A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 5-year extension of the credit for electricity produced from wind.

Madam President, I rise to speak about the subject of taxation from a little different perspective, a legislative proposal which, if adopted, would add very considerably to productivity in America, and that is a proposal for a flat tax. In the fall of 1994, Richard Armey of the House of Representatives introduced a flat tax. I studied it, then in the spring of 1995, I introduced a flat tax for the Senate. That was the first one introduced. I have introduced it in successive years.

I usually pick April 15, because April 15 is tax filing day. But this year we are going to be in recess for the spring break. I had thought today would be the last day we would be in session. That is open to debate at this point. I just came from a conference of the Appropriations Committee, and there are a great many unresolved issues. I posed the question to my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee: What time do we vote on Sunday?

Some of my colleagues may be listening on C-SPAN2, and that will give them a jolt: What time do we vote on Sunday? Or we might not vote as early as Sunday. We might pick a time on Monday.

I got the attention of the clerks, too, by talking about something important: When are we going to finish the business of the Senate? The distinguished Parliamentarian is nodding his head in chagrin as to what is happening here.

Some suggestions have been floated around the Appropriations Committee of a way to solve this impasse between the House and the Senate on appropriations, the impasse between the House and the Senate on the budget, and that is a constitutional amendment for a unicameral legislature. That would be a shocker. For anybody watching C-SPAN2, that means one chamber. Then the question would come up: Which chamber will it be?

Nobody is going to go to a unicameral legislature, and I do not know when we are going to conclude the business of the Senate. I may be offering this flat tax legislation on the wrong day. Perhaps I ought to wait, because we may still be here on April 15, which would be next Tuesday.

In all seriousness, we have the most extraordinarily complex system for filing taxes ever devised. In the midst of an overwhelming bureaucracy and a regulatory system in Washington, DC, nothing compares to the Federal tax code.

The Federal tax code has grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 6.9 million words and 17,000 pages at the present time. A study showed that more than 13 hours are consumed by the average American--rather, more than 13 hours are consumed on average--there is no such thing as an average American--on average by taxpayers in filling out the principal Form 1040. And if one goes to the various schedules, it can be another 5\1/2\ hours or 7\1/2\ hours.

I just finished filling out my tax return, and it is inordinately complicated. It is insufficient to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand the Federal tax code, and then the State taxes, and then city taxes, the wage tax, the property tax, and the real estate tax. It is a nightmare.

It is possible to change all of that by going to a flat tax, and then the tax return would be on a postcard. The wonders of television. People can see the postcard. It will take about 15 minutes to fill out a postcard, which would identify the individual, specify the total compensation, specify the allowance, the number of dependents, and in the course of 15 minutes it would be finished.

This tax would be calculated on a flat rate of 20 percent. It would be very beneficial to people at all levels of the income strata except for those who engage in tax shelters. The average American today, or in the middle income, a family of four, which does not itemize deductions, pays taxes on all income over $19,850. Under this flat tax, there would be a personal exemption of $27,500 for a family of four, and taxes would be paid only over that amount.

After having just criticized charts, my staff has brought me a chart which they prepared. I certainly would not want to omit the showing of this chart. The writing is too small for reading on C-SPAN2, but it specifies the identity of the person, the total compensation, the personal allowance, and it can be filled out in the course of 15 minutes.

A superior depiction, in my opinion, is the postcard. People can deal more easily with postcards than they can with charts.

I have provided for two deductions which I am maintaining, deductions on interest and charitable contributions. It may be that ultimately we will have a totally flat tax, which would reduce another percent down to 19 percent. I have included interest on home mortgages because it is so prevalent, and I believe Americans might be very surprised not to be able to deduct their interest on home mortgages. That interest on home mortgages has been a great stimulus for housing construction and also a great encouragement for people to own their own homes. That is very important as a societal matter.

I have also retained the deduction on charitable contributions, which remains very important. That was reinforced by the Senate earlier this week by providing an increase in charitable contributions deductibility looking toward faith-based initiatives.

What I would like to do most emphatically would be to get the debate started. This body, the House, and the Treasury Department have never seriously considered a flat tax. It ought to be seriously considered. Whether it would be accepted or not would be the outcome of the debate. The flat tax proposal which I am bringing to you today, which is modeled after the outline by Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka of Stanford University, has been very carefully thought through. It is a neutral tax scheme. An analysis of people at various income levels shows that it is universally beneficial for all except those who engage in tax shelters and pay no tax at all.

The greatest benefit would be the savings to the American people of some 5.8 billion hours a year and some $194 billion in preparation expenses. I have actually seen estimates on the cost of tax compliance as high as $800 billion. Again, these estimates are such that nobody really knows, but as lawyers say in litigation, the pain and suffering that goes with filing these returns, or the cruel and unusual punishment involved in making these computations and the study involved, it would be a great relief to the American people. It would be win, win, win. There would be great savings in time. There would be savings in individual taxes, and there would be a tremendous stimulus to the economy so that so many corporations and businesses would no longer have to have a special office, which is the practice in many places, for the tax collector who comes in to conduct the audit on a yearly basis.

To reiterate, in less than one week, American taxpayers face another Federal income tax deadline. The date of April 15 stabs fear, anxiety, and unease into the hearts of millions of Americans. Every year during ``tax season,'' millions of Americans spend their evenings poring over page after page of IRS instructions, going through their records looking for information, and struggling to find and fill out all the appropriate forms on their Federal tax returns. Americans are intimidated by the sheer number of different tax forms and their instructions, many of which they may be unsure whether they need to file. Given the approximately 325 possible forms, not to mention the instructions that accompany, simply trying to determine which form to file can in itself be a daunting and overwhelming task. According to the Tax Foundation, American taxpayers, including businesses, spend more than 5.8 billion hours and $194 billion each year in complying with tax laws. That works out to more than $2,400 per U.S. household. Much of this time is spent burrowing through IRS laws and regulations which fill 17,000 pages and have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to over 6.9 million words in 2000. By contrast, the Pledge of Allegiance has only 31 words, the Gettysburg Address has 267 words, the Declaration of Independence has about 1,300 words, and the Bible has only about 1,773,000 words.

The majority of taxpayers still face filing tax forms that are far too complicated and take far too long to complete. According to the estimated preparation time listed on the forms by the IRS, the 2002 Form 1040 is estimated to take 13 hours and 10 minutes to complete. Moreover this does not include the estimated time to complete the accompanying schedules, such as Schedule A, for itemized deductions, which carries an estimated preparation time of 5 hours, 37 minutes, or Schedule D, for reporting capital gains and losses, shows an estimated preparation time of 7 hours, 35 minutes. Moreover, this complexity is getting worse each year. Just from 1998 to 2002 the estimated time to prepare Form 1040 jumped 96 minutes.

It is no wonder that well over half of all taxpayers, 56 percent according to a recent survey now hire an outside professional to prepare their tax returns for them. However, the fact that only 29 percent of individuals itemize their deductions shows that a significant percentage of our taxpaying population believes that the tax system is too complex for them to deal with. We all understand that paying taxes will never be something we enjoy, but neither should it be cruel and unusual punishment. Further, the pace of change to the Internal Revenue Code is brisk--Congress made about 9,500 Tax Code changes in the past 12 years. And we are far from being finished. Year after year, we continue to ask the same question--is there not a better way?

My flat tax legislation would make filing a tax return a manageable chore, not a seemingly endless nightmare, for most taxpayers. My flat tax legislation will fundamentally revise the present Tax Code, with its myriad rates, deductions, and instructions. This legislation would institute a simple, flat 20 percent tax rate for all individuals and businesses. This proposal is not cast in stone but is intended to move the debate forward by focusing attention on three key principles which are critical to an effective and equitable taxation system: simplicity, fairness, and economic growth.

My flat tax plan would eliminate the kinds of frustrations I have outlined above for millions of taxpayers. This flat tax would enable us to scrap the great majority of the IRS rules, regulations, and instructions and delete most of the 6.9 million words in the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of billions of hours of non-productive time spent in compliance with, or avoidance of, the tax code, taxpayers would spend only the small amount of time necessary to fill out a postcard- sized form. Both business and individual taxpayers would thus find valuable hours freed up to engage in productive business activity or for more time with their families instead of poring over tax tables, schedules, and regulations.

My flat tax proposal is dramatic, but so are its advantages: a taxation system that is simple, fair and designed to maximize prosperity for all Americans. A summary of the key advantages are:

A 10-line postcard filing would replace the myriad forms and attachments currently required, thus saving Americans up to 5.8 billion hours they currently spend every year in tax compliance.

The flat tax would eliminate the lion's share of IRS rules, regulations and requirements, which have grown from 744,000 words in 1955 to 6.9 million words and 17,000 pages currently. It would also allow us to slash the mammoth IRS bureaucracy of 117,000 employees.

Economists estimate a growth of over $2 trillion in national wealth over 7 years, representing an increase of approximately $7,500 in personal wealth for every man, woman, and child in America. This growth would also lead to the creation of 6 million new jobs.

Investment decisions would be made on the basis of productivity rather than simply for tax avoidance, thus leading to even greater economic expansion.

Economic forecasts indicate that interest rates would fall substantially, by as much as two points, as the flat tax removes many of the current disincentives to savings.

Americans would be able to save up to $194 billion they currently spend every year in tax compliance.

As tax loopholes are eliminated and the tax code is simplified, there will be far less opportunity for tax avoidance and fraud, which now amounts to over $120 billion in uncollected revenue annually.

Simplification of the tax code will allow us to save significantly on the $7 billion annual budget currently allocated to the Internal Revenue Service.

The most dramatic way to show what the flat tax is to consider that the income tax form for the flat tax is printed on a postcard--it will allow all taxpayers to file their April 15 tax returns on a simple 10- line postcard. This postcard will take 15 minutes to fill out.

At my town hall meetings across Pennsylvania, the public support for fundamental tax reform is overwhelming. I would point out that in those speeches that I never leave home without two key documents: 1, my copy of the Constitution; and, 2, a copy of my 10-line flat tax postcard. I soon realized that I needed more than just one copy of my flat tax postcard. Many people wanted their own postcard so that they could see what life in a flat tax world would be like, where tax returns only take 15 minutes to fill out and individual taxpayers are no longer burdened with double taxation on their dividends, interest, capital gains and estates.

This is a win-win situation for America because it lowers the tax burden on the taxpayers in the lower brackets. For example in the 2002 tax year, the standard deduction is $4,700 for a single taxpayer, $6,900 for a head of household and $7,850 for a married couple filing jointly, while the personal exemption for individuals and dependents is $3,000. Thus, under the current tax code, a family of four which does not itemize deductions would pay taxes on all income over $19,850-- these are personal exemptions of $12,000 and a standard deduction of $7,850. By contrast, under my flat tax bill, that same family would receive a personal exemption of $27,500, and would pay tax on only income over that amount.

The tax loopholes enable write-offs to save some $393 billion a year. What is eliminated under the flat tax are the loopholes, the deductions in this complicated code which can be deciphered, interpreted, and found really only by the $500-an-hour lawyers. That money is lost to the taxpayers. $120 billion would be saved by the elimination of fraud because of the simplicity of the tax code, the taxpayer being able to find out exactly what he or she owes.

This bill is modeled after legislation organized and written by two very distinguished professors of law at Stanford University, Professor Hall and Professor Rabushka. Their model was first introduced in the Congress in the fall of 1994 by Majority Leader Richard Armey. I introduced the flat tax bill--the first one in the Senate--on March 2, 1995, S. 488. On October 27, 1995, I introduced a Sense of the Senate, resolution calling on my colleagues to expedite Congressional adoption of a flat tax. The Resolution, which was introduced as an amendment to pending legislation, was not adopted. I reintroduced this legislation in the 105th Congress with slight modifications to reflect inflation- adjusted increases in the personal allowances and dependent allowances. I re-introduced the bill two Congresses ago on April 15, 1999--income tax day--in a bill denominated as S. 822. More recently, I introduced my flat tax legislation as an amendment to S. 1429, the Tax Reconciliation bill. The amendment was not adopted.

Over the years and prior to my legislative efforts on behalf of flat tax reform, I have devoted considerable time and attention to analyzing our Nation's Tax Code and the policies which underlie it. I began the study of the complexities of the Tax Code over 40 years ago as a law student at Yale University. I included some tax law as part of my practice in my early years as an attorney in Philadelphia. In the spring of 1962, I published a law review article in the Villanova Law Review, ``Pension and Profit Sharing Plans: Coverage and Operations for Closely Held Corporations and Professional Associations,'' 7 Villanova L. Rev. 335, which in part focused on the inequity in making tax-exempt retirement benefits available to some kinds of businesses but not others. It was apparent then, as it is now, that the very complexities of the Internal Revenue Code could be used to give unfair advantage to some. Einstein himself is quoted as saying ``the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.''

The Hall-Rabushka model envisioned a flat tax with no deductions whatever. After considerable reflection, I decided to include in the legislation limited deductions for home mortgage interest for up to $100,000 in borrowing and charitable contributions up to $2,500. While these modifications undercut the pure principle of the flat tax by continuing the use of tax policy to promote home buying and charitable contributions, I believe that those two deductions are so deeply ingrained in the financial planning of American families that they should be retained as a matter of fairness and public policy--and also political practicality. With only those two deductions maintained, passage of a modified flat tax will be difficult, but without them, probably impossible.

In my judgment, an indispensable prerequisite to enactment of a modified flat tax is revenue neutrality. Professor Hall advised that the revenue neutrality of the Hall-Rabushka proposal, which uses a 19- percent rate, is based on a well-documented model founded on reliable governmental statistics. My legislation raises that rate from 19 percent to 20 percent to accommodate retaining limited home mortgage interest and charitable deductions.

This proposal taxes business revenues fully at their source so that there is no personal taxation on interest, dividends, capital gains, gifts or estates. Restructured in this way, the Tax Code can become a powerful incentive for savings and investment--which translates into economic growth and expansion, more and better jobs, and raising the standard of living for all Americans.

The key advantages of this flat tax plan are threefold: First, it will dramatically simplify the payment of taxes. Second, it will remove much of the IRS regulatory morass now imposed on individual and corporate taxpayers and allow those taxpayers to devote more of their energies to productive pursuits. Third, since it is a plan which rewards savings and investment, the flat tax will spur economic growth in all sectors of the economy as more money flows into investments and savings accounts.

Professors Hall and Rabushka have projected that within 7 years of enactment, this type of a flat tax would produce a 6-percent increase in output from increased total work in the U.S. economy and increased capital formation. The economic growth would mean a $7,500 increase in the personal income of all Americans. No one likes to pay taxes. But Americans will be much more willing to pay their taxes under a system that they believe is fair, a system that they can understand, and a system that they recognize promotes rather than prevents growth and prosperity. My flat tax legislation will afford Americans such a tax system.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about one of the things that is so important. Obviously, items connected with terrorism, the war in Iraq have to be dealt with. We have to deal with heightened homeland security and related issues. Health care is an area we need to talk about. Prescription drugs is in the process of this.

One issue that is particularly important is an energy policy. I don't think there has ever been a time when it has been more apparent and more important to deal with energy policy. We have an economy, prices with gas and energy that are high. We have uncertainty, certainly, in the Middle East. We have had a Venezuelan problem. We had a very cold winter. We cannot seem to come together to put together a policy that will allow us to move forward, an aggressive energy policy. I would like to talk briefly about a component of that which I think is very important, and that is an electric component.

I rise today to introduce the Electric Transmission Reliability and Enhancement Act of 2003. It is my intention to build on a changing wholesale, competitive, open access market and to suggest that we build that into a policy. Things have changed in the way energy is generated, the way energy is transmitted, the way energy is sold. We need to change our policy, as well.

Very simply, what we have is: In years past, there was a generator that generated for their own distribution area. That was pretty simple. Prices were controlled. It was a simple technique. Now we have more and more merchant generators, people who do not have a constituency or distribution system of their own but they sell into the marketplace. This is good. There is competition. And we will see more and more of that. But to do that, we have to update our laws and we have to update the regulations that go with that. My legislation would extend and improve open nondiscriminatory access policies. Access to transmission would remove antiquated Federal barriers that stand in the way of competitive wholesale markets. Wholesale markets that are competitive are new. We have to change to meet those needs. We have to encourage increased investments in our transmission system and establish reliability standards.

We saw what happened in California 2 years ago. If there is no reliability, we cannot depend upon getting that energy to people's homes, to businesses, and then we have a very difficult situation.

Particularly what has changed now is it is interstate. For years we grew up with the fact that in your State the State controlled both the generation and the distribution, and that worked well. Now we go across interstate lines and there needs to be something different.

Legislatively we have to pare down our wish list so we get to the bare essentials and keep those things that are necessary.

It seems clear, if we are going to have a truly wholesale market, we need to ensure that all the industry participants play by the same rules. Only Congress can give FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the tools it needs to ensure that all participants get treated fairly in a competitive marketplace. Under the Federal law, currently FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over transmission owned by public power agencies, municipals, cooperatives, yet they want to participate and need to participate and should participate. Many of them--most--are willing to participate.

These nonregulated utilities represent 52 percent of the total, so we do not want to move forward with FERC's so-called market plan. I think it goes too far getting into the authority of the States. But there are some changes that need to be made, and we would like to do that.

We also need to protect those cooperatives. I grew up in a area of cooperatives and spent much of my life working with cooperatives. So we have given that break. Those that sell less than 4 million megawatt hours per year are entirely exempt. We think that is as it should be.

We would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, because it needs to be restructured and the deployment of capital in this industry needs to go where it is desperately needed. We need to do that. There is ample regulation over those investments now in the existing business. We want to make it easier for people to be able to invest, produce competitively, and go into the marketplace.

The Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and the State commissions would still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross- subsidies. So my legislation would prospectively eliminate mandatory purchase and sales obligations of PURPA, one that was put in a very long time ago. Despite the State administering it, it causes favoritism to many utilities and changes things.

Over the years the grid has been protected through voluntary standards and that is exactly right. But what we are now faced with is to have RTOs, regional transportation organizations, where they can make those decisions within the RTO. There would be a Western one, a Midwestern one, a New England one, and so on. But then connecting with those will be an interstate, like an interstate highway. That has to, of course, be organized and controlled by a national group because it serves all these different ones.

So what we need is to modernize our system so we can accommodate things that have changed. Reliability organizations must be run by market participants and be overseen by FERC. Reliability organizations must be made up of representatives of everyone who is affected: residential, commercial, industrial. That can be done, and this provides an opportunity to do that.

During our discussions last year, we were made to address some of the more egregious behavior and found a great deal of issues that needed to be dealt with--market manipulation, those kinds of things. This is very complex. I believe we can address these issues with regulatory agencies, things that truly can exist.

So my legislation would provide a greater price in the transmission of availability of information and outlaw the practice of roundtrip trading. In the past we found some trading where they went around, got it back, made a profit on the sale, and served no one.

We prohibit the reporting of false information for the purpose of manipulating price indices. Again, we go back a little bit to the California situation, where there obviously is a great need to do some opening up so there is visibility of what is happening. That is what we are seeking to do. It would increase civil and criminal penalties for the violation of the Federal Power Act and would accelerate the effective dates of refunds and so on.

In the end, it is about consumers, it is about serving consumers, it is about competition, it is about reliability, it is about keeping the lights on--the part of energy that probably affects more people and more businesses than any other. It is my hope that the Electric Transmission Reliability Enhancement Act of 2003 will produce a more reliable, efficient transmission system, a more dependable and more affordable product for the end user, and perhaps more than anything else, bring our system and our oversight into the modern time of electric generation and transmission.

Things change. We need to change. Now is the time. We will have an energy bill. It needs to have an energy component.

Mr. President, any comprehensive energy bill must contain an electric component. That is why, today, I rise to introduce the ``Electric Transmission and Reliability Enhancement Act of 2003.'' It is my intention to build on the competitive wholesale open access policies adopted by the Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. My legislation would extend and improve these open, non-discriminatory access policies; remove antiquated federal statutory barriers that stand in the way of competitive wholesale markets; encourage increased investment in our transmission system and establish enforceable reliability standards to help ensure the continued reliability of the interstate transmission system.

The state of the industry is far weaker financially than it has been in years. Billions of dollars of shareholder value has evaporated. Access to capital is becoming an important issue for large segments of the industry that are fighting for survival. In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, policy regarding wholesale markets seems to be in a state of constant change. The Standard Market Design, SMD, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NOPR, has divided regulators and industry participants in a way that may be unprecedented, threatening more years of rulemakings, litigation and regulatory uncertainty.

If we are to legislate successfully, we will have to par down our wish list to the bare essentials, plus those issues necessary for the electric industry to attract the capital it needs to keep our lights on. Last year, the Enron fallout dominated the debate. By being on the defensive most of last year, it was not possible to successfully advance those issues most important to consumers and the industry that serves them.

It seems clear that if truly competitive wholesale markets are to exist, there is a need to ensure that all industry participants play by the same rules. While FERC has tried to ensure this, the Commission's tools are limited. Only Congress can give FERC the tools it needs to ensure that all industry participants in competitive wholesale markets play by the same rules.

The Wyoming State commissioners wrote that ``under present Federal law the FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over transmission facilities owned by public power agencies, municipalities and cooperatives. In the West these types of entities own a substantial portion, perhaps as much as half of the interstate electric transmission system.'' As a matter of fact, in the Western Electric Coordinating Council, an area that encompasses all or part of 11 Western States and parts of Canada, non-FERC jurisdictional facilities account for 52 percent of transmission miles.

The Wyoming commissioners claim that, ``without the full participation of all of those who own transmission in the West, the FERC's wholesale market initiative will fail to provide the full spectrum of benefits Congress expected when it created wholesale electricity markets. System optimization requires that bulk power be able to move freely throughout the interconnected system without regard to who owns the facilities over which the power travels. Removing the institutional impediments to the free movement of bulk power is also requisite to identifying the physical constraints that exist in the western system. Proper planning for the relief of such constraints depends on properly identifying and quantifying them, absent other economic and institutional constraints.''

They go on to say that such a vision for the future of wholesale power markets makes a compelling case for the inclusion of all facilities which can be used to move bulk power across the West, regardless of ownership. Anything less than 100 percent participation by transmission owning entities will simply perpetuate some level of inefficiency in the system and will continue to afford those who do not participate the ability to favor their own generation resources.

My legislation would permit FERC to require certain nonregulated utilities to offer transmission serviced at comparable rates to those they charge themselves, and on terms and conditions comparable to those applicable to jurisdictional public utilities. Currently nonregulated transmitting utilities would not be subject to the full panoply of FERC regulation under this provision. Instead, a ``light handed'' form of regulation would apply and small nonregulated entities, such as those that sell less than 4,000,000 MW/h per year, would be entirely exempt from these nondiscrimination requirements.

It also seems clear that the Public Utility Holding Company Act PUHCA, is hindering necessary restructuring of the industry and the deployment of capital into an industry that desperately needs it. Investors are deterred simply because they do not want to deal with the PUHCA rules and restrictions. If repealed, utility securities will continue to be regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, FERC and most state commissions. Mergers and acquisitions of jurisdictional assets would still require FERC and state commission approval and review by Department of Justice, DOJ, and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. FERC and State commissions would still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross-subsidies.

Despite State progress in administering the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, PURPA, more in-tune with markets, it is clear that PURPA continues to provide special privileges to certain favored generators at the expense of utilities and their customers. Like PUHCA, PURPA is no longer needed in today's competitive wholesale markets. My legislation prospectively eliminates the mandatory purchase and sell obligations of PURPA.

Over the years the grid has been well protected through voluntary standards established by the North American Electric Reliability Council, NERC, NERC's voluntary reliability standards--which are not enforceable--have generally been complied with by the electric power industry. But with the opening of the wholesale power market to competition, our transmission grid is being used in ways for which it was not designed. New system strains are also being created by the breakup of vertically integrated utilities and by the emergence of new market structures and participants. The results of these changes have been an increase in the number and severity of violations of NERC's voluntary rules.

My legislation converts the existing NERC voluntary reliability system into a mandatory reliability system. A nation-wide organization would have the authority to establish and enforce reliability standards, and take into account regional differences. The new reliability organization will be run by market participants, and will be overseen by the FERC in the U.S. The reliability organization will be made up of representatives of everyone who is affected--residential, commercial and industrial consumers; state public utility commissions; independent power producers; electric utilities and others. There is no question that we need a new system to safeguard the integrity of our electric grid. My legislation would do this, using language that was effectively agreed upon last fall by House and Senate conferees for the energy bill.

During discussions last year, efforts were made to address some of the more egregious behavior and attempted market manipulation through legislation. While this area is obviously very complex, I believe that we need to address this issue if regulatory gaps truly do exist. I realize my attempt might not be perfect, but I wanted to intimate discussion on this very important topic if, in fact, regulatory agencies do need additional authority to police and monitor the industry.

My legislation will provide greater price and transmission availability information, outlaw the practice of round trip trading and prohibit reporting of false information for the purpose of manipulating price indices. In addition, I've included authority the FERC has requested and that would increase civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Federal Power Act and accelerate the refund effective date to the date of filing of a complaint.

In the end it's about the consumer. It is my hope and vision that the ``Electric Transmission and Reliability and Enhancement Act of 2003'' I am introducing today will produce a more reliable and efficient transmission system and that these improvements will result in a more dependable and affordable product for the end user. This legislation is the best solution to move forward with a better product for all classes of consumers and the industry as a whole.

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

Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will provide State and local governments the flexibility they need for preparedness activities associated with the planning, procurement and training for homeland security and counter terrorism activities.

Quite simply, this legislation would permit State and local governments to use up to twenty percent of any funds provided for the procurement of new equipment to train first responders in the use of that equipment and secondly, allow State level Emergency Management personnel to conduct activities such as FEMA related strategic planning on behalf of smaller communities that may not otherwise have the resources to adequately perform that planning.

I became acutely aware of this need when I visited the Maine Emergency Management Agency and learned that, although they had been provided the funds to purchase new chemical and biological protection equipment, they had not received any funds to train personnel to use that equipment.

As we are all aware, homeland security needs at the State level vary widely. From State to State, there are varying degrees of risk, varying percentages of full-time versus volunteer responders, and different areas of strengths and weaknesses in the responder community. Any successful Federal program that seeks to improve response capability must therefore have flexible rules for implementation.

For example, in fiscal years 2000 through 2002, FEMA funded states for terrorism preparedness activities. The State of Maine received $246,000 annually for these activities and the funds were administered through the Emergency Management Performance Grant. Those funds were based on a strategic plan submitted by each State that outlined its most urgent needs, and the steps to be taken to meet those needs. If planning was the need, the State could put an emphasis on planning. If training or exercise was the need, they could stress that.

While there was no set quota for how much money had to go to local communities, States were required to track performance measures that showed how local communities were benefitting because in rural States such as Maine, it is often more efficient and cost-effective for States to sponsor programs for the benefit of local officials, rather than providing funds to communities that may not have the organizational infrastructure to plan and execute programs.

States were given wide authority to reimburse communities for time and equipment costs, purchase training materials, and contract for services--whatever was necessary to accomplish the ultimate goal of improved preparedness for responders. These dollars could also support basic emergency management activities, such as incident command training, emergency planning or exercise design, which supported the communities' overall all-hazard preparedness as well as their capability to react to a terrorist incident.

By contrast, let's go back and look at FEMA's FY2002 Supplemental Budget and the Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for emergency response equipment for it was during this cycle that the previous flexibility began to be restricted. First, while the FEMA FY2002 Supplemental Budget supported emergency operations planning, Citizen Corps, Community Emergency Response Teams, CERT, and emergency operations center assessment and improvement, 75 percent of the funding for planning and for Citizen Corps and CERT efforts was required to be passed through to local communities, even if the capacity to administer those funds was generally lacking and the communities would have been better served by programs brought to them by the state.

In addition, planning dollars could not be spent on exercises to test plans, or training to support those plans. Funds for Citizen Corps and CERT programs, which are voluntary efforts, could not be used for any other preparedness purpose, even if no communities came forward desiring to participate in those programs. It is likely that Maine will return a portion of these funds because the local need for them does not exist. Furthermore, emergency operations center assessment funds could only be spent on assessment, even if a current assessment of facilities was in place.

The Office of Domestic Preparedness' funding for the procurement of equipment has been equally restrictive. The lion's share is of course for equipment, and only equipment that provides protection, detection, decontamination and communications could be procured.

Beyond the fact that it took two rounds of funding to build a critical mass of resources such that equipment purchases could begin in earnest, much of this equipment is highly technical in nature, and requires extensive training to operate safely and properly. However, of the funds provided for that equipment, none could be used for training. While there were some exercise funds, they were specifically targeted to weapons of mass destruction. With the FY2003 allocation, some funding has been allocated for training, which is a positive step but, again, it comes with very strict limits and dollars allocated for exercise cannot be used for training, or vice versa.

In the emergency management world, planning comes first, then training, then exercise.

If you need a plan, you can't substitute an exercise and get the same result. If you need an exercise, you can't substitute training. Even within the training and exercise grants, there are restrictions that make it extremely difficult for full-time departments, for example, to free up employee time to take needed training or participate in exercises. And with the focus on homeland security, the need for flexibility to improve basic response capability has also been overlooked. In communities that do not have the resources to create special response forces for every hazard--and that includes all towns in Maine--it is imperative to be able to build a base of planning and training for all hazards, on which one can build the capability to respond to a terrorist incident.

Our strategy in Maine has been to build a regional response capability. In some areas we could build that capability around existing response capacity, and in others we have had to build capability from the ground up.

For example, the Portland and South Portland fire departments have formed a regional response team and are undertaking training required to stand up a fully qualified hazardous materials response team. This entails 80 hours of training for each individual. But, I'm told the City of Portland is in the process of cutting 20 fire positions and some police officers because of budget constraints at the local level, as they are facing additional security requirements around the city. This makes it very difficult to free up responders for the required training, especially as there are no budget dollars for overtime, and no Federal grant currently

available will reimburse training costs to include overtime.

In other parts of the State, private paper companies have stepped up and volunteered their already-trained hazardous materials teams to respond off site. During the anthrax scare in the fall of 2001, these teams responded to any and all ``suspicious package'' calls, at a cost of $2,000 per hour to field a team of 22 people.

These companies have responded out of patriotism and a sense of civic responsibility, and despite challenging economic times in the paper industry. These teams are now faced with maintaining the full ``level A'' capability and further facing more than 20 hours of additional training to be fully WMD compliant. No grant monies currently available allow reimbursement for their response or for their training time.

In Maine, we have by necessity been flexible in our approach to each region, looking at the different needs in planning, training, exercise and equipment procurement. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to practice flexibility when the Federal programs that provide the resources to build capability are becoming more and more rigid.

The events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent anthrax attacks have brought our Nation to heightened level of awareness. Nowhere is this more evident than in Maine's hospitals, upon which we rely to respond quickly and effectively in the event of any disaster affecting our residents' health.

While hospitals have always had disaster plans in place, recent events have dramatically changed the definition of ``disaster''. Since September 11, 2001, hospitals have stepped up their readiness efforts to be better prepared in responding not only to conventional disasters, but also to the more concrete threat of previously unimaginable terrorist attacks using chemical, biological or radiologic agents that could lead to large-scale emergencies with mass casualties.

Hospitals have to change their mind-set on established norms and standard ways of operating to embrace a broader spectrum of roles and responsibilities. The relationship between traditional first responders and the non-traditional role of hospitals in community-wide first response overall is moving closer, emphasizing the need for collaboration and compatibility.

No one doubts that in the event of a weapons of mass destruction event, hospitals are likely to see large numbers of potentially contaminated patients seeking treatment. The reality is that hospital emergency department staff and hospital providers in general are truly the new ``first responders.'' Hospitals are critical elements of the community response system and if they are not prepared and protected, there will be serious gaps in the system that could cause it to break down completely.

One of the largest barriers to optimal emergency preparedness is staff education and training. To date, hospitals have had to absorb all these costs, as the limited funding assistance available to hospitals has not been permitted to be spent on education and training. The full costs of providing training is daunting, particularly in these lean economic times of declining reimbursement to hospitals.

The costs of the courses and/or instructors' fees pale in comparison to the staff time that must be paid to attend any given course. Staff time must essentially be paid twice--first to pay the staff person's on-duty time to attend the course or drill, and once again to pay another staff person's time to replace the worker being trained. The cost of staff time is significant, and even finding staff to replace the one attending training is especially costly due to the nursing shortage in hospitals. Consider the following facts: The vacancy rate for hospital staff nurses in Maine has been 8-9 percent. The average hourly rate for registered nurses in Maine is $21.67, and rising. Any staff training must be done on a large scale so that trained staff are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

As just one example of training needed, Maine recognizes that hospitals need to be prepared to manage contaminated patients who come to their facility. The Maine Emergency Management Agency is working to provide hospitals with the necessary equipment, but the training necessary to competently use that equipment is extensive and currently underfunded.

According to Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, staff must be trained to the hazardous material ``operations'' level in order to safely use the equipment. Meeting Federal Government standards for that level of training requires at least two full days of initial training, with refresher courses required annually. Conservatively speaking, if 35 Maine hospitals train 25 nurses to that level, the approximate cost of nursing staff time alone for the initial course would be $606,760. And remember, because six to eight staff members are required to man the decontamination line, the nursing costs are just the beginning.

The same staffing costs apply to sending staff to local and regional emergency drills and training sessions--which are absolutely critical components of Maine's disaster readiness. It is simply not possible for hospitals to absorb all of these costs, given the declining reimbursements. Hospital operating margins in Maine declined from an average of 2.3 percent in 2001 to 1.7 percent in 2002 and about one third of all Maine hospitals experienced zero or negative operating margins in 2002.

Yet, our hospitals continue their efforts to provide the best possible patient care while simultaneously increasing their level of emergency preparedness. Federal assistance with training funding would provide excellent support for hospitals, as they work to respond to any crisis and protect their staff so they can perform the critical functions of caring for the citizens of Maine in any crisis.

These are but a few examples of the burdens being experienced by State, local and private industry responders as they struggle to prepare themselves and the citizenry to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and other crises. This legislation will provide some of the flexibility emergency management personnel require to be truly prepared. I urge my colleagues to support this much needed legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of The Unemployment Benefits Extension Act of which I am a proud cosponsor. The purpose of this bill is to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation, TEUC, program, for an additional 6 months through the end of November. Currently, extended umeployment insurance benefits are scheduled to expire at the end of May. Beginning June first, individuals whose regular unemployment benefits expire will no longer be eligible for extended benefits.

Extending the existing unemployment insurance benefits program for an additional 6 months is estimated to provide assistance to between 2 to 2.5 million working Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. This legislation also provides an additional 13 weeks of benefits to unemployed workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits prior to enactment and remain unable to find work. The bill also provides tempory Federal funding, through July 2004, for States to implement alternative base periods, which could a worker's most recent wages when determining eligibility, and to allow displaced part-income workers to seek part-time employment while receiving unemployment insurance workers. Improving the unemployment insurance system for part-time workers is important. A recent op-ed in the Baltimore Sun makes the point that:

The old rationale for excluding part-time workers from

unemployment insurance eligibility was that part-time workers

were not working to support their families. But this is not

true today.

I am convinced that we are going to still be in very difficult shape when the current extension of unemployment insurance benefits expires at the end of May. There is little chance that the labor market will significantly improve for unemployed workers between now and then. There is growing evidence that the labor market is still in fact deteriorating. The Federal Open Markets Committee's most recent statement on interest rates concluded that, ``recent labor market indicators have proven disappointing.''

That is an understatement. Last month the economy lost 108,000 jobs in addition to losing 357,000 jobs in February. There are 1.8 million workers who have been out of work for more than 26 weeks and are looking for work but cannot find a job. The unemployment rate at 5.8 percent is higher today than when extended benefits were first enacted in March, 2002. Over 3.48 million Americans are currently drawing unemployment benefits. We have lost 2.6 million private sector jobs since President Bush took office. No President in over 50 years has failed to create jobs during a 4-year term in office, let alone lose jobs during an administration. But it would take private sector job creation of over 100,000 per month, every month, for the next 2 years, in order for the economy to dig out of the jobs deficit created during this administration.

Yet instead of abandoning the economic policies which have failed, the administration continues to pursue the same fundamental policy-- large tax cuts which primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans. The administration, whose budget contained nothing to further extend the unemployment benefits program, remains out of touch with today's economic realities. Over 8.5 million Americans are unemployed and looking for work but cannot find a job because there are no jobs to be had. In situations like this the Congress has always provided extended unemployment benefits. In the last recession these benefits were provided for 29 months. During the recession before that, they lasted for 33 months. In both of those recessions extended benefits were discontinued only after a pronounced strengthening in the labor market.

Today these benefits are set to expire after only 15 months, well before the labor market has improved. If this happens it will mark not only a departure from prudent fiscal policy that has been implemented in a bipartisan fashion in the past but will also harm economic growth and hurt millions of Americans. Extended unemployment insurance benefits, already enacted by the Congress, have assisted 4.7 million workers and provided $12 billion of stimulus into the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan has testified that, ``extended unemployment insurance provided a timely boost to disposable income.''

This legislation also allows for all Americans who qualify to receive an additional 13 weeks of benefits. This would include the 1 million workers who have already exhausted their extended benefits. These workers need help. They want to find work but cannot find a job because there are simply no jobs to be had.

I know that some of my colleagues oppose providing extended benefits for more than 13 weeks to anyone. I have a differing viewpoint. I point out that at this stage of the last recession, a minimum of 20 weeks of additional Federal benefits were provided for all Americans in every State. In the previous recession and jobless recovery extended unemployment insurance benefits lasted for 29 months and for much of that time provided benefits for 26 to 33 weeks. In this recession and jobless recovery, benefits are scheduled to expire only after 15 months and have provided only 13 weeks of extended benefits to the vast majority of Americans.

Under normal circumstances with a growing labor market there is a case to be made that providing too long of a duration of unemployment insurance benefits would be harmful. However, in times when the labor market is weak and the job base is shrinking, the situation is very different. Even Fed Chairman Greenspan acknowledged this in testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, stating: ``in periods like this [a shrinking labor market], that the economic restraints on the unemployment insurance system almost surely ought to be eased.'' Unfortunately, many are forecasting continued weaknesses in the labor market.

Today's Washington Post reports that the International Monetary Fund is forecasting economic growth of only 2.2 percent for the United States in 2003, which the IMF's chief economist, Kenneth Rogoff noted is ``not yet enough to make a meaningful dent in unemployment.'' The article goes on to state that: ``the jobless rate stood last month at 5.8 percent, and the IMF projected that it will average 6.2 percent this year.'' Considering the weak labor market that we face today and the troubling forecasts for the remainder of the year, it appears to me that we most certainly are in such a period as described by Chairman Greenspan and that the restraints on the unemployment insurance system ought to be eased. This legislation accomplishes this goal in a fiscally responsible manner with an estimated cost of $16 billion, which is below the unemployment insurance trust funds current surplus of $20 billion.

Last year this issue was not properly dealt with, and as a result millions of Americans suffered through the holiday season believing that their benefits were going to expire. Yet when Congress reconvened, extended benefits were retroactively restored, 11 days after they had expired. Let's not put these people through this again. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to work expeditiously and prudently to enact it before the current program expires, less than 8 weeks from today.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, together with Senator Mikulski, to recognize the Dr. Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry, in Baltimore, as the official national museum of dentistry in the United States.

The principal purpose of this legislation is to help educate the public about the critical importance of oral health to the overall health of all Americans. Three years ago, United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a comprehensive report entitled ``Oral Health in America,'' which identified the problem of dental and oral disease as a ``silent epidemic'' facing the country. The report found that tooth decay is the most common chronic childhood disease, which often interferes with vital functions such as eating, swallowing, and speech. Children around the country miss an estimated 51 million hours of school each year due to dental illness. Despite Federal law mandating that children eligible for Medicaid be given access to dental services, fewer than one in five of these children actually receive dental care. In addition, close to one in four Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 were found to suffer from periodontal disease, and over 8,000 men and women die from oral and pharyngeal cancers each year.

The report called for the development of a National Oral Health Plan, and recommended that actions be taken to ``change perceptions regarding oral health and disease so that oral health becomes an accepted component of general health.'' By designating an official national museum and learning center dedicated to dentistry, this legislation takes an important step toward the achievement of this goal.

The Dr. Samuel D. Harris National museum of Dentistry is the largest and most comprehensive museum of dentistry in this country, and, indeed, the world. An affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, the Museum sits on the grounds of the Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, founded in 1840 as the world's first dental college. Many of the museum's permanent exhibits come directly from the College's vast historical collections. Housed in a building that served as the University of Maryland Dental Department from 1904 to 1929, the Museum is located directly adjacent to historic Davidge Hall, the Western Hemisphere's oldest medical building in continuous use.

In 1992, a retired pediatric dentist, Dr. Samuel D. Harris of Detroit, contributed $1 million of his personal funds toward the development of the Museum. He has since made further considerable gifts to the Museum's endowment, reaffirming his belief that education is the hallmark of preventive oral care. The Museum's name honors both his generosity and his mission.

With over 7,000 square feet of exhibit space, the Museum showcases the people, objects, and events that created and defined the dental profession, including one of George Washington's famed ivory dentures. The Museum's vast archives also act as an important resource for research and serious academic study of dentistry's past, with a unique collection of historical dental journals and other one-of-a-kind documents. Included in these collections are the first known dental degree and dental license.

While its informative presentation of dentistry's history constitutes an important part of the Museum's exhibitions, its mission extends much further, with the ultimate goal of educating the public about the critical importance of oral health. The Museum's interactive exhibits make it particularly effective in this regard, and over 26,000 students have benefited from the Museum's vigorous educational programs since its opening in 1996.

By designating the Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry as the official national museum of dentistry, we will not only recognize the critical role that dentists and oral health professionals have played in the history of our Nation's health care system, but enhance awareness and understanding of the importance of dentistry to public health.

The Samuel D. Harris National Museum of Dentistry has been endorsed by the American Dental Association, the American Association of Dental Schools, Oral Health America, the Pierre Fauchard Academy, the American College of Dentists, the International College of Dentists, and the American Academy of the History of Dentistry. I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter from the American Dental Association in support of this legislation be printed in the Record.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, article I, section 8, clauses 12 and 13 are the source of Congress' power regarding the Army and the Navy. Interestingly, while clause 12 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise and support armies, clause 13 requires Congress to provide and maintain a navy. Thus, while we have discretionary authority with regard to the establishment of an army, the Constitution presumes that we will always have and maintain a navy.

Despite this constitutional duty, our current surface fleet is smaller than our fleet in 1917, the year before we entered World War I. What is worse, the future looks even more bleak. At current build rates, we will sink below a 200 ship navy. In fact, we are building ships at rates unseen since 1932--the height of the great depression.

I submit that this policy is unsustainable. The U.S. Navy is not only a great pillar of American military might, it is an important tool in our diplomacy. American ships conduct about 175 international exercises every year. Yet, in recent years we have had to scale back participation, and in some cases, cancel exercises because the ships were simply not available. These joint exercises improve our ability to coordinate activity with our allies. They allow us to instill American notions of professionalism and service into the navies all around the world, and they give us important intelligence on emerging naval capabilities.

Additionally, the Navy serves as a powerful deterrent in situations short of war. How many situations have we used our Navy as a symbol of American resolve. The firepower and strength represented by a carrier battle group has been important in the Taiwan Straights, in the Sea of Japan and in the Persian Gulf. There is no reason to believe that it will become any less so in future years.

The Quadrennial Defense Review puts the requirements for the number of ships in the Navy at 360. Naval strategists warn that we are already proportioning risk. In other words, we are already deciding what seas we will leave underprotected, so as to ensure that we will have enough ships to cover flash points.

The legislation I am offering today is a simple statement of policy. It states that it is the policy of the United States to return to a Navy of at least 375 ships. This should include 15 carrier battle groups and 15 amphibious ready groups. Yet, even this number is a dramatic decrease from our high point of a 600 ship navy. However, it is an achievable goal, if Congress begins to appropriate resources to the Navy shipbuilding account at reasonable levels.

The bill is based on another policy statement we adopted into law in 1999--the National Missile Defense Act. That law provided guidance to our authorization and appropriations process. It also provide guidance to the President's budget. It has been successful in ensuring that the last two administrations have budgeted sufficient resources to keep our national missile defense program on track. This statement of policy is more important still. It is not a statement about a future technology, it is a statement about a military capability that this country dare not abandon.

I trust that the Senate shares my commitment to the future of our fleet. While it may come at real expense, I know my colleagues share the view that it is an expense worth making. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this bill is adopted.

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

Mr. President, the Renewal Community Program has been a tremendous success in promoting economic growth in my home State of Louisiana. It has boosted local economies and cut unemployment in areas that need it most. The Department of Housing and Urban Development designated 40 urban and rural areas around the country as renewal communities, under the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000.

Renewal communities can take advantage of wage tax credits, tax deductions, capital gains tax exclusions, and bond financing to stimulate job growth, promote economic development, and create affordable housing. This assistance goes to areas with poverty rates of at least 20 percent, and unemployment rates that are one-and-a-half times the national level. Households in renewal communities have incomes that are 80 percent below the median income of households in their local jurisdictions.

One of the most beneficial business incentives under the program is the wage tax credit an employer can receive for hiring and retaining residents of renewal communities. Businesses can receive up to a $1,500 Federal tax credit for every newly hired or existing employee who lives and works in the Renewal Community.

Louisiana has four renewal communities. One is in New Orleans and the remaining three cover a large portion of the Central and Northern parts of the State. These three renewal communities have common borders. This is a tremendous benefit for Louisiana, but it also creates some problems. Under the rules of the program a business in one renewal community cannot receive the wage tax credit if they hire someone who lives outside that renewal community, even if that person lives in the renewal community right next door.

A good example of what I am talking about is in the northern part of the State. The Ouachita Renewal Community which covers the City of Monroe in Ouachita Parish is surrounded by a number of parishes that fall into the North Louisiana Renewal Community--Morehouse Parish to the north, Richland Parish to the east, Caldwell Parish to the south, and Lincoln Parish to the west. The borders of these two renewal communities are literally two or three miles apart. Monroe is the economic hub of that part of my State. People from Morehouse, Caldwell, and Richland Parishes will naturally look for work there. But under current law, a company in Monroe cannot get a wage tax credit for hiring someone who lives in the renewal community right next door.

The situation in Louisiana is fairly unique. I am not certain whether Congress really anticipated that one State would receive more than one renewal community designation or that those renewal communities would be so close together. I certainly understand the desire to promote economic development in specific areas. That can work if renewal communities are far apart. But when they are so close together as they are around Ouachita Parish, or a little further south in the middle of my State, where the Central Louisiana Renewal Community borders the North Louisiana Renewal Community, then we need to make the program more flexible. A person living in Franklin Parish near the border with Catahoula Parish does not necessarily know that both parishes lie in two different renewal communities. If the closest job is in Catahoula Parish, that is where a Franklin Parish resident is going to go. The problem is that a business in Catahoula Parish would not receive the tax break for hiring the worker from Franklin Parish--only a few miles away.

We need to add some common sense flexibility to the Renewal Community program. Today I am introducing legislation that will allow the employers in one renewal community to hire employees from an adjacent or nearby renewal community and still receive the wage tax credits granted under the Act. This legislation essentially treats renewal communities that are within five miles of each other as one. This bill will make a small change in the Renewal Community program, but it will make a big difference to the people of my state.

This legislation will make a very important program more successful for Louisiana and other states like it. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are living in difficult economic times. Too many people are out of work and the economy is not growing enough to put them back to work permanently. The March unemployment rate was 5.8 percent and it has been holding around this mark for about a year. More bad news came just last week when the number of jobless claims soared to 445,000 for the week ending March 29. That is the highest number of weekly claims for unemployment benefits in almost a year.

While unemployment has been rising, other economic indicators are dropping. New orders for manufactured goods in February decreased $4.9 billion or 1.5 percent; shipments also fell 1.5 percent, the largest decrease since February of last year.

These cold, hard numbers cannot measure the unease and uncertainty many Americans feel today. The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index fell 2 more points in March after a 3 point drop in February. When your neighbor is out of work and cannot find a job, you worry that you might be next. So you hold off on buying that new washing machine, the new car you need to get to work, or you put that dream vacation on hold. Americans have experienced losses in their pensions and 401(k) plans. When you combine all of this with the uncertainty surrounding the war against terrorism and the war with Iraq, you create a great drag on the economy.

I think all of my colleagues agree that the economy is not where we want it to be right now. We agree that it needs a booster shot. We have partisan disagreement over specifics and the size of the stimulus. But if we put aside our partisan differences, I believe we can come up with a bipartisan solution to help the economy in the short term.

We can accomplish this if we agree on a few, narrow principles for an economic stimulus plan. First, we should aim toward providing an immediate boost to the economy. We do not need tax cuts that will only begin to help several years downs the road. The economy needs help today. Second, the urgent need for the boost today means that the economic stimulus plan must be simple and easy to administer so that full effects can be felt right away. Third, I believe that a stimulus plan must be fiscally responsible. While the economy needs a boost today, that boost should not come at the expense of our ability to meet our needs tomorrow. And finally, the stimulus package must be equitable. It must be fair. It should touch all Americans, not just a select few.

Today, along with my colleague Senator Corzine, I am introducing one idea for economic stimulus that meets all of these principles. We propose that all working Americans receive tax relief equivalent to the amount of payroll taxes paid on the first $10,000 of earnings--a total of $765. The rebate would be made in two installments. The first would come within 2 months of passage of the bill and the second would come by December 1st of this year. Employers would also receive an equivalent tax credit for their employees.

This plan meets the principles I have outlined. It is a short-term plan that will put spending money in the hands of working Americans. It will be simple to administer--rebate checks were a part of the tax cut we passed in 2001. The plan is fiscally responsible: the rebate checks will be paid out of general revenues and not from the Social Security trust fund. Finally, this plan is fair. Every working American will benefit.

Mr. President, I hope the Congress will act quickly to revive our economy. Today, Senator Corzine and I are putting one idea forward. My colleagues have a variety of other ideas that they will put forward. The Senate should look at each and put together a final package that is simple, immediate, fair, and fiscally responsible.