Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 189 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 189 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. The rule provides 1 hour and 30 minutes of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and three periods of 20 minutes each to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members of the Committees on Science, Resources, and Ways and Means.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.

The rule further provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is a critically important piece of legislation that will provide for security and diversity in America's energy supply while enhancing energy conservation and research and development. The bill we will consider shortly is a comprehensive measure combining key elements from four separate bills reported by the respective committees of jurisdiction.

The first section of the bill passed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce seeks to expand domestic energy sources while striking a balance between State and Federal regulation of the Nation's electrical power grid. This section of the bill would also increase the strategic petroleum reserve to 1 billion barrels and contains provisions for a renewable fuel standard that requires increased production in the use of ethanol.

The second section of the bill passed by the Committee on Science authorizes $31 billion for energy-related research and development programs, including funding for the President's hydrogen initiative and FreedomCar program, with the balance of the funding going to improvement of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, and nuclear programs.

The third section of the bill passed by the Committee on Resources includes a provision that would open the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, to much-needed oil exploration in a way designed to ensure maximum environmental protection of that significant national resource.

Finally, the section of H.R. 6 reported by the Committee on Ways and Means means energy tax provisions amounting to $18.7 billion that would incentivize access to inexpensive energy, bolster our national security by decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and promote conservation and the use of renewable sources of energy.

As a Member of Congress from the Pacific Northwest, I am particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the authors of this legislation have concluded provisions I have long supported which would streamline the process of renewing permits for major hydroelectric facilities. Many of those projects are located in our part of the country and provide a sizeable share of our region's electrical power needs.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the war in Iraq has once again highlighted the importance of ensuring America's energy independence. This bill is designed to do that in an environmentally responsible way. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), chairman of the subcommittee that was dealing with the legislation that passed out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to reiterate that this is a very fair rule. Over two- thirds of the amendments made in order are either bipartisan or amendments from the Democrat side of the aisle.

I also would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the war in Iraq, I think, has awakened America to a need that we have to be more energy independent. This bill, this comprehensive bill, I think, allows for that in a long-term planning way, and I think it does it in a very environmentally friendly way.

The material previously referred to by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 189--H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of

2003

The following are the amendments made in order under the

rule:

Berkely #67 Division A. Requires the General Accounting

Office to conduct a study to provide accurate and real costs

of indemnifying those who would be harmed by a potential

nuclear plant accident or attack.

Berkley #71 Division A. Establishes a program to make loan

guarantees for qualifying businesses investing in renewable

energy solutions.

Blumenauer #53 Division D. Extends the Transportation

Fringe Benefit to commuters who carpool, bicycle, or used

car-sharing and equalize the transit benefit with the current

level offered to qualified parking plans. Allows up to $50

per month for carpoolers, bicyclists, or those using car-

sharing to commute to work. Increases the benefit available

to transit commuters to $190 per month, the same amount as

qualified parking plans.

Boucher #6 Division A. Strikes the provision of the bill

related to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

transmission siting authority on private lands and would

thereby leave decisions regarding the location of new

transmission facilities with individual states.

Boucher #7 Division A. Strikes the provision of the bill

related to the Department of Energy (DOE) transmission siting

authority on federal lands and would thereby leave the

decisions regarding the location of new transmission

facilities with the federal entities responsible for managing

such lands (e.g. the Department of Interior, the Bureau of

Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, etc.).

Capps #23 Division A. Adds four-year national phase-out

gasoline MTBE.

Capps #25 Division A. Strikes section 12401 relating to

appeals for LNG siting decisions, the Coastal Zone Management

Act, and the National Environmental Protection Act.

Carson #76 Division A. Strikes the ``Indiana Amendment''

from the Uniform Tie Act of 1966.

Costello/Calvert #8 Division B. Terminates the DOE's

authority to regulate itself with regard to nuclear and

worker safety at the Department's non-military energy

laboratories within two years of enactment. Transfers

regulatory authority to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and

to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

It is estimated that enacting the external regulation at the

labs would save DOE up to $41 million annually.

Davis (VA)/Waxman #60 Division A. Requires that a small

percentage of the energy used to power federal facilities

come from renewable energy and fuel cells. Beginning in 2005,

federal agencies would be required to obtain from these

sources 1.5% of the energy used across their facilities,

gradually rising to 7% in 2012 and beyond. Agencies could

meet these requirements either by generating energy on-site

or by purchasing renewable electricity generated off-site.

Agencies would receive extra credit for on-site renewable

energy generation that also contributes to national security.

Allows the Secretary of Energy to waive the requirements if

the agency is taking all practicable steps and the

requirements would pose an unacceptable burden. Permits

federal agencies to count acquisitions of future technology

vehicles, such as fuel efficient hybrid-electric or fuel cell

vehicles, against alternative fuel vehicle acquisition

targets.

DeFazio #11 Division A. Current law provides that the

Strategic Petroleum Reserve may be drawn down in the event of

a ``severe energy supply disruption,'' which results in ``a

major adverse impact on the national economy.'' The DeFazio

amendment would add ``or on a State or regional economy,''

after ``national economy.''

DeFazio #12 Division A. Adds ``anticompetitive conduct'' by

foreign countries, or producers, refiners, or marketers of

petroleum products, to the list of circumstances under which

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may be drawn down.

DeFazio #13 Division A. Strikes the section of H.R. 6 that

repeals Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). PUHCA's

restrictions on ownership of utilities, the diversification

of business operations, accounting, and mergers, among other

provisions, are critical to protecting consumers from the

business decisions of energy conglomerates.

DeFazio #14 Division A. Strikes the section of H.R. 6

directing FERC to establish so-called ``incentive-based''

rates for building transmission.

DeFazio #15 Division A. Establishes an Office of Consumer

Advocacy at the Department of Justice to protect the

interests of residential and small business users of

electricity and natural gas in proceedings before FERC and

other federal entities.

DeFazio #16 Division A. Sets benchmarks for the

commencement of regional transmission organizations (RTOs) on

FERC findings that such RTOs would result in net benefits to

consumers in each affected state and minimize cost shifts

among consumers. Also requires that RTOs have adequate

transmission capacity and no chronic congestion prior to

start-up, effective market monitoring, and that existing load

service obligations are protected, among other criteria.

DeFazio #17 Division A. Prohibits market-based rates from

being considered ``just and reasonable'' under the Federal

Power Act if the rate raises above the cost-based rate that

would otherwise apply.

DeGette #22 Division A. Holds the legislative branch to the

same acquisition requirements as all other federal agencies

regarding energy-using products, systems, or designs that

meet or exceed the energy efficiency standards established by

the Energy Star program of the Environmental Protection

Agency and the Department of Energy.

Dingell/Boehlert #30 Division A. Substitute amendment for

the hydroelectric relicensing title of the bill, which is

identical to the version that passed the House last year.

Introduces flexibility into the licensing and re-licensing of

hydroelectric facilities by allowing any party to a licensing

proceeding to propose alternatives to the resource and

fishway prescriptions made by the resource agencies. The

Secretary must accept the alternative, so long as he or she

determines it provides the same level of protection for

resources, fish, and wildlife and either costs less to

implement or would result in more efficient operation of the

hydroelectric facility. Requires the resources agencies to

establish a process to expeditiously resolve any disputes

involving resource or fish and wildlife conditions. Strikes

the incentive payment program for hydro-power contained in

this title.

Green (TX) #33. Division A. Changes the ``hold harmless''

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) threshold

from $1.95 billion to $1 billion.

Hastings (FL) #69 Division C. Directs the Secretary of

Energy to take all necessary steps and efforts to mitigate

any adverse impacts that U.S. energy policy and the

provisions of H.R. 6 may have on minority, rural, Native

American, and underserved communities. Requires the Secretary

of Energy to submit to Congress an annual report detailing

the Department's efforts to implement this requirement.

Inslee-Holt-Spratt #74 Substitute. Strikes all after the

enacting clause. Sets Energy Performance Goals for the

country. Provides the tools needed to achieve the Energy

Performance Goals. These tools include innovative use of the

tax code, investment in R&D, and federal expenditures in

existing infrastructure needs. Requires the Administration to

set up a monitoring system to track progress towards the

Energy Performance Goals. Should measures be needed in

addition to the tools provided, the amendment directs the

President to initiate voluntary, regulatory, or other

actions that may be needed to achieve the Energy

Performance Goals. All expenses are offset by freezing the

upper income tax cuts scheduled for 2004, closure of the

offshore corporate tax loophole, and removal of abusive

tax shelters.

Kind #27 Division C. Strikes heading for Title II of

Division C and inserts ``(Outer Continental Shelf).''

Establishes a framework for permitting alternative-energy-

related uses on the Outer Continental Shelf not already

expressly covered by existing statutes. Assigns authority for

this program to the Department of Interior's Minerals

Management Service which, under existing law, administers

federal leasing and operations for oil, gas, and other

mineral activities on the Outer Continental Shelf. Specifies

the types of areas that should be avoided, such as marine

protected areas, and provides for more State and public input

throughout the process. Provides a mechanism for identifying,

in advance, appropriate sites for developing offshore wind

energy facilities that provide the greatest source of energy

with the least damage to the environment. Also provides a

process for soliciting competing proposals for renewable

energy facilities in the same locations and compensation to

the government for the value of the license.

Levin #72 Placeholder. Division A. Replaces the vehicle tax

incentives provisions in Section D, Title I, of H.R. 6 with a

modified version of the Clean, Efficient Automobiles

Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies Act of 2003 (CLEAR

Act). Expands the alternative vehicle tax incentives, covers

a broader array of advanced vehicle technologies, and

provides additional incentives for the purchase of

alternative vehicles.

Maloney #20 Division C. Strikes Section 30201, a section

that makes permanent the Interior Secretary's authority to

take royalties-in-kind (RIK) instead of cash payments from

leaseholders for oil and gas removed from federal and Indian

lands.

Nadler #59 Division A. Adds $30 billion to help purchase

and secure excess Russian plutonium and highly-enriched

uranium. Authorizes funding to purchase excess Russian

plutonium, convert Russian plutonium pits to oxide, and to

immobilize and irradiate up to 100 megatons of excess

plutonium. Provides for funding to purchase highly-enriched

uranium and to make improvements to the security of nuclear

material in Russia. Also provides funds to employ

knowledgeable nuclear personnel and to downsize facilities.

Oberstar #44 Division A. Strikes section 12403 relating to

the permanent exemption for construction activities

associated with oil and gas exploratory and production

operations from storm-water discharge requirements of the

Clean Water Act.

Rahall #3 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to

Division C. Title I--Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Project;

Title II--Western Area Power Administration; Title III--

Energy Alternatives and Efficiency Regarding Federal Lands;

Title IV--Establishment of Indian Energy Programs; Title V--

Insular Areas Energy Security; Title VI--Sensible Development

of Renewable Energy Resources of the Outer Continental Shelf;

Title VII--Surface Owner Property Rights and Protection;

Title VIII--Royalty Fairness; Title IX--Reclamation of

Abandoned Coal Mine Sites; Title X--Land and Water

Conservation Fund Enhancement; and Title XI--Coastal

Withdrawals. This amendment is identical to the substitute

offered by Mr. Rahall to the Committee Print at the Resources

Committee's markup on April 2, 2003.

Rahall #5 Division D. Strikes Section 42011 of Division D,

relating to the prepayment of premium liability for coal

industry health benefits.

Sandlin #75 Replaces the tax division of H.R. 6 and

replaces it with the text of H.R. 1436, the Energy

Independence and Security Act. Additionally, the

Sandlin amendment would offset the cost of the energy tax

incentives contained within the amendment by freezing the

cut in the highest marginal tax rate.

Stupak #47 Division C. Prohibits any new drilling to

extract oil or gas reserves from any bottomlands of the Great

Lakes under federal jurisdiction.

Sessions/Hall #34 Division A. Establishes a process to

identify and implement actions the federal government can

take that will ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, the

production of domestic natural gas supplies sufficient to

provide residential consumers with natural gas at reasonable

and stable prices; provide industrial, manufacturing, and

commercial consumers with natural gas at prices that do not

result in plant closures and job losses; facilitate the

attainment of national amient air quality standards under the

Clean Air Act; allow for reductions in greenhouse gas

emissions; and to support development of the preliminary

phases of hydrogen-based energy sectors. States the goal of

the United States should

be to produce from domestic natural gas reserves at least 85%

of the annual projected domestic demand for natural gas.

Solis #29 Division A. Amends Section 12201 on hydraulic

fracturing by striking the current section and inserting

language that requires: a completed EPA hydraulic fracturing

study and independent scientific review by the National

Academy of Science; a regulatory determination by the

Administration of the EPA; preservation of federal authority

to respond in the future where endangerment or adverse health

effects are established. Citizens would be precluded from

filing lawsuits to force states to regulate under the Safe

Drinking Water Act.

Udall (CO) #31 Division C. Provides for grants of up to $20

per ton to enable operators of biomass facilities to purchase

brush, small trees, and other material removed from forests

in order to reduce the risk of forest fires. Allows the grant

money to be used only to purchase material removed from

forest lands near communities.

Udall (CO) #32 Division C. Requires companies developing

onshore federally-owned oil or gas to: replace any damaged

water supplies; assure any water injected underground does

not damage an aquifer; comply with all federal and state laws

applicable to water not injected underground; submit a

proposed water-management plan with the application for an

oil or gas lease.

Udall (NM) #39 Division A. Requires retail electricity

suppliers (except for municipal and cooperative utilities)

obtain 15% of their power production from a portfolio of

renewable energy resources by 2020, increasing to 20% by

2025.

Udall (NM) #41 Division C. Requires the creation of surface

use agreements between private landowners, ranchers and

farmers, and the oil and gas industry prior to any

development of subsurface mineral rights owned by the federal

government.

Velazquez #28 Division A. Prevents a disproportionate share

of power plants from being sited in low-income and minority

communities. Gives citizens greater influence over the

permitting and siting process.

Waxman #35 Division A. Sense of Congress that summarizes

the current scientific understanding of climate change, its

potential effects, and the position of the United States

regarding climate change. States that it is the sense of

Congress that the United States should demonstrate

international leadership and responsibility in addressing

climate change.

Waxman #36 Division A. Requires the Administration to take

voluntary, regulatory, and other actions to reduce oil demand

in the United States by 600,000 barrels per day from

projected levels by 2010. Does not per se mandate changes to

C.A.F.E. standards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, to introduce the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Lincoln and Cochran in sponsoring the bill.

The purpose of this bipartisan legislation is to ensure that States have the resources they need to upgrade major two-lane roads across the Nation to high-quality four-lane divided highways. The goals of this bill are to improve the safety of our most dangerous highways and to stimulate economic development in rural areas.

I think most Senators would agree that the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is one of the transportation marvels of the 20th century. The system's 46,000 miles of divided highways interconnect virtually every major urban area in the Nation. The system represents one of the most efficient and safest highway systems in the world.

Unfortunately, when the Interstate System was planned, it left many rural communities and smaller urban areas without direct links to the high-quality transportation network that the interstate highways provide. Many of these smaller and rural communities continue to suffer economically because of the lack of high-quality four-lane highways.

To address this issue, in 1995 Congress developed the concept of a National Highway System as a way of extending the benefits of an efficient highway network to all areas of the country. Congress designated the National Highway System to help focus Federal resources on the Nation's most important roads.

Today there are about 160,000 miles on the National Highway System, including all of the interstate highways and all other routes that are important to the Nation's economy, defense, and general mobility. The NHS comprises only 4 percent of the Nation's roads, but carries more than 40 percent of all highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck traffic and 90 percent of tourist traffic.

The NHS reaches nearly every part of the Nation. According to the Federal Highway Administration, about 90 percent of America's population lives within 5 miles of an NHS route. All urban areas with a population of more than 50,000, and 93 percent with a population of between 5,000 and 50,000, are within 5 miles of the NHS. Counties with NHS highways have 99 percent of

all jobs, including 99 percent of all manufacturing jobs, 97 percent of mining jobs, and 93 percent of agricultural jobs.

The NHS is the critical transportation link for most of our Nation's rural areas. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that, of the 160,000 miles now on the National Highway System, fully 75 percent, or 119,000 miles, are in rural areas. Of the 1.2 trillion total vehicle miles traveled in 2000 on NHS roads, about 60 percent were in rural areas.

I hope all Senators will agree that improving highway safety should be our top priority. When it comes to highway safety, the fact is that travel on four-lane roads is safer than two-lane roads. This is especially true in rural areas. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 1998 the rate of traffic fatalities on all rural roads was 2.39 per 100-million vehicle miles; however, the rate on rural interstate highways was half as high--only 1.23 per 100 million vehicle-miles.

The reason for the lower fatality rate on rural interstate highways should be obvious. When a road has only one lane in each direction, trucks and other slow-moving vehicles increase the hazard of passing. Vehicles turning on or off a two-lane road can also increase risk. A divided four-lane highway greatly reduces these perils.

Of the 119,000 miles of rural NHS roads, about 33,000 miles are interstates and another 28,000 miles have been upgraded to four or more lanes. The remaining 58,000 miles--more than half of this rural highway network--are still only two-lane roads with no central divider. These are the most dangerous roads on the National Highway System.

In my State of New Mexico, we have made some progress toward upgrading our rural two-lane highways to four lanes. In recent years, US550 from Bernalillo to Bloomfield, US285 from Interstate 40 to Carlsbad, and a key segment of US54 from El Paso to Alamogordo have been widened to four lanes. In addition, upgrading of US70 from Las Cruces to Clovis is nearly completed. But much more remains to be done.

New Mexico has 2,647 miles of rural roads in the NHS. Eight hundred and ninety-two of these NHS miles are interstates. Of the balance of New Mexico's NHS highways, 1,755 miles are in the rural parts of my State, especially Chaves, Colfax, Eddy, Lincoln, Guadalupe, Otero, Quay, San Juan, and Union Counties. And almost 70 percent--1,217 miles--of New Mexico's rural NHS highways remain only two-lane roads. These two-lane roads are major transportation routes with heavy truck and commercial traffic. In 2000, a total of 10.3 billion vehicle miles were traveled on New Mexico's NHS highways, and about one quarter, or 2.7 billion miles, were traveled on these rural NHS roads.

Unfortunately, there are only very limited funds available to upgrade the most important two-lane rural NHS roads to four-lane highways. According to a recent GAO study, over two-thirds of all Federal highway funding between 1992 and 2000 has gone either to roads in urban areas or to interstate highways. Consequently, there is a continuing shortfall in Federal highway funding needed to upgrade the most important rural two-lane roads. Our bill will help address the shortfall so that more rural segments of the NHS can be improved to four-lane divided highways.

As in many States, New Mexico's rural counties strongly believe their economic future depends on access to safe and efficient four-lane highways. Basic transportation infrastructure is one of the critical elements for companies choosing where to locate. Truck drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety and efficiency of a four-lane divided highway.

Thus one of the top priorities for rural cities and counties in my State is to complete the four-lane upgrade of such key routes as US54 from Tularosa to Nara Visa, US62/180 from Carlsbad to the Texas state line, US64/87 from Clayton to Raton, and US666 from north of Gallup to Shiprock. These two-lane rural routes in New Mexico not only bear some of the State's heaviest truck and automobile traffic, but also are some of the State's most dangerous roads. In fact, US666 is considered one of the most dangerous two-lane highways in the Nation.

New Mexico is not alone among western states in needing to upgrade two-lane roads on the National Highway System. For example, Texas has almost 3,500 miles of rural two-lane NHS roads. Montana has 2,469 miles, Kansas has 2,293, Nebraska 1,964, Wyoming 1,924, Minnesota 1,897, and Missouri 1,853 miles.

In the East, where States are smaller, many NHS routes remain only two lanes. In Vermont, 78 percent of rural NHS roads are only two lanes, in New Hampshire it's 84 percent and 99 percent in Maine.

I do believe it is time Congress took action to improve the safety of travelers on the highest priority rural two-lane roads. Last year, I secured nearly $1 million in Federal funding to begin the upgrade of US64/87 between Clayton and Raton, which is part of the Ports-to-Plains High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System.

In addition, last week Senator Roberts and I introduced S. 290, which designates U.S. Highway 54 from El Paso, Texas, through New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma to Wichita, Kansas, as the SPIRIT High Priority Corridor. Our bipartisan bill has four cosponsors. A high-priority corridor designation provides no additional Federal funding, but helps focus attention on the need to upgrade the nation's major two-lane routes.

The purpose of the bill we are introducing today, the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003, is to provide direct Federal funding to States to upgrade existing two-lane roads in rural areas to safe and efficient four-lane divided highways. The States would determine which two-lane roads they wanted to upgrade. To be eligible for funding, the highway must be on the National Highway System or a congressionally designated High Priority Corridor. Our bill gives funding priority to upgrading the most dangerous two-lane highways, routes most affected by increased traffic as a result of NAFTA, highways that have high levels of commercial traffic, and projects that will help stimulate regional economic growth. Total funding for six years is $1.8 billion from the highway trust fund.

My State bears a substantial burden in the maintenance and upgrading of its portion of critical national highways. New Mexico has 3.3 percent of the Nation's land area, but only 6 tenths of one percent of the population. We have 2.2 percent of all of the interstate highway miles and 1.7 percent of all other NHS miles. At the same time, as a border State, New Mexico is common route for trucks crossing the border with Mexico and heading to or coming from the east and west coasts. It is likely that the upgrading to four lanes of the most important NHS highways in New Mexico might not occur without the supplemental funding provided in my bill.

I continue to believe strongly in the important role of highway infrastructure to economic development. Even in this age of the so- called ``new'' economy and high-speed digital communications, roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of our country.

I recognize that the funding level in this bill is inadequate to upgrade all of the remaining two-lane routes on the NHS in the next six years. Upgrading an existing two-lane road to a full four-lane divided highway can cost upward of one million dollars per mile.

Moreover, some of the existing two-lane roads probably don't have sufficient traffic to justify upgrading at this time. In addition, some two-lane NHS routes pass through scenic areas where it may not be appropriate to upgrade to four lanes. However, I do believe the funding in this bill will take us a long way toward ensuring the most critical projects are completed in the next six years.

This year Congress will take up the reauthorization of the comprehensive six-year transportation bill, TEA-21. We are introducing this bipartisan bill today to help ensure that the issue of the safety of rural two-lane NHS routes receives the attention it deserves as the debate on reauthorization begins. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, as well as Senators Bond and

Reid of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to find a way to ensure additional federal resources are in place to hasten the work of upgrading rural two-lane NHS roads to safe, efficient four-lane divided highways.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Thomas, Lincoln, and Johnson entitled ``The Medicare Incentive Payment Program Improvement Act of 2003'' is designed to improve the flow of needed bonus payments to physicians serving Medicare patients in Health Professions Shortage Areas, HPSA.

The Medicare Incentive Payment Program, MIPP, created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, was meant to assist physicians in defraying the higher costs and burdens of serving Medicare patients in shortage areas. Rural areas are know to suffer from physician shortages, both primary care and specialty physicians. In fact, even though 20 percent of America lives in a rural area, less than 11 percent of physicians in the U.S., practice in rural areas.

In my own State, the ongoing loss of physicians from underserved areas has affected both primary care and in particular, specialty services. In many areas, the shortage of specialists exceeds that of the primary care physicians. The New Mexico Health Policy Commission reported in its year 2000 report that 22 percent of residents in Los Alamos and Santa Fe were unable to receive needed specialist care.

While the national ratio of physicians per population is 198 doctors per 100,000 persons, New Mexico ranks 33rd in the country with only 170 physicians per 100,000 population. We are not in a position to ``grow our own doctors'' either as New Mexico ranks 37th among the 46 States with medical schools in graduating physicians per capita.

New Mexico, like many other States with large numbers health profession shortage areas, or HPSAs, must rely on its ability to recruit and retain physicians in underserved areas to meet the health care needs of its citizens. It was the original intent of the MIPP to do this, by allowing for physicians in underserved areas to receive an additional 10 percent add-on in payments for services rendered. These 10 percent ``bonuses'' are meant to be an essential component in our ongoing effort to ensure Medicare beneficiaries access to medical services, particularly in underserved areas.

Unfortunately, the Medicare Incentive Payment Program has fared poorly, with few providers choosing to receive the payments. In fact, the total annual physician payments have never exceeded $100 million, because of a series of disincentives in the legislation.

The program requires a provider to do a number of things to obtain the bonus payments. First, providers must be aware that MIPP payments are available to them. Many providers are unaware of the program's existence. Next, physicians must find out if the patient's medical care occurred in a shortage area. Following this, a unique code must be attached to the Medicare claim, which is then forwarded to the carrier. Finally, after all these steps, providers are subjected to automatic Medicare audits, just for applying for the very payments for which they are eligible.

Providers committed to serving Medicare patients in underserved areas deserve the support assured by the original legislation's intent.

The Medicare Incentive Payment Improvement Act of 2003 addresses and improves shortcomings in the original legislation by: Placing the burden for determining the bonus eligibility on the Medicare carrier. Eliminating automatic provider audits. Directing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish a Medicare Incentive Payment Program Educational Program for Providers. Establishing an ongoing analysis of the programs, ability to improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to physician services. Continue to provide the original 10 percent add-on bonus for Part B physician payments in Health Provider Shortage Areas.

Medicare carriers are the logical arbiters to determine whether physician services occurred in a shortage area. Physicians, already overworked, lack sufficient time, resources and training to research and determine whether a service was provided in a HPSA. By placing the responsibility on carriers, with their sophisticated information systems, the physician's administrative burdens will be reduced.

The automatic audits triggered by this program, which are costly, time intensive, and unwarranted, will be lifted under our legislation. By placing the responsibility on carriers to determine payment eligibility the need for provider audits is eliminated.

While the MIPP program is intended to improve beneficiaries' access to physician services, there is no measure of the program's effect on physician availability. The legislation offered today directs CMS to perform an ongoing analysis as to whether these payments actually do improve beneficiaries' access to physician services.

I believe these improvements, in addition to others listed above, will greatly improve patient's access to care.

The following organizations have expressed support for this legislation: American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine, and the National Rural Health Association.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 2003.'' The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray. Today, I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and State governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve.

In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data that has been peer-reviewed. In 1998, the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire, devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings regarding the handling of the Preble Mouse has been the confusion between the ``known range'' as opposed to the alleged ``historical range'' of the mouse. Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short- grass, semi-arid plains of southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. further, the State was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes to the Endangered Species Act are desperately needed.

Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I've lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I've logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my State over the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic survival.

My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use scientific

or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-reviewed. Right now, it's basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, States are made active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more substantial role.

This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question the basic premise that some species require the protection of the Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our communities and private landowners to make sacrifices.

In Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened?

This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or a private citizen's development of their own property is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species?

This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, that person should know enough to tell us what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is all that this provision would require.

Additionally, we need to revise the end of the process, the de- listing procedure. Recovery should be the goal of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to de-list a species. There is no certainty in the process, and the State who has all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be de-listed.

Wyoming's experience with the Grizzly bear pinpoints some of the problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over this issue to no avail. Despite rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole.

The point is something needs to be done. People in Wyoming have grown weary of the Endangered Species Act and the efforts of a vocal minority to run roughshod over their lives and interests. It is imperative to the longevity of many species and our citizens in the West that we bring this Act to the snubbing post and gain control of the process. The changes I've suggested will have a significant affect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let's not lose sight of the real goal--recovery and delisting.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``State and Local Government Participation Act of 2003'' which would amend the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. This bill is designed to guarantee that Federal agencies identify State, county and local governments as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning responsibilities under NEPA.

NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a proposed Federal action are considered and minimized by the federal agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate public participation in the decision making process on these Federal activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to the proposed action.

Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a real problem in Wyoming and many States throughout the Nation. A statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public planning process on Federal lands. NEPA now serves to delay action and shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these Federal lands for their existence.

The ``State and Local Government Participation Act'' is designed to provide for greater input from State and local governments in the NEPA process. This measure would simply guarantee that State, county and local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning process, too often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. Unfortunately, many Federal agencies have become so engrossed in examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on Federal land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live near and depend on these areas for their economic survival.

States and local communities must be consulted and included when proposed actions are being taken on Federal lands in their State. Too often, Federal land managers are more concerned about the comments of environmental organizations located in Washington, DC or New York City than the people who actually live in the State where the proposed action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, comments and input of state and local communities are vital for the proper management of federal lands in the West. The ``State and Local Government Participation Act of 2003'' will begin to address this troubling problem and guarantee that local folks will be involved in proposed decision that will affect their lives.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to re-introduce a bill that reauthorizes the landmark welfare reform legislation passed in 1996. It is basically the same bill as I introduced in the last Congress and it is designed to allow States to continue the important work to promote work and personal responsibility. This reauthorization bill is designed to allow States to continue to provide the flexible initiatives that have reduced national welfare caseloads by over 50 percent and moved millions of Americans from welfare to work.

Welfare reform was a bold experiment to dramatically change a major social program. In 1996, Congress ended the entitlement of eligible families with children to cash aid. The results five years later are impressive. Over two-thirds of the people who are leaving the welfare rolls have left for work.

Seven years ago, we agreed that the bipartisan goal of welfare reform should be to promote work and to protect children. We stood here together,

on unchartered ground, and endorsed significant policy changes that we believed would help families gain independence and economic self- sufficiency, while protecting the children. States began to revise welfare service delivery with guidance based on the new reforms. Each State designed and implemented programs that were unique and specific to their populations. While the results have been mixed, I believe that encouraging progress has been made. The challenge this year will be to continue to build on our foundation, and be sensitive to the current economic situation and the fiscal crisis States face today.

When we started welfare reform, we had a strong economy. Now, States are struggling and most of their reserves are gone. I believe we can continue the progress of welfare reform, but I strongly believe we must provide the key investments that help welfare parents make a successful transition from welfare to work, including increasing child care funding.

In West Virginia, welfare reform has brought bold changes. Parents on welfare get extra support as they face new responsibilities and obligations to make the transition from welfare to jobs. In 2001, I hosted a roundtable discussion to meet with individual West Virginians who were undergoing major life transitions. They told me that they were proud to be working, but that it was often still a struggle to make ends meet and do the best for their children. The goal of this legislation is to help those parents, and millions more, to promote the well-being of their children, even as they work.

Today, I am introducing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act Amendments of 2003. States need help to continue making progress. We should continue to build on this foundation, and not reduce state flexibility. It is essential that we continue welfare reform, not unravel it, or restructure it.

This bill acknowledges that we must keep the focus on work, by both requiring and rewarding work. To ensure a real focus on helping parents leave welfare rolls for a job, this legislation gradually replaces the caseload reduction credit with an employment credit, designed by Senator Lincoln of Arkansas and Congressman Levin of Michigan. Under this important provision, States will only get a bonus toward their work participation requirement if parents move from welfare to a job. This credit will acknowledge the dignity of all work by providing a bonus for parents who get jobs, both full and part-time. A mother who has never worked in her life and then gets a part-time job has achieved a true accomplishment, and that deserves recognition. It is also the first step toward independence. It is an empowering approach to promoting work and sends the proper message to families who are striving to become self sufficient. I am pleased to incorporate their proposal into my bill, and I look forward to working with them closely throughout the welfare debates during this Congress to develop an employment credit that truly rewards work.

At this point, with a soft economy, I believe it is unwise to significantly change State TANF programs to impose drastically higher work participation rates requiring 40 hours per week of work and activities. Such changes, as suggested by the Administration, would double the work requirement for mothers with children under the age of 6, and that does not seem right. Increasing work requirement without new funding for child care, transportation, and job placement activities would be, plain and simple, an unfunded mandate. It could hinder state efforts to move parents into private sector jobs. It could undermine our progress.

State officials have testified before the Finance Committee that such changes would force states to restructure existing programs that are working and turn their focus away from those who need some assistance with child care or transportation, but are no longer dependent on a welfare check. We should not cut back on necessary child care and work supports for working families who are following the rules we set in 1996.

This comprehensive welfare reform bill makes the right investments. It invests $5.5 billion more in child care, which is the amount supported by the Finance Committee in a bipartisan vote last June.

This bill also increases funding for the basic TANF block grant by $2.5 billion because of state need. It provides full funding for the Social Services at $2.8 billion, which was promised to the states in 1996. My bill also would expand and increase the supplemental grants to help the states with high growth and high poverty deal with the challenges of welfare reform. With these new investments, states will be able to increase investment in the fundamental work supports like child care, transportation, and training, that help a parent succeed in moving from welfare to work. States would have flexibility in allocating the new resources, but I believe much of the funding can and will be directed into child care, which is a major priority.

This bill would continue the transitional Medicaid program so families can keep health care coverage for a year as they move from welfare to work. In 1996, I was proud to work with Senator Breaux and the late Senator John Chafee to protect access to health care for such vulnerable families. I have incorporated Senator Breaux's bipartisan bill to continue transitional Medicaid coverage, and I appreciate his leadership on this and other key issues. Our bill also gives states more flexibility and options to place parents in vocational training and English as a Second Language programs, so parents can get real jobs. In recognition of Maine's success with the Parents as Scholar program, States have the option to follow the Maine model for 5 percent of their caseload to combine work and education.

The bill also invests $200 million to create BusinessLink Grants, competitive grants to support public and private partnerships to help parents get jobs. The Welfare-to-Work Partnership is just one example of how nonprofits working with business leaders can make a real difference. The Partnership includes over 20,000 businesses that have provided more than 1 million jobs to parents moving from welfare to work. I have met with the board members of this group, and we should encourage such partnerships. I know that other groups, like the Salvation Army and Good Will, are doing important work on providing transitional job opportunities, and these organizations would be eligible for grants as well.

A job is the first step, but for welfare parents to make a successful transition to independence, they need a range of supports. To achieve this goal, the bill will create Pathways to Self-Sufficiency Grants to improve the support network for parents. These grants are intended to provide incentives and support to TANF caseworkers and nonprofit organizations to help improve the comprehensive network of supports for working families, including Medicaid, CHIP, child care, EITC, and a range of services. Working mothers deserve to know what type of support will be available so that they do not slip back into welfare.

Work is fundamental, but we also need to be concerned about important aspects of the lives of families and children. This legislation creates a Family Formation Fund to encourage healthy families, reduce teenage pregnancy, and improve child support and participation of parents in children's lives. The bill seeks to end certain discrimination and harsh rules for two-parent families in the current system. If our goal is to support marriage, we should not penalize married couples.

Our legislation also makes a simple, but important change. Under the current TANF program, each welfare parent has an Individual Responsibility Plan that serves as an assessment and work plan. In addition to having a responsibility to work, parents have a responsibility to protect their children's well-being. To emphasize this fundamental point, this bill adds language directing states to incorporate the concept of a child's well-being into each parent's Individual Responsibility Plan. States have great flexibility, but it is important to send a clear message that one of a parent's responsibilities is the well-being of their children.

This legislation builds on the foundation of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. My hope is that this framework will help promote bipartisan discussion about how we can make even more improvements in our welfare system,

while maintaining our partnership with the States, particularly at this time of severe fiscal problems in our States.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Jeffords in introducing the Clean Power Act of 2003. This bill will remove the loophole that has allowed the dirtiest, most polluting power plants in the Nation to escape significant pollution controls for more than 30 years.

Maine is one of the most beautiful and pristine States in the Nation. It is also one of the most environmentally responsible States in the Nation. Maine has fewer emissions of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than all but a handful of states. Maine also has one of the lowest emissions of carbon dioxide nationwide.

Unfortunately, despite the collective environmental consciousness of both the citizens and industries of Maine, Maine still suffers from air pollution. Every lake, river, and stream in Maine is subject to a state mercury advisory that warns pregnant women and young children to limit consumption of fish caught in those waters. Even Acadia National Park, one of the most beautiful national parks in the Nation, experiences days in which visibility is obscured by smog.

Where does all this pollution come from? A large part of it comes from a relatively small number of mostly coal-fired power plants that use loopholes to escape the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of air pollution, mercury contamination, and greenhouse gas emissions in the nation. A single coal-fired power plant can emit more of the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain than all of the cars, factories, and businesses in Maine combined.

As the easternmost State in the Nation, Maine is downwind of almost all power plants in the United States. Many of the pollutants emitted by these power plants--mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon dioxide--end up in or over Maine. Airborne mercury falls into our lakes and

streams, contaminating freshwater fish and threatening our people's health. Carbon dioxide is causing climate change that threatens to alter Maine's delicate ecological balance. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides come to Maine in the form of acid rain and smog that damage the health of our people and the health of our environment.

A single power plant can emit nearly a ton of mercury in a single year. That's equivalent to incinerating over 1 million mercury thermometers and is enough to contaminate millions of acres of freshwater lakes. In contrast, Maine has zero power plant emissions of mercury. This bill would reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 90 percent by 2009.

I am pleased that there has been so much recognition recently of the problems that so many States are facing on clean air. President Bush has proposed a ``Clear Skies'' initiative that will reduce emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. Last year, Senators Carper, Chafee, Breaux, and Baucus also introduced legislation that would reduce these pollutants, as well as carbon dioxide.

There are important differences between these proposals. The Jeffords/Collins bill does more to reduce smog, acid rain, mercury pollution, and global warming than any other bill. Our bill provides more public health and environmental benefits than any other serious proposal, and it provides the benefits sooner. However, any step which reduces air pollution is a step in the right direction. Our parks and our people have waited far too long for clean air.

I think virtually everyone agrees that we need to reduce power plant pollution. I look forward to working with the Administration and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide cleaner air.

Mr. President, today, I rise to offer to the Senate some good news for our mailers and, indeed, anyone who uses the United States Postal Service. The USPS, which has been losing significant amounts of money in recent years despite repeated increases in postage rates, has determined that its finances are in better order than previously thought. If Congress acts expeditiously on legislation that I am introducing today along with my colleague, Senator Carper, the Postal Service will avoid an imminent rate hike.

In recent years, the United States Postal Service has been raising postal rates at a rapid pace. When the USPS last raised rates in 2002, it was the third such rate increase during an 18-month period. Such steep, irregular rate increases make it very difficult for businesses to plan for their postal costs. This is a particular problem for

catalog companies and magazine publishers, which set their prices in advance based on assumptions about postal rates. Mailing costs for some smaller catalog businesses, I am told, now can exceed production costs.

In so many ways, postage rate increases have a significant economic impact. As rates increase, so do the costs Americans bear to send letters, mail packages, and pay their bills. Rate increases also raise the cost of goods, which, of course, reflect not only the cost to ship but also the cost to advertise by mail.

But rate increases reflect the price of maintaining an ever-expanding postal network and the infrastructure to sustain it. Each year, the Postal Service adds 1.7 million new addresses. This equates to 4,800 new letter carriers making deliveries to over 513 million new delivery stops each year, all while maintaining one of the lowest first-class letter rates in the world.

In addition to providing a critical service to individual postal patrons, the Postal Service is a powerful economic engine. The USPS is the eleventh largest enterprise in the Nation with $66 billion in annual revenue, more than Microsoft, McDonald's and Coca Cola combined. While the Postal Service itself employs more than 700,000 career employees, it is also the linchpin of a $900 billion mailing industry that employs nine million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing and paper production.

That is why the deteriorating state of the United States Postal Service's finances has been a source of great concern to many of us. After several years of large losses, the USPS has been slowly approaching its statutory borrowing limit of $15 billion.

A few months ago, however, the Office of Personnel Management discovered that the USPS will dramatically over-fund its contributions to the Civil Service Retirement Fund unless the law is changed. After having based the Postal Service's annual contributions on the assumption that it had an actuarial deficit of $32 billion, OPM discovered instead that the USPS's CSRS deficit was actually only $5 billion. The difference is primarily due to higher than expected yields on pension investments by the Department of the Treasury. If the USPS continues to fund the CSRS at its current pace, it will over-fund its CSRS liability by $78 billion.

If Congress approves the changes to the payment schedule as my bill provides, the Postal Service's CSRS retirement expense would be reduced by $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2003 and another $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2004. The USPS would be able to reduce its debt by more than $3 billion in fiscal year 2003, and anticipated rate increases would be delayed until at least 2006, ushering in an era of stable and predictable postal rates.

My initial response upon hearing this good news was one of pleasant surprise but mixed, I admit, with a healthy dose of skepticism. As the old saying goes, ``if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'' However, the Office of Management and Budget, as well as the U.S. Treasury Department, have confirmed OPM's analysis. Further, having spoken with experts outside the government as well, I have become satisfied that this situation represents a rare exception to the rule.

That is why Senator Carper and I today introduce the Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Act of 2003. Our bill will correct the statutory funding mechanism for the Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS. This legislation is necessary to prevent the overpayment of retirement contributions by the U.S. Postal Service. Most important, this bill directs OPM to determine a new amortization schedule that will pay off the Postal Service's existing unfunded CSRS liability of $5 billion.

In addition, the legislation requires that the savings resulting from this Act be used to reduce the postal debt in a manner that the Secretary of Treasury shall specify. It also expresses the sense of Congress that the Postal Service should use these savings to fulfill its commitment to hold postal rates unchanged until at least 2006, to begin to pay a portion of their massive unfunded health care liabilities, and that the savings not be used to pay bonuses to Postal Service executives.

The USPS needs other changes as well, something acknowledged by everyone inside and outside the Postal Service. I was pleased that President Bush appointed a Commission on the U.S. Postal Service that is modeled along the principles outlined in legislation I introduced last year. I am hopeful that when the Commission reports this summer, it will provide us with a blueprint to ensure that our postal system is ready to serve twenty-first century America as ably as it has served us in the past. I look forward to receiving the Commission's report and any recommendations for legislation it may include.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.