Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak on S.J. Res. 40, the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. Let me begin my remarks by plainly stating my position on the issues raised by this amendment.

First, it is my strong personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Second, principles of federalism dictate that the right and the responsibility to define marriage belong to the States. Third, the proper role of the Federal Government is to ensure that each State can exercise that right and responsibility by preventing, as the Defense of Marriage Act does, one State from imposing its view on others.

The amendment under consideration would potentially affect two types of relationships that are fundamental to our society. The first is the union between a man and a woman. The second is the compact between the States and the Federal Government. In our zeal to protect the former, we must not do unnecessary violence to the latter, as it is the bedrock of our country's unique and highly successful Federal system.

We also must not overreact to the decision of a single court in a single State by rushing to amend the Constitution and stripping away from our states a power they have exercised, wisely for the most part, for more than 200 years. Let us remember that no State legislature has sanctioned same-sex marriage. Nor has there been a popular referendum to that effect in any State. Indeed, this amendment is a response to a single court decision--and a 4-3 decision at that. If just one judge on the Massachusetts court had a different view of this issue, we would not be contemplating the dramatic action of amending the Constitution.

Put differently, where is the evidence that we cannot trust the States in this area? More than 40 States have enacted laws or Constitutional amendments that expressly limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman. Maine law explicitly states that ``[p]ersons of the same sex may not contract marriage,'' and further provides that Maine will not recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions that would violate the legal requirements in Maine. Thus, even if lawfully performed in another State, a same-sex marriage will not be valid in Maine.

In short, I respect the right of the people of Maine and the citizens of other States to define marriage within their boundaries. Were I a member of the Maine legislature, I would vote in favor of a law limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman.

This does not mean that Congress can play no role in this area. To the contrary, Congress has two very important roles. The first is to protect the right of each State to define marriage within its own borders, and the second is to define marriage for Federal purposes.

To its credit, Congress did both of these when it enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in 1996. Signed into law by President Clinton, DOMA enjoyed broad, bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress, passing by a margin of 85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House. The statute grants individual states autonomy in deciding how to recognize marriages and other unions within their borders, and ensures that no State can compel another to recognize marriages of same-sex couples. Of equal importance, DOMA defines marriage for Federal purposes as ``the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.'' I strongly endorse both of the principles codified by DOMA, and should legislation come before the Senate reaffirming DOMA, I would vote without reservation to support it.

Even though DOMA has not been successfully challenged during the 8 years since its enactment, many supporters of the Federal marriage amendment point to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lawrence v. Texas as presaging DOMA's ultimate demise on Constitutional grounds. They argue that DOMA's vulnerability necessitates approving the amendment under consideration.

I reject that argument for two reasons. First, the conclusion that DOMA is inevitably destined to die a Constitutional death is inconsistent with language in the Lawrence decision. In striking down a Texas statute criminalizing certain private sexual acts between consenting adult homosexuals, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy was careful to note that the case before the Court:

. . . does not involve whether the government must give

formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual

persons seek to enter.

In her concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor was even more explicit when she observed that the invalidation of the Texas statute:

. . . does not mean that other laws distinguishing between

heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail. . .

.Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations--the

asserted state interest in this case--other reasons exist to

promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral

disapproval of an excluded group.

These statements persuade me that the Supreme Court is, in fact, unlikely to strike down DOMA.

Second, even if DOMA is eventually invalidated, the answer is not to abandon our principles of federalism but rather to enshrine them in the Constitution. Thus, if we ultimately have to address this matter as a Constitutional issue, and we should do so only as a last resort, it should not be to strip the States of the right to define marriage but rather to expressly validate a role they have been playing for more than 2 centuries.

Let me end where I began. This amendment is not just about relationships between men and women but also about the relationship between the States and the Federal Government. I would not let a one- vote majority opinion of a single state court lead us to ascribe to Washington a power that rightfully belongs to the states. To the contrary, our role should be to safeguard the ability of each State to exercise that power within its own borders.

Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Akaka, that would give Federal employees, retirees, and their families greater access to comprehensive dental and vision insurance coverage. The Federal Employee Dental and Vision Benefits Enhancement Act of 2004 would establish a voluntary program under which Federal employees and annuitants may purchase dental and vision coverage. The legislation grants the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the authority to select the appropriate combination of nationwide and regional companies and a variety of benefit packages to meet the diverse needs of our Federal employee and annuitant population.

The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research estimates that for every dollar spent on dental disease prevention, $4 is saved in subsequent treatment costs. Improved access to dental and vision care is an essential component of any comprehensive health care strategy. Federal employees need and deserve increased access to dental and vision benefits.

Today, the Federal community has access to excellent medical coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). Unfortunately, the program provides reimbursement for only a small fraction of dental care. Customer surveys indicate that FEHB enrollees want more comprehensive dental and vision benefits than those that are currently being provided in the FEHB program. The increasing demand for dental and vision benefits has prompted Senator Akaka and me to pursue legislation that would offer separate and improved coverage for Federal employees, retirees, and their families.

The stand-alone model contained in my legislation preserves the integrity of the FEHB while encouraging the purchase of additional dental and vision coverage. It is important to note that nothing in my legislation prevents the existing medical carriers from continuing to offer dental and vision coverage under the FEHBP. Further, nothing in the legislation precludes current FEHBP carriers from participating in the competitive process to offer benefits under the new voluntary dental and vision programs. The legislation simply provides a mechanism for dental and vision companies to participate in the Federal employee benefits arena.

In recognition of the enormous fiscal pressures faced by the Federal Government, the legislation is designed to provide an employee-paid dental and vision benefit, patterned after the Federal Employees Long- Term Care Insurance Program. By leveraging the purchasing power of the Federal Government, combined with market-driven competition, OPM would have the ability to provide access to more comprehensive dental and vision coverage to employees and retirees at no cost to the Federal Government. Federal employees would have the confidence that OPM has given its seal of approval to the benefit packages provided under the voluntary programs.

The legislation recognizes the geographic dispersion of the Federal workforce and the need for greater access to care through local dental and eye health professionals by requiring companies to provide coverage in under-served areas. For example, companies selected to provide coverage to a particular region would be required to develop and maintain provider networks in all States, including States where access to care may be less available.

While the legislation lists general categories of benefits that may be offered under the new programs, the statutory model is flexible to ensure that the benefit packages can be modified over time to incorporate future advances in dental and vision products, therapies, and technologies.

Employees look to their employer to provide education about their benefits. For this reason, the legislation requires OPM to make available the educational tools necessary so that Federal employees have a clear understanding of the choices available to them. Employees will have access to information on how the voluntary plans can supplement the existing, though limited, coverage offered by their medical plan under the FEHBP, to meet their individual needs for care. OPM would also educate employees about the value of their existing Flexible Spending Accounts to help cover out-of-pocket dental and vision expenses. These options can help Federal employees and annuitants get the best value for their premium dollar.

Administration by OPM would ensure that each contract is awarded on the basis of quality and price, and that the companies understand and adapt to the needs of Federal employees, retirees, and their families. Additionally, OPM would provide participants access to a process to appeal adverse benefit determinations. Premiums can be made through payroll or annuity deductions, direct payments to the participating companies, or both. The plans would be open to all Federal civilian employees and annuitants, regardless of whether they currently participate in the FEHBP.

As with the Long-Term Care Insurance Program, our measure for the success of the dental and vision programs would be the extent to which Federal employees purchase these benefits.

My colleagues and I have recognized, through our support of legislation to assist the Federal Government with its recruitment and retention efforts, that the Federal Government's most important asset is its human capital. Employees of 48 State governments offer or provide access to dental benefit plans to employees. Surveys indicate that 95 percent of employers with 500 or more employees provide dental insurance. The opportunity to purchase enhanced dental and vision coverage will help the government with its ongoing efforts to recruit and retain a highly qualified workforce.

The legislation is supported by the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Association of Dental Plans, and the American Optometric Association. I hope my colleagues will join me in providing our

Federal employee community with greater access to dental and vision coverage.

Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce legislation with my friend and colleague, Senator Akaka, that would give Federal employees, retirees, and their families greater access to comprehensive dental and vision insurance coverage. The Federal Employee Dental and Vision Benefits Enhancement Act of 2004 would establish a voluntary program under which Federal employees and annuitants may purchase dental and vision coverage. The legislation grants the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the authority to select the appropriate combination of nationwide and regional companies and a variety of benefit packages to meet the diverse needs of our Federal employee and annuitant population.

The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research estimates that for every dollar spent on dental disease prevention, $4 is saved in subsequent treatment costs. Improved access to dental and vision care is an essential component of any comprehensive health care strategy. Federal employees need and deserve increased access to dental and vision benefits.

Today, the Federal community has access to excellent medical coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). Unfortunately, the program provides reimbursement for only a small fraction of dental care. Customer surveys indicate that FEHB enrollees want more comprehensive dental and vision benefits than those that are currently being provided in the FEHB program. The increasing demand for dental and vision benefits has prompted Senator Akaka and me to pursue legislation that would offer separate and improved coverage for Federal employees, retirees, and their families.

The stand-alone model contained in my legislation preserves the integrity of the FEHB while encouraging the purchase of additional dental and vision coverage. It is important to note that nothing in my legislation prevents the existing medical carriers from continuing to offer dental and vision coverage under the FEHBP. Further, nothing in the legislation precludes current FEHBP carriers from participating in the competitive process to offer benefits under the new voluntary dental and vision programs. The legislation simply provides a mechanism for dental and vision companies to participate in the Federal employee benefits arena.

In recognition of the enormous fiscal pressures faced by the Federal Government, the legislation is designed to provide an employee-paid dental and vision benefit, patterned after the Federal Employees Long- Term Care Insurance Program. By leveraging the purchasing power of the Federal Government, combined with market-driven competition, OPM would have the ability to provide access to more comprehensive dental and vision coverage to employees and retirees at no cost to the Federal Government. Federal employees would have the confidence that OPM has given its seal of approval to the benefit packages provided under the voluntary programs.

The legislation recognizes the geographic dispersion of the Federal workforce and the need for greater access to care through local dental and eye health professionals by requiring companies to provide coverage in under-served areas. For example, companies selected to provide coverage to a particular region would be required to develop and maintain provider networks in all States, including States where access to care may be less available.

While the legislation lists general categories of benefits that may be offered under the new programs, the statutory model is flexible to ensure that the benefit packages can be modified over time to incorporate future advances in dental and vision products, therapies, and technologies.

Employees look to their employer to provide education about their benefits. For this reason, the legislation requires OPM to make available the educational tools necessary so that Federal employees have a clear understanding of the choices available to them. Employees will have access to information on how the voluntary plans can supplement the existing, though limited, coverage offered by their medical plan under the FEHBP, to meet their individual needs for care. OPM would also educate employees about the value of their existing Flexible Spending Accounts to help cover out-of-pocket dental and vision expenses. These options can help Federal employees and annuitants get the best value for their premium dollar.

Administration by OPM would ensure that each contract is awarded on the basis of quality and price, and that the companies understand and adapt to the needs of Federal employees, retirees, and their families. Additionally, OPM would provide participants access to a process to appeal adverse benefit determinations. Premiums can be made through payroll or annuity deductions, direct payments to the participating companies, or both. The plans would be open to all Federal civilian employees and annuitants, regardless of whether they currently participate in the FEHBP.

As with the Long-Term Care Insurance Program, our measure for the success of the dental and vision programs would be the extent to which Federal employees purchase these benefits.

My colleagues and I have recognized, through our support of legislation to assist the Federal Government with its recruitment and retention efforts, that the Federal Government's most important asset is its human capital. Employees of 48 State governments offer or provide access to dental benefit plans to employees. Surveys indicate that 95 percent of employers with 500 or more employees provide dental insurance. The opportunity to purchase enhanced dental and vision coverage will help the government with its ongoing efforts to recruit and retain a highly qualified workforce.

The legislation is supported by the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Association of Dental Plans, and the American Optometric Association. I hope my colleagues will join me in providing our

Federal employee community with greater access to dental and vision coverage.

Mr. President, the United States and Israel share a strong and enduring friendship. We also share the threat of terrorist attacks against our citizens. Yet, while terrorism within our borders is relatively new to us, Israelis have confronted this danger for decades. Israel's long history of fighting terrorism has spurred Israeli businesses, researchers and academics to develop highly sophisticated homeland security technologies, particularly in the fields of border integrity, transportation security, and first responder equipment. As the United States pursues new approaches to protecting our Nation, it only makes sense to look to Israel's extensive expertise in this area.

This is why I am introducing legislation with Senator Lieberman to establish a program to provide funds to eligible joint ventures between American firms and businesses in countries such as Israel that are already highly focused on the homeland security issue and have demonstrated the capacity for fruitful cooperation with America in the area of counterterrorism.

This program will act as a revolving fund to develop new homeland security technologies. As these technologies are deployed and become profitable, the businesses that developed them will be required to repay the program for the amount of the funds. This requirement, which has worked for similar existing programs, will help sustain the availability of funds for future funds.

The program will be managed by the Department of Homeland Security. It will dedicate $25 million toward these joint ventures that develop, manufacture, sell, or otherwise provide products and services with applications related to homeland security.

This legislation will build upon a number of other highly successful public-private partnerships between businesses in the United States and those located in countries such as Israel. Since its founding in 1977, the Bi-National Industrial Research and Development Foundation (BIRD) has created numerous research and development partnerships between American and Israeli businesses. The BIRD Foundation has invested $180 million in 600 projects during the past 27 years. Similar partnerships also exist in the development of agricultural, defense, telecommunications, and other technologies. This record demonstrates the potential of a similar binational foundation in the area of homeland security.

As recent international events have demonstrated, the fight against terrorism knows no borders. This legislation will enable our Nation to deploy the highest quality and most innovative tools to improve our homeland security. I ask you to join me in supporting this effort to enhance our Nation's fight against terrorism.

Mr. President, the United States and Israel share a strong and enduring friendship. We also share the threat of terrorist attacks against our citizens. Yet, while terrorism within our borders is relatively new to us, Israelis have confronted this danger for decades. Israel's long history of fighting terrorism has spurred Israeli businesses, researchers and academics to develop highly sophisticated homeland security technologies, particularly in the fields of border integrity, transportation security, and first responder equipment. As the United States pursues new approaches to protecting our Nation, it only makes sense to look to Israel's extensive expertise in this area.

This is why I am introducing legislation with Senator Lieberman to establish a program to provide funds to eligible joint ventures between American firms and businesses in countries such as Israel that are already highly focused on the homeland security issue and have demonstrated the capacity for fruitful cooperation with America in the area of counterterrorism.

This program will act as a revolving fund to develop new homeland security technologies. As these technologies are deployed and become profitable, the businesses that developed them will be required to repay the program for the amount of the funds. This requirement, which has worked for similar existing programs, will help sustain the availability of funds for future funds.

The program will be managed by the Department of Homeland Security. It will dedicate $25 million toward these joint ventures that develop, manufacture, sell, or otherwise provide products and services with applications related to homeland security.

This legislation will build upon a number of other highly successful public-private partnerships between businesses in the United States and those located in countries such as Israel. Since its founding in 1977, the Bi-National Industrial Research and Development Foundation (BIRD) has created numerous research and development partnerships between American and Israeli businesses. The BIRD Foundation has invested $180 million in 600 projects during the past 27 years. Similar partnerships also exist in the development of agricultural, defense, telecommunications, and other technologies. This record demonstrates the potential of a similar binational foundation in the area of homeland security.

As recent international events have demonstrated, the fight against terrorism knows no borders. This legislation will enable our Nation to deploy the highest quality and most innovative tools to improve our homeland security. I ask you to join me in supporting this effort to enhance our Nation's fight against terrorism.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Leon Holmes to be a district court judge for the U.S. District Court of Arkansas.

The ``advice and consent'' role given to the Senate in the U.S. Constitution is one of the Senate's most solemn duties, and one to which I give the utmost care. Since Federal judges serve for lifetime terms, I carefully review every nominee to ensure that he or she is well-qualified and possesses the proper professional competence and integrity. Although, naturally, I apply no litmus test with respect to a nominee's personal beliefs, a commitment to following the law and applying it soundly is critical.

Perhaps the most important factor in evaluating a nominee is whether the person has the proper ``judicial temperament.'' There are two elements that must be considered when making this determination. The first involves what we would commonly understand the characteristics of good temperament to entail: would the nominee show courtesy and respect toward the practitioners and parties in his courtroom, while at the same time remaining confident and firm. From all I have heard about Mr. Holmes, he has a fine reputation for being both civil and professional, and I have no concerns about his nomination in this regard.

The second element of judicial temperament is more troubling in this case. It involves the deliberative mindset that is so valued in our jurists--the ability to separate emotion and personal views while applying the laws in a neutral and impartial manner. A judge must be able to transcend personal views in ruling on the matters before the court. It is for this reason that I am concerned about whether Mr. Holmes has the proper judicial temperament to receive a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.

After a careful review of the Judiciary Committee proceedings and Mr. Holmes' record, I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Holmes has not demonstrated the requisite ability to put aside his personal views and follow settled law. Over many years, Mr. Holmes has made a number of public statements, many in letters to the editor or in published articles, that raise serious questions about his ability to set aside his deeply held beliefs in order to impartially apply laws with which he disagrees. In fact, Mr. Holmes himself has characterized some of his previous comments as ``strident and harsh rhetoric.'' These statements were not made in the midst of casual conversation; they were largely written pieces that reflected the thoughts of Mr. Holmes on these matters.

In one extremely troubling instance, Mr. Holmes wrote that ``concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.'' This appalling statement was not a chance comment, instantly regretted. Rather, Mr. Holmes included this statement in a letter he submitted for publication in The Daily Dispatch. In addition to the insensitivity and inaccuracy demonstrated by this comment, I believe it demonstrates that Mr. Holmes lacks the measured approach that is critical for sound judicial decision-making and the ability to set aside his personal views to apply settled principles of law.

In an April 11, 2004 letter to Senator Lincoln, Mr. Holmes stated, ``I do not propose to defend that sentence, and I would not expect you or anyone else to do so.'' While in this same letter Mr. Holmes went on to apologize for this remark, he also acknowledged that his comment ``reflects an insensitivity for which there is no excuse.'' I agree with Mr. Holmes that there is no excuse for this statement, and his belated apology came only after he was nominated for the Federal bench.

Unfortunately, this type of comment is not an isolated one, but one in a series of unsettling statements Mr. Holmes has made in his writings over many years. For example, Mr. Holmes authored an article in 1997 in which he wrote that ``the wife is to subordinate herself to her husband,'' and ``the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man.'' In 1982, Mr. Holmes authored another letter for the Arkansas Gazette, entitled ``The Scary New Argument for Abortion,'' in which he compared certain arguments justifying abortion to arguments used to justify the actions of Nazi Regime. In 2001, he authored a comment for another publication in which he criticized both Roe and Casey as ``constitutionaliz[ing] the theory of moral relativism.''

Mr. President, let me be clear that I respect Mr. Holmes' personal views on abortion rights and am not opposing his nomination on those grounds. In fact, I have voted for many judicial nominees whose personal views were different from mine on the right to choose, among other issues. Nor do I believe that a nominee should be required to indicate how he would decide issues of substantive law that may arise in future cases. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Mr. Holmes

can put aside his personal views and follow settled law. Unfortunately, his strident statements about a woman's right to choose raise doubts about his commitment to following settled law, including Roe v. Wade.

I note that the Judiciary Committee reported Mr. Holmes' nomination ``without recommendation.'' It is extremely rare for a nominee to be passed from the Judiciary Committee in this manner. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, a district court nominee has never been reported out of Committee to the floor without recommendation. It is my belief that the Judiciary Committee's unusual action in this regard represents more than an historical quirk. In fact, it underscores the concerns about this nomination.

Because of the concerns raised by the many writings and comments of Mr. Holmes, of which I have cited only a few examples, I am unable to support his nomination. Our legal system depends on having judges who put an allegiance to following settled law above any personal beliefs. Mr. Holmes' history of inflammatory statements could cause the parties before him to question whether his strong personal beliefs would allow him to follow settled law and apply it in a fair and unbiased way. Mr. President, in light of these concerns, I will oppose this nomination.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from New York in introducing the Positive Aging Act, which will help to increase older Americans' access to quality mental health screening and treatment services in community-based care settings.

The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important for States, like Maine, that have a disproportionate number of elderly persons. Maine currently is our Nation's seventh ``oldest'' State. Moreover, our older population will continue to grow in the future and, by the year 2025, one in five Mainers will be over the age of 65.

One of the most daunting public health challenges facing our Nation today is how to increase access to quality mental health services for the more than 44 million Americans with severe, disabling mental disorders that can devastate their lives and the lives of the people around them.

What is often overlooked, however, is the prevalence of mental illness among our Nation's elderly. Studies have shown that more than one in five Americans aged 65 and older--including more than 32,000 Mainers--experience mental illness, and that as many as 80 percent of elderly persons in nursing homes suffer from some kind of mental impairment.

Particularly disturbing is that fact that the mental health needs of older Americans are often overlooked or not recognized because of the mistaken belief that they are a normal part of aging and therefore cannot be treated.

While older Americans experience the full range of mental disorders, the most prevalent mental illness afflicting older people is depression. Ironically, while recent advances have made depression an eminently treatable disorder, only a minority of elderly depressed persons are receiving adequate treatment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of depressed elderly don't seek help. Many simply accept their feelings of profound sadness and do not realize that they are clinically depressed.

Those who do seek help are often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, leading the National Institute of Mental Health to estimate that 60 percent of older Americans with depression are not receiving the mental health care that they need. Failure to treat this kind of disorder leads to poorer health outcomes for other medical conditions, higher rates of institutionalization, and increased health care costs.

Untreated depression can even lead to suicide. The sad fact is that Americans over 65 are more likely to commit suicide than any other age group. Among those over 85, the suicide rate is twice the national average. What is particularly disturbing about these statistics is that studies have shown that 40 percent of older people who commit suicide have had a visit with their primary care provider within one week of their death. Seventy percent of these elderly suicide victims had a primary care visit within 30 days of their death.

Fortunately, important research is being done that is helping to develop innovative approaches to improve the delivery of mental health care for older

adults by integrating it into primary care settings. This research demonstrates that older adults are more likely to receive appropriate mental health care if there is a mental health professional on the primary care team, rather than simply referring them to a mental health specialist outside the primary care setting. Multiple appointments with multiple providers in multiple settings simply don't work for older patients who must also cope with concurrent chronic illnesses, mobility problems, and limited transportation options. The research also shows that there is less stigma associated with psychiatric services when they are integrated into general medical care.

The Positive Aging Act builds upon this research and authorizes funding for a range of projects that integrate mental health screening and treatment services into community sites and primary health care settings, including community health centers, senior centers, and assisted living facilities. Moreover, the evidence-based services under this legislation will be provided by interdisciplinary teams of mental health professionals working in collaboration with other providers of health and social services.

Among other provisions, our legislation authorizes the creation of an Office of Older Adult Mental Health Services in the Administration on Aging to develop and implement initiatives to address the mental health needs of older adults. In addition, the Administration on Aging would be authorized to provide grants to States for the development and testing of model mental health delivery systems for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and the elderly. It would also be authorized to award demonstration grants to projects targeted to providing screening and mental health services for seniors residing in rural areas, as well as grants to encourage the collaboration between mental health and other health and social services providers in providing screening and treatment services.

The legislation also authorizes the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to award demonstration grants which would support the integration of evidence-based mental health services by geriatric mental health specialists into primary care settings and support the establishment of community-based mental health treatment outreach teams in settings where older adults reside or receive social services.

The Positive Aging Act will help to promote the mental health and well-being of our older citizens. It is an investment that will return tremendous dividends in terms of improved quality of life, better patient outcomes, and more efficient use of health care dollars. The legislation has been endorsed by the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the National Council on Aging, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from New York in introducing the Positive Aging Act, which will help to increase older Americans' access to quality mental health screening and treatment services in community-based care settings.

The legislation we are introducing today is particularly important for States, like Maine, that have a disproportionate number of elderly persons. Maine currently is our Nation's seventh ``oldest'' State. Moreover, our older population will continue to grow in the future and, by the year 2025, one in five Mainers will be over the age of 65.

One of the most daunting public health challenges facing our Nation today is how to increase access to quality mental health services for the more than 44 million Americans with severe, disabling mental disorders that can devastate their lives and the lives of the people around them.

What is often overlooked, however, is the prevalence of mental illness among our Nation's elderly. Studies have shown that more than one in five Americans aged 65 and older--including more than 32,000 Mainers--experience mental illness, and that as many as 80 percent of elderly persons in nursing homes suffer from some kind of mental impairment.

Particularly disturbing is that fact that the mental health needs of older Americans are often overlooked or not recognized because of the mistaken belief that they are a normal part of aging and therefore cannot be treated.

While older Americans experience the full range of mental disorders, the most prevalent mental illness afflicting older people is depression. Ironically, while recent advances have made depression an eminently treatable disorder, only a minority of elderly depressed persons are receiving adequate treatment. Unfortunately, the vast majority of depressed elderly don't seek help. Many simply accept their feelings of profound sadness and do not realize that they are clinically depressed.

Those who do seek help are often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, leading the National Institute of Mental Health to estimate that 60 percent of older Americans with depression are not receiving the mental health care that they need. Failure to treat this kind of disorder leads to poorer health outcomes for other medical conditions, higher rates of institutionalization, and increased health care costs.

Untreated depression can even lead to suicide. The sad fact is that Americans over 65 are more likely to commit suicide than any other age group. Among those over 85, the suicide rate is twice the national average. What is particularly disturbing about these statistics is that studies have shown that 40 percent of older people who commit suicide have had a visit with their primary care provider within one week of their death. Seventy percent of these elderly suicide victims had a primary care visit within 30 days of their death.

Fortunately, important research is being done that is helping to develop innovative approaches to improve the delivery of mental health care for older

adults by integrating it into primary care settings. This research demonstrates that older adults are more likely to receive appropriate mental health care if there is a mental health professional on the primary care team, rather than simply referring them to a mental health specialist outside the primary care setting. Multiple appointments with multiple providers in multiple settings simply don't work for older patients who must also cope with concurrent chronic illnesses, mobility problems, and limited transportation options. The research also shows that there is less stigma associated with psychiatric services when they are integrated into general medical care.

The Positive Aging Act builds upon this research and authorizes funding for a range of projects that integrate mental health screening and treatment services into community sites and primary health care settings, including community health centers, senior centers, and assisted living facilities. Moreover, the evidence-based services under this legislation will be provided by interdisciplinary teams of mental health professionals working in collaboration with other providers of health and social services.

Among other provisions, our legislation authorizes the creation of an Office of Older Adult Mental Health Services in the Administration on Aging to develop and implement initiatives to address the mental health needs of older adults. In addition, the Administration on Aging would be authorized to provide grants to States for the development and testing of model mental health delivery systems for the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness and the elderly. It would also be authorized to award demonstration grants to projects targeted to providing screening and mental health services for seniors residing in rural areas, as well as grants to encourage the collaboration between mental health and other health and social services providers in providing screening and treatment services.

The legislation also authorizes the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to award demonstration grants which would support the integration of evidence-based mental health services by geriatric mental health specialists into primary care settings and support the establishment of community-based mental health treatment outreach teams in settings where older adults reside or receive social services.

The Positive Aging Act will help to promote the mental health and well-being of our older citizens. It is an investment that will return tremendous dividends in terms of improved quality of life, better patient outcomes, and more efficient use of health care dollars. The legislation has been endorsed by the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the National Council on Aging, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers, and I urge all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, today Senator Wyden and I are introducing the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004. It has been a pleasure to work with my colleague from Oregon on this legislation to strengthen protections for civil rights and civil liberties. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, during his joint address to Congress, the President called on all Americans to ``uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here. We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.''

In response to the need to safeguard our homeland, Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that

created the Department of Homeland Security, the most significant government restructuring in more than 50 years. But in focusing our attention on protecting the homeland from future terrorist attacks, we also must ensure that we do not trample on the very values that the terrorists seek to destroy. In enacting the Homeland Security Act, Congress understood the importance of providing checks and balances to protect civil rights and civil liberties. To this end, Congress created within the Department three positions devoted wholly or in part to ensuring respect for civil liberties as the Department carries out its mandate to protect our homeland. These positions are the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Privacy Officer, and the Department's Inspector General. These three officials have crucial roles in assessing actions of the Department that may affect personal privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.

The nature of the mission of the Department of Homeland Security makes safeguards especially important. The Department is now our country's biggest law enforcement agency. It has more Federal officers with arrest and firearm authority than the Department of Justice. In addition, DHS law enforcement personnel have contact with thousands of people every day. In this post 9/11 world, DHS law enforcement personnel must be especially sensitive to maintaining civil liberties as they work to strengthen security and detect and deter terrorist attacks.

I am pleased that the leadership of the Department recognizes the fundamental importance of protecting the rights of all of us while fighting terrorism. Under the leadership of Secretary Ridge, the new Department of Homeland Security has won praise for its commitment to the protection of our freedoms. Secretary Ridge has provided the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Privacy Officer with the tools they need to be effective. These officials have functioned at the senior level, regularly providing advice to the Secretary and his deputies. The Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Privacy Officer and the Inspector General have met regularly with organizations concerned about civil liberties, privacy, human rights, and immigrant rights and have been responsive to their concerns.

It is time for Congress to build on the foundation Secretary Ridge has laid in protecting civil rights and civil liberties. I believe the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 does exactly that.

The bill would write into law the activities of the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. As enacted, the Homeland Security Act did not clearly define the duties of that position. Over the past year, however, a strong Officer, with the support of the Department's leadership, has charted an important course for his office. The Officer has worked closely with the senior leadership of the Department. He has assisted in the development of departmental policies to ensure that civil liberties are given due consideration. He has overseen compliance with constitutional and other requirements relating to the rights and liberties of individuals affected by the Department's programs. He has coordinated with the Privacy Officer to ensure that overlapping privacy and civil rights concerns are addressed in a comprehensive way. And he has investigated alleged abuses of civil rights and civil liberties.

None of these activities is expressly addressed in the statutory language creating the Department, and there is no assurance in the law that future Officers for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will work so energetically to carry out these vital duties. It is time for the law to catch up with practice, and the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act ensures that goal.

The bill also clarifies that the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties as well as the Privacy Officer should report directly to the Secretary, and requires coordination between those officers to ensure an integrated and comprehensive approach to the important issues they address.

The Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 strengthens the ability of the Department's Inspector General to safeguard civil rights and civil liberties by requiring the DHS Inspector General to designate a senior official to coordinate investigation of abuses, ensure public awareness of complaint procedures, and coordinate his or her work with the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. This position is similar to one Congress created in the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice.

Finally, the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 amends the mission statement of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that actions taken by the Department to protect the homeland do not diminish civil liberties and civil rights. This important revision places into the statutory language that the protection of civil rights and civil liberties is crucial in this time of heightened security.

The battle against terror will last for many years, perhaps decades. During that long struggle, we must continue to secure our nation against future attacks, but at the same time protect those American values that define our free society. The Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 will strengthen the protection of civil rights and civil liberties and will help to ensure that that protection will continue in the years to come.

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

Mr. President, today Senator Wyden and I are introducing the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004. It has been a pleasure to work with my colleague from Oregon on this legislation to strengthen protections for civil rights and civil liberties. In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, during his joint address to Congress, the President called on all Americans to ``uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here. We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.''

In response to the need to safeguard our homeland, Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that

created the Department of Homeland Security, the most significant government restructuring in more than 50 years. But in focusing our attention on protecting the homeland from future terrorist attacks, we also must ensure that we do not trample on the very values that the terrorists seek to destroy. In enacting the Homeland Security Act, Congress understood the importance of providing checks and balances to protect civil rights and civil liberties. To this end, Congress created within the Department three positions devoted wholly or in part to ensuring respect for civil liberties as the Department carries out its mandate to protect our homeland. These positions are the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Privacy Officer, and the Department's Inspector General. These three officials have crucial roles in assessing actions of the Department that may affect personal privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.

The nature of the mission of the Department of Homeland Security makes safeguards especially important. The Department is now our country's biggest law enforcement agency. It has more Federal officers with arrest and firearm authority than the Department of Justice. In addition, DHS law enforcement personnel have contact with thousands of people every day. In this post 9/11 world, DHS law enforcement personnel must be especially sensitive to maintaining civil liberties as they work to strengthen security and detect and deter terrorist attacks.

I am pleased that the leadership of the Department recognizes the fundamental importance of protecting the rights of all of us while fighting terrorism. Under the leadership of Secretary Ridge, the new Department of Homeland Security has won praise for its commitment to the protection of our freedoms. Secretary Ridge has provided the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Privacy Officer with the tools they need to be effective. These officials have functioned at the senior level, regularly providing advice to the Secretary and his deputies. The Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Privacy Officer and the Inspector General have met regularly with organizations concerned about civil liberties, privacy, human rights, and immigrant rights and have been responsive to their concerns.

It is time for Congress to build on the foundation Secretary Ridge has laid in protecting civil rights and civil liberties. I believe the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 does exactly that.

The bill would write into law the activities of the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. As enacted, the Homeland Security Act did not clearly define the duties of that position. Over the past year, however, a strong Officer, with the support of the Department's leadership, has charted an important course for his office. The Officer has worked closely with the senior leadership of the Department. He has assisted in the development of departmental policies to ensure that civil liberties are given due consideration. He has overseen compliance with constitutional and other requirements relating to the rights and liberties of individuals affected by the Department's programs. He has coordinated with the Privacy Officer to ensure that overlapping privacy and civil rights concerns are addressed in a comprehensive way. And he has investigated alleged abuses of civil rights and civil liberties.

None of these activities is expressly addressed in the statutory language creating the Department, and there is no assurance in the law that future Officers for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties will work so energetically to carry out these vital duties. It is time for the law to catch up with practice, and the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act ensures that goal.

The bill also clarifies that the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties as well as the Privacy Officer should report directly to the Secretary, and requires coordination between those officers to ensure an integrated and comprehensive approach to the important issues they address.

The Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 strengthens the ability of the Department's Inspector General to safeguard civil rights and civil liberties by requiring the DHS Inspector General to designate a senior official to coordinate investigation of abuses, ensure public awareness of complaint procedures, and coordinate his or her work with the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. This position is similar to one Congress created in the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice.

Finally, the Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 amends the mission statement of the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that actions taken by the Department to protect the homeland do not diminish civil liberties and civil rights. This important revision places into the statutory language that the protection of civil rights and civil liberties is crucial in this time of heightened security.

The battle against terror will last for many years, perhaps decades. During that long struggle, we must continue to secure our nation against future attacks, but at the same time protect those American values that define our free society. The Homeland Security Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protection Act of 2004 will strengthen the protection of civil rights and civil liberties and will help to ensure that that protection will continue in the years to come.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, over the past few days, more than 100,000 Americans have stood in line in California for 12 hours or even more to pay their respects to President Ronald Reagan. This great show of respect and affection will be repeated during the coming days in Washington.

This overwhelming outpouring cannot be explained by merely citing the traits for which he was so well-known--his likability, his wit and optimism, his courage when attacked by a would-be assassin's bullet or, at the end of his life, by a devastating disease, or even his skills as the Great Communicator. Americans are standing in line because of President Reagan's ideas and the principles and convictions that gave those ideas their power: The God-given right to freedom, responsibility for one's own actions, and charity toward others--the very ideas that are the foundation of this great Nation were the foundation of President Reagan's character.

President Reagan became President at a time when the world had begun to question the strength of that foundation. It was a time when freedom, balanced by personal responsibility and justified by charity, was in danger of becoming just one of the many ways in which human society could be organized. Rather than appease or accommodate communism, he confronted it and exposed its moral bankruptcy.

President Reagan emboldened freedom-loving people everywhere--those behind the Iron Curtain and those in danger of being enveloped by it-- and gave them faith and strength. He believed, as he said in his first inaugural address, that no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. He was right.

President Reagan became President at a time when America had begun to question its place in the world and the values upon which this great Nation was built. He opened the gate of the American spirit. He tore down the wall of doubt.

Ronald Reagan was a great communicator because he had something great to communicate. He was the right man for his time; and now he belongs to all time.

He will be missed, but President Reagan's ideas will always be part of the American experience.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Akaka, Fitzgerald, Lieberman, and Voinovich in introducing the Thrift Savings Plan Open Elections Act of 2004. This legislation would provide Federal employees with maximum flexibility to tailor their investment decisions by eliminating the current restrictions on when employee contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan can begin or be modified.

Since its inception in 1987, the Thrift Savings Plan has provided Federal employees with the opportunity to participate in a retirement savings plan similar to the 401(k) plans offered by many private companies. The open seasons were created to encourage Federal employees to contribute money toward their retirement. Open seasons were practical during the early years when the Thrift Savings Plan was just getting started and lacked the administrative capability to quickly enroll participants and to implement investment elections on a real- time basis. With the introduction of the automatic record-keeping system, however, the program has outgrown its existing framework.

Under current law, newly hired employees can sign up to contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan during an initial 60-day eligibility period. If an employee chooses not to make an election, he or she must wait until an open season to do so. Further, if an employee stops contributing to the Thrift Savings Plan outside of an open season, he or she must wait until the second open season after contributions stop before contributions can resume. These

restrictions can unfairly penalize employees and discourage their participation. But allowing employees to initiate, modify, or terminate contributions to the TSP in any period, provided the amount does not exceed existing limits for contributions, the legislation ensures that Federal employees' investment decisions will no longer be restricted by the open season requirement.

In testimony before the Congress, Andrew Saul, Chairman of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, stated that the Board supports the elimination of the open season requirement because it would expand participant access and simplify the administration of the Thrift Savings Plan. Jim Sauber, Chairman of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, testified in March 2004 that eliminating the TSP open season is perhaps the single best way to reach the 13 percent of employees in the Federal Employees Retirement System who still do not make contributions to the TSP.

In addition to the support by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board and the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, the legislation is supported by the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the Federal Managers Association, and the Senior Executives Association.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Akaka, Fitzgerald, Lieberman, and Voinovich in introducing the Thrift Savings Plan Open Elections Act of 2004. This legislation would provide Federal employees with maximum flexibility to tailor their investment decisions by eliminating the current restrictions on when employee contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan can begin or be modified.

Since its inception in 1987, the Thrift Savings Plan has provided Federal employees with the opportunity to participate in a retirement savings plan similar to the 401(k) plans offered by many private companies. The open seasons were created to encourage Federal employees to contribute money toward their retirement. Open seasons were practical during the early years when the Thrift Savings Plan was just getting started and lacked the administrative capability to quickly enroll participants and to implement investment elections on a real- time basis. With the introduction of the automatic record-keeping system, however, the program has outgrown its existing framework.

Under current law, newly hired employees can sign up to contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan during an initial 60-day eligibility period. If an employee chooses not to make an election, he or she must wait until an open season to do so. Further, if an employee stops contributing to the Thrift Savings Plan outside of an open season, he or she must wait until the second open season after contributions stop before contributions can resume. These

restrictions can unfairly penalize employees and discourage their participation. But allowing employees to initiate, modify, or terminate contributions to the TSP in any period, provided the amount does not exceed existing limits for contributions, the legislation ensures that Federal employees' investment decisions will no longer be restricted by the open season requirement.

In testimony before the Congress, Andrew Saul, Chairman of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, stated that the Board supports the elimination of the open season requirement because it would expand participant access and simplify the administration of the Thrift Savings Plan. Jim Sauber, Chairman of the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, testified in March 2004 that eliminating the TSP open season is perhaps the single best way to reach the 13 percent of employees in the Federal Employees Retirement System who still do not make contributions to the TSP.

In addition to the support by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board and the Employee Thrift Advisory Council, the legislation is supported by the American Federation of Government Employees, the National Treasury Employees Union, the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the Federal Managers Association, and the Senior Executives Association.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Carper, to introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2004, a bill designed to help the 225-year-old Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st Century. This legislation represents the culmination of a process that began in the summer of 2002 when I introduced a bill to establish a Presidential Commission charged with examining the problems the Postal Service faces, and developing specific recommendations and legislative proposals that Congress and the Postal Service could implement.

It has long been acknowledged that the financial and operational problems confronting the Postal Service are serious. At present, the Postal Service has more than $90 billion in unfunded liabilities and obligations, which include $6.5 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, nearly $7 billion for Workers' Compensation claims, $5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $45 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The General Accounting Office's Comptroller General, David Walker, has pointed to the urgent need for ``fundamental reforms to minimize the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout or dramatic postal rate increases.'' The Postal Service has been on GAO's ``High-Risk'' List since April of 2001. The Postal Service is at risk of a ``death spiral'' of decreasing volume and increasing rates that lead to further decreases in volume.

In December of 2003, President Bush announced the creation of a bipartisan commission charged with identifying the operational, structural, and financial challenges facing the U.S. Postal Service. The President charged this commission with examining all significant aspects of the Postal Service with the goal of recommending legislative and administrative reforms to ensure its long-term viability.

The President's Commission conducted seven public hearings across the country at which they heard from numerous witnesses. On July 31, 2003, the Commission released its final report, making 35 legislative and administrative recommendations for the reform of the Postal Service.

As I read through the Commission's report, I was struck by what I considered the Commission's wake up call to Congress: its statement that ``an incremental approach to Postal Service reform will yield too little, too late given the enterprise's bleak fiscal outlook, the depth of current debt and unfunded obligations, the downward trend in First- Class mail volumes and the limited potential of its legacy postal network that was built for a bygone era.'' That is a very strong statement, and one that challenged both the Postal Service and Congress to embrace far-reaching reforms.

To the relief of many, including myself, the Commission did not recommend privatization of the Postal Service. Instead, the Commission sought to find a way for the Postal Service to do, as Co-Chair Jim Johnson described to me, ``an overwhelmingly better job under the same general structure.''

The Postal Service plays a vital role in our economy. The Service itself employs more than 750,000 career employees. Less well known is the fact that it is also the linchpin of a $900-billion mailing industry that employs 9 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog production, paper manufacturing, and financial services. The health of the Postal Service is essential to the vitality of thousands of companies and the millions that they employ.

One of the greatest challenges for the Postal Service is the decrease in mail volume as business communications, bills and payments move more and more to the Internet. The Postal Service has experienced declining volumes of First-Class mail for the past four years. This is highly significant, given that First-Class mail accounts for 48 percent of total mail volume, and the revenue it generates pays for more than two- thirds of the Postal Service's institutional costs.

The Postal Service also faces the difficult task of trying to cut costs from its nationwide infrastructure and transportation network. These costs are difficult to cut. Even though volumes may be decreasing, carriers must still deliver six days a week to more than 139 million addresses.

As Chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I held a series of eight hearings, including a joint hearing with the House, during which we reviewed the recommendations of the President's Commission. The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today is the culmination of everything the Committee learned from dozens of witnesses over the past eight months.

First and foremost, the Collins-Carper bill preserves the basic features of universal service-affordable rates, frequent delivery, and convenient community access to retail postal services. As a Senator representing a large, rural State, I want to ensure that my constituents living in the northern woods, or on the islands, or in our many rural small towns have the same access to postal services as the people of our cities. If the Postal Service were no longer to provide universal service and deliver mail to every customer, the affordable communication link upon which many Americans rely would be jeopardized. Most commercial enterprises would find it uneconomical, if not impossible, to deliver mail and packages to rural Americans at rates charged by the Postal Service.

The Collins-Carper bill allows the Postal Service to maintain its current mail monopoly, and retain its sole access to customer mailboxes. It grants the Postal Service Board of Governors the authority to set rates for competitive products like Express Mail and Parcel Post, as long as these prices do not result in cross subsidy from market-dominant products. As a safeguard, our bill establishes a 30 day prior review period during which the proposed rate changes shall be reviewed by the Postal Regulatory Commission.

It replaces the current lengthy and litigious rate-setting process with a rate cap-based structure for market-dominant products such as First-Class Mail, periodicals and library mail. This would allow the Postal Service to react more quickly to changes in the mailing industry. The rate caps would be linked to an inflation indicator selected by the Postal Regulatory Commission. The goal would be to make rate increases more predictable and less frequent and to provide incentives for the Postal Service to operate efficiently. Price changes for market-dominant products would be subject to a 45-day prior review period by the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Our bill would introduce new safeguards against unfair competition by the Postal Service in competitive markets. Subsidization of competitive products by market-dominant products would be expressly forbidden, and an equitable allocation of institutional costs to competitive products would be required.

The President's Commission recommended that the regulator be granted the authority to make changes to the Postal Service's universal service obligation and monopoly. The vast majority of the postal community, however, shared my belief that these are important policy determinations that should be retained by Congress. The

Collins-Carper bill keeps those public policy decisions in congressional hands.

The existing Postal Rate Commission would be transformed into the Postal Regulatory Commission with greatly enhanced authority. Under current law, the Rate Commission has very narrow authority. We wanted to ensure that the Postal Service management has both greater latitude and stronger oversight. Among other things, the Postal Regulatory Commission will have the authority to regulate rates for non- competitive products and services; ensure financial transparency; establish limits on the accumulation of retained earnings by the Postal Service; obtain information from the Postal Service, if need be, through the use of new subpoena power; and review and act on complaints filed by those who believe the Postal Service has exceeded its authority. Members of the Postal Regulatory Board will be selected solely on the basis of their demonstrated experience and professional standing. Senate confirmation of all Board Members will be required.

The Governmental Affairs Committee dedicated two hearings to the examination of the Commission's workforce-related recommendations. The Postal Service is a highly labor intensive organization, using $3 out of every $4 to pay the wages and benefits of its employees. Their workforce is comprised of more than 700,000 dedicated letter carriers, clerks, mail handlers, postmasters, and others, who place great value on their right to collectively bargain. Our bill reaffirms that right. This bill only makes changes to the bargaining process that have been agreed to by both the Postal Service and the four major unions. We replace the rarely used fact-finding process with mediation, and shorten statutory deadlines for certain phases of the bargaining process.

Additionally, the Collins-Carper bill corrects what I believe to be an anomaly in the Federal workers' compensation law that results in high costs for the Postal Service. Under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), Federal employees with dependents are eligible for 75 percent of their take-home pay, tax free, plus cost of living allowances. In addition, there is no maximum dollar cap on FECA payments. As a result, employees often opt not to retire, staying on the more generous workers' compensation program permanently.

According to a March 2003 audit issued by the Postal Service's Office of Inspector General, the Postal Service's workers' compensation rolls include 81 cases that originated 40 to 50 years ago, with the oldest recipient being 102 years old. The IG's office found 778 cases that originated 30 to 40 years ago; and 1,189 cases that originated 20 to 29 years ago.

The Collins-Carper bill works to protect the financial resources of the Postal Service by converting workers' compensation benefits for total or partial disability to a retirement annuity when the affected employee reaches 65 years of age. This change would reflect the fact that disabled postal employees would likely retire at some point were they not receiving workers' compensation. I would like to note that the average postal employee retires far earlier than age 65, so this is still a generous program. It is important to point out that the Postal Service has reduced their workplace injury rate by twenty-eight percent over the past three years.

The Collins--Carper bill also puts into place a three-day waiting period before an employee is eligible to receive 45 days of continuation of pay. This is consistent with every state's workers' compensation program that requires a three- to seven-day waiting period before benefits are paid.

Our bill has reached an important compromise on the issue of workshare discounts. Some have raised concerns that the Postal Service has set rates so that mailers get a discount greater than the cost avoided by the Postal Service. While this may have occurred in a handful of instances, those mailers are still covering their attributable costs, as well as making a healthy contribution to overhead. The language in our bill sets a policy that the Postal Service shall not create new discounts greater than the cost avoided by the Postal Service. The only exception is in those cases where the Postal Regulatory Commission believes those rates are necessary.

The bill has also, for the first time, explicitly created the authority for the Postal Service to enter into negotiated service agreements with individual customers. This will allow the Postal Service to create agreements with customers to increase its revenue. I would point out that these agreements must cover all attributable costs, and will likely result in greater contribution to overhead. In addition, our bill requires that other similarly situated mailers will be able to enter into such agreements with the Postal Service.

Finally, our bill would repeal a provision of Public Law 108-18 which requires that money owed to the Postal Service due to an overpayment into the Civil Service Retirement System Fund be held in an escrow account. Repealing this provision would essentially ``free up'' $78 billion over a period of 60 years. These savings would be used to not only pay off debt to the U.S. Treasury and to fund health care liabilities, but to mitigate rate increases as well. In fact, failure to release these escrow funds would mean, for mailers, a double-digit rate increase in 2006--an expense most American businesses and many consumers are ill-equipped to afford.

The bill would also return to the Department of Treasury the responsibility for funding CSRS pension benefits relating to the military service of postal retirees. No other agency is required to make this payment. Ratepayers should not be held responsible for this $27 billion obligation.

The Postal Service has reached a critical juncture. If we are to save and strengthen this vital service upon which so many Americans rely for communication and their livelihoods, the time to act is now.

Our bill has the strong endorsements of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, and the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service--which represents thousands of the major mailers, employee groups, small businesses, and other users of the mail. I am also very pleased to add Senators Ted Stevens, George Voinovich and John Sununu as originated cosponsors of this bill.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Senate, and House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Tom Davis, who just last week passed a postal reform bill out of his committee by a vote of 40-0.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, along with a letter sent to me from David Walker, Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office, addressing the need for comprehensive postal reform.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague, Senator Carper, to introduce the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2004, a bill designed to help the 225-year-old Postal Service meet the challenges of the 21st Century. This legislation represents the culmination of a process that began in the summer of 2002 when I introduced a bill to establish a Presidential Commission charged with examining the problems the Postal Service faces, and developing specific recommendations and legislative proposals that Congress and the Postal Service could implement.

It has long been acknowledged that the financial and operational problems confronting the Postal Service are serious. At present, the Postal Service has more than $90 billion in unfunded liabilities and obligations, which include $6.5 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury, nearly $7 billion for Workers' Compensation claims, $5 billion for retirement costs, and as much as $45 billion to cover retiree health care costs. The General Accounting Office's Comptroller General, David Walker, has pointed to the urgent need for ``fundamental reforms to minimize the risk of a significant taxpayer bailout or dramatic postal rate increases.'' The Postal Service has been on GAO's ``High-Risk'' List since April of 2001. The Postal Service is at risk of a ``death spiral'' of decreasing volume and increasing rates that lead to further decreases in volume.

In December of 2003, President Bush announced the creation of a bipartisan commission charged with identifying the operational, structural, and financial challenges facing the U.S. Postal Service. The President charged this commission with examining all significant aspects of the Postal Service with the goal of recommending legislative and administrative reforms to ensure its long-term viability.

The President's Commission conducted seven public hearings across the country at which they heard from numerous witnesses. On July 31, 2003, the Commission released its final report, making 35 legislative and administrative recommendations for the reform of the Postal Service.

As I read through the Commission's report, I was struck by what I considered the Commission's wake up call to Congress: its statement that ``an incremental approach to Postal Service reform will yield too little, too late given the enterprise's bleak fiscal outlook, the depth of current debt and unfunded obligations, the downward trend in First- Class mail volumes and the limited potential of its legacy postal network that was built for a bygone era.'' That is a very strong statement, and one that challenged both the Postal Service and Congress to embrace far-reaching reforms.

To the relief of many, including myself, the Commission did not recommend privatization of the Postal Service. Instead, the Commission sought to find a way for the Postal Service to do, as Co-Chair Jim Johnson described to me, ``an overwhelmingly better job under the same general structure.''

The Postal Service plays a vital role in our economy. The Service itself employs more than 750,000 career employees. Less well known is the fact that it is also the linchpin of a $900-billion mailing industry that employs 9 million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, printing, catalog production, paper manufacturing, and financial services. The health of the Postal Service is essential to the vitality of thousands of companies and the millions that they employ.

One of the greatest challenges for the Postal Service is the decrease in mail volume as business communications, bills and payments move more and more to the Internet. The Postal Service has experienced declining volumes of First-Class mail for the past four years. This is highly significant, given that First-Class mail accounts for 48 percent of total mail volume, and the revenue it generates pays for more than two- thirds of the Postal Service's institutional costs.

The Postal Service also faces the difficult task of trying to cut costs from its nationwide infrastructure and transportation network. These costs are difficult to cut. Even though volumes may be decreasing, carriers must still deliver six days a week to more than 139 million addresses.

As Chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, I held a series of eight hearings, including a joint hearing with the House, during which we reviewed the recommendations of the President's Commission. The bill Senator Carper and I introduce today is the culmination of everything the Committee learned from dozens of witnesses over the past eight months.

First and foremost, the Collins-Carper bill preserves the basic features of universal service-affordable rates, frequent delivery, and convenient community access to retail postal services. As a Senator representing a large, rural State, I want to ensure that my constituents living in the northern woods, or on the islands, or in our many rural small towns have the same access to postal services as the people of our cities. If the Postal Service were no longer to provide universal service and deliver mail to every customer, the affordable communication link upon which many Americans rely would be jeopardized. Most commercial enterprises would find it uneconomical, if not impossible, to deliver mail and packages to rural Americans at rates charged by the Postal Service.

The Collins-Carper bill allows the Postal Service to maintain its current mail monopoly, and retain its sole access to customer mailboxes. It grants the Postal Service Board of Governors the authority to set rates for competitive products like Express Mail and Parcel Post, as long as these prices do not result in cross subsidy from market-dominant products. As a safeguard, our bill establishes a 30 day prior review period during which the proposed rate changes shall be reviewed by the Postal Regulatory Commission.

It replaces the current lengthy and litigious rate-setting process with a rate cap-based structure for market-dominant products such as First-Class Mail, periodicals and library mail. This would allow the Postal Service to react more quickly to changes in the mailing industry. The rate caps would be linked to an inflation indicator selected by the Postal Regulatory Commission. The goal would be to make rate increases more predictable and less frequent and to provide incentives for the Postal Service to operate efficiently. Price changes for market-dominant products would be subject to a 45-day prior review period by the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Our bill would introduce new safeguards against unfair competition by the Postal Service in competitive markets. Subsidization of competitive products by market-dominant products would be expressly forbidden, and an equitable allocation of institutional costs to competitive products would be required.

The President's Commission recommended that the regulator be granted the authority to make changes to the Postal Service's universal service obligation and monopoly. The vast majority of the postal community, however, shared my belief that these are important policy determinations that should be retained by Congress. The

Collins-Carper bill keeps those public policy decisions in congressional hands.

The existing Postal Rate Commission would be transformed into the Postal Regulatory Commission with greatly enhanced authority. Under current law, the Rate Commission has very narrow authority. We wanted to ensure that the Postal Service management has both greater latitude and stronger oversight. Among other things, the Postal Regulatory Commission will have the authority to regulate rates for non- competitive products and services; ensure financial transparency; establish limits on the accumulation of retained earnings by the Postal Service; obtain information from the Postal Service, if need be, through the use of new subpoena power; and review and act on complaints filed by those who believe the Postal Service has exceeded its authority. Members of the Postal Regulatory Board will be selected solely on the basis of their demonstrated experience and professional standing. Senate confirmation of all Board Members will be required.

The Governmental Affairs Committee dedicated two hearings to the examination of the Commission's workforce-related recommendations. The Postal Service is a highly labor intensive organization, using $3 out of every $4 to pay the wages and benefits of its employees. Their workforce is comprised of more than 700,000 dedicated letter carriers, clerks, mail handlers, postmasters, and others, who place great value on their right to collectively bargain. Our bill reaffirms that right. This bill only makes changes to the bargaining process that have been agreed to by both the Postal Service and the four major unions. We replace the rarely used fact-finding process with mediation, and shorten statutory deadlines for certain phases of the bargaining process.

Additionally, the Collins-Carper bill corrects what I believe to be an anomaly in the Federal workers' compensation law that results in high costs for the Postal Service. Under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA), Federal employees with dependents are eligible for 75 percent of their take-home pay, tax free, plus cost of living allowances. In addition, there is no maximum dollar cap on FECA payments. As a result, employees often opt not to retire, staying on the more generous workers' compensation program permanently.

According to a March 2003 audit issued by the Postal Service's Office of Inspector General, the Postal Service's workers' compensation rolls include 81 cases that originated 40 to 50 years ago, with the oldest recipient being 102 years old. The IG's office found 778 cases that originated 30 to 40 years ago; and 1,189 cases that originated 20 to 29 years ago.

The Collins-Carper bill works to protect the financial resources of the Postal Service by converting workers' compensation benefits for total or partial disability to a retirement annuity when the affected employee reaches 65 years of age. This change would reflect the fact that disabled postal employees would likely retire at some point were they not receiving workers' compensation. I would like to note that the average postal employee retires far earlier than age 65, so this is still a generous program. It is important to point out that the Postal Service has reduced their workplace injury rate by twenty-eight percent over the past three years.

The Collins--Carper bill also puts into place a three-day waiting period before an employee is eligible to receive 45 days of continuation of pay. This is consistent with every state's workers' compensation program that requires a three- to seven-day waiting period before benefits are paid.

Our bill has reached an important compromise on the issue of workshare discounts. Some have raised concerns that the Postal Service has set rates so that mailers get a discount greater than the cost avoided by the Postal Service. While this may have occurred in a handful of instances, those mailers are still covering their attributable costs, as well as making a healthy contribution to overhead. The language in our bill sets a policy that the Postal Service shall not create new discounts greater than the cost avoided by the Postal Service. The only exception is in those cases where the Postal Regulatory Commission believes those rates are necessary.

The bill has also, for the first time, explicitly created the authority for the Postal Service to enter into negotiated service agreements with individual customers. This will allow the Postal Service to create agreements with customers to increase its revenue. I would point out that these agreements must cover all attributable costs, and will likely result in greater contribution to overhead. In addition, our bill requires that other similarly situated mailers will be able to enter into such agreements with the Postal Service.

Finally, our bill would repeal a provision of Public Law 108-18 which requires that money owed to the Postal Service due to an overpayment into the Civil Service Retirement System Fund be held in an escrow account. Repealing this provision would essentially ``free up'' $78 billion over a period of 60 years. These savings would be used to not only pay off debt to the U.S. Treasury and to fund health care liabilities, but to mitigate rate increases as well. In fact, failure to release these escrow funds would mean, for mailers, a double-digit rate increase in 2006--an expense most American businesses and many consumers are ill-equipped to afford.

The bill would also return to the Department of Treasury the responsibility for funding CSRS pension benefits relating to the military service of postal retirees. No other agency is required to make this payment. Ratepayers should not be held responsible for this $27 billion obligation.

The Postal Service has reached a critical juncture. If we are to save and strengthen this vital service upon which so many Americans rely for communication and their livelihoods, the time to act is now.

Our bill has the strong endorsements of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, and the Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service--which represents thousands of the major mailers, employee groups, small businesses, and other users of the mail. I am also very pleased to add Senators Ted Stevens, George Voinovich and John Sununu as originated cosponsors of this bill.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the Senate, and House Government Reform and Oversight Committee Chairman Tom Davis, who just last week passed a postal reform bill out of his committee by a vote of 40-0.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record, along with a letter sent to me from David Walker, Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office, addressing the need for comprehensive postal reform.