who fought that day for liberty and the cause of 
     freedom in Europe: 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 60th anniversary of the Allied landing 
     at Normandy during World War II; and
       (2) requests the President to issue a proclamation calling 
     on the people of the United States to observe the anniversary 
     with appropriate ceremonies and programs to honor the 
     sacrifices of their fellow countrymen to liberate Europe.

                          ____________________