Blind Empowerment Act of 2003

Mr. President, today, I am re-introducing the American Indian Welfare Reform Act, an important step in improving the lives of this country's Native Americans. I originally introduced this bill last year and worked to include important elements of it in the welfare reform reauthorization bill approved by the Finance Committee. Unfortunately, we did not finish work on welfare reform reauthorization. So I am again offering this bill, with some improvements based on advice from tribes and other experts. I am glad to be joined by Senators Daschle, Johnson, Campbell, Bingaman, Inouye, and Akaka.

In 1996 we enacted a sweeping welfare reform law. It was a long past- due fundamental change and ended a failed system for helping low-income families in America. I was a strong supporter of that law. This year, we continue to work to reauthorize it. As we in the Finance Committee have reviewed the evidence I have been struck by how successful it has been. The ranks of those dependent on welfare in this country has been reduced by half in just five years. There is more to be done, of course. Child poverty has declined but not by as much as the fall in the welfare caseload, for example. I plan to work with my Finance Committee colleague Senator Grassley on comprehensive legislation to renew and improve the 1996 law.

One often overlooked important aspect of the 1996 law is that it didn't just devolve authority to States--it also permitted Indian tribes to operate their own welfare programs for the first time. The new welfare program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, is very flexible. Tribes can take advantage of that flexibility to design culturally-appropriate programs to move people from welfare to work. This is smart policy and is consistent with the important value of tribal sovereignty. I support it.

My own State of Montana is home to several tribes and I have given much thought to how we can build upon the provisions of the 1996 welfare law to help them and their members. Too often in Montana--and elsewhere--poverty has an Indian face. The numbers are cold and hard. According to the Census Bureau, 25.9 percent of American Indians live in poverty, more than twice the national poverty rate. The average household income for Indians in 2000 was only 75 percent of that of the rest of Americans. This is simply not right. We must do better. Welfare reform needs to work for everyone.

Luckily, the provisions of the 1996 law provide a good start. Now we must build upon them. The legislation I introduce today, the product of extensive dialogue and consultation, does that in several important ways.

First, more than 30 tribes--including the Confederated Salish- Kootenai and Fort Belknap tribes of Montana--have taken advantage of the opportunity to operate their own TANF programs. This bill contains provisions to help those tribes improve their programs. For example, under current law, tribes operating TANF are not eligible for the TANF high performance bonus or the TANF contingency fund while state TANF programs are. This oversight is rectified by this bill.

Second, there are many tribes interested in operating TANF programs who do not believe the current set-up allows them to do so. They want to exercise their sovereignty and adapt their program to better fit the needs of their people. We should help them do so. To that end, I propose creating a new grant fund to improve tribal governmental capacity. We have funded State administrative capacity for decades, helping States buy computer systems and train workers. We should do the same for tribal human services administration. Under this bill, a tribe which wants to operate TANF but needs to upgrade its computers to do it could receive the funding it needs--which will enable it to take over

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Tax Court Modernization Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this important legislation.

In 1969, Congress elevated the U.S. Tax Court as a Federal court of record under Article I of the Constitution of the United States.

Congress created the Tax Court to provide a judicial forum in which affected persons could dispute tax deficiencies determined by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service prior to payment of the disputed amounts. That means that the Tax Court's jurisdictional requirements are, in part, a recognition that lower and middle income taxpayers cannot necessarily pay the tax deficiency before taking their dispute to court.

Congress also closely linked the legislation governing the Tax Court with the laws governing the Article III District Courts. Unfortunately, the Congress did not include the Tax Court in the changes made for Article III courts.

This legislation is designed to restore parity between the Tax Court and Article III courts, and to modernize their personnel and pension systems.

I also want to thank Senators Breaux and Hatch for their efforts in moving this legislation forward. The Finance Committee intends to markup the Tax Court Modernization Act tomorrow. It is my hope that the Committee favorably reports the legislation. I also hope that, soon after Committee action, Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle bring the Tax Court Modernization Act to the floor for swift passage.

Mr. President, today Senator Grassley and I are taking a significant step forward in our efforts to simplify the tax code. Today, we are introducing an important simplification legislation--the Uniform Definition of Child Act.

This legislation is based on the support of many for simplification in this area of the tax law. The President's FY 2004 budget, which was released on April 15, 2002, includes a simplification proposal to provide a uniform definition of a qualifying child. This is the first in a series of Department of Treasury ``white papers'' on simplification.

The concept of a uniform definition of qualifying child also enjoys support from the American Bar Association, the American Institute of CPAs, the Tax Executives Institute, the Internal Revenue Service's Taxpayer Advocate, and staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Under current law, the complexity in this area is daunting. There are five commonly used provisions that provide benefits to taxpayers with children: the dependency exemption, the child credit, the earned income credit, the dependent care credit, and head of household filing status.

Each of the five provisions uses variations of four principal criteria to determine whether a taxpayer qualifies for applicable tax benefits with respect to a particular child: age of the child, relationship of the child to the taxpayer, residency of the child with the taxpayer, and the amount of financial support provided the child by the taxpayer.

Thus, a taxpayer is required to apply different definitions with respect to the same child when determining eligibility for these provisions. A taxpayer who qualifies with respect to a child for one provision does not necessarily qualify for another. As a result, publications, forms, instructions and schedules that are applicable to child related provisions number about 200 pages for the preparation of an individual income tax return.

A tremendous number of families are impacted by these Code provisions. For example, 44 million taxpayers claimed the dependency exemption in the 2001 tax year. The IRS also indicates that a significant portion of the issued math error notices are attributable to these five provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. In 1999, for example, 44 percent of the 7.6 million math error notices were attributable to these provisions--40 percent of the total math error notices were attributable the dependency exemption, the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit alone.

The legislation reduces complexity through reconciliation of the varying child definitions into a single definition for a ``qualifying child.'' The uniform child definition generally establishes eligibility for all five tax benefits if the child meets the age requirements described below, a relationship requirement, and a residency requirement--i.e., the child has the same principal place of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half the taxable year.

The residency requirement is an important departure from current law in which the child tax benefits frequently rely upon financial support tests which impose significantly higher administrative burdens in the form of additional record-keeping not otherwise required under the tax law. The legislation also preserves the tax rights of children who provide more than half of their own support by excluding those children from the uniform definition of a qualifying child.

The underlying policy objectives of the present law provisions are retained. For example, the legislation retains underlying policy by not adjusting the ages of qualification--i.e., under age for the dependent care credit, under age 17 for the child tax credit, and under age 19-- or age 24 if a full-time student for the dependency exemption, the earned income tax credit, and head of household filing status.

The legislation applies a single relationship test to the varying Code sections. Significantly, the proposal retains current law as an alternative to the extent that a person does not meet the revised uniform child definition--e.g., an elderly parent can still be claimed for purposes of the dependency exemption.

Under the Uniform Definition of Child Act, there will be instances in which multiple taxpayers qualify with respect to a given child. To address this issue, the proposal extends the present law earned income credit tie-breaker rule to the other benefits for multiple eligible claimants. That rule awards the tax benefit (i) to a parent over a non- parent, (ii) to the parent with longer residency or the highest AGI if residency is not determinative between parents, and (iii) to the taxpayer with the highest AGI if all claimants are non-parents. Finally, the legislation continues to allow divorced or separated spouses to assign the dependency exemption and the child tax credit to non-custodial parents provided that certain support and residency tests are met.

Simplification of the tax code should be more than just rhetoric. It is time for us to put legislation behind our words. We intend to continue to look at other areas of the tax code in need of simplification.

Senator Grassley and I also want to thank our Finance Committee colleagues, Senators Hatch, Thomas and Lincoln, for their support of the Uniform Definition of Child Act of 2003. Simplification of the tax laws for the families of our nation is not partisan, it is not political, it is simply common sense.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Uniform Definition of Child Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Today, Mr. President, violent conflicts and other global threats and humanitarian concerns extend across many parts of our world. We are at war with Iraq. North Korea possesses nuclear weapons. HIV/AIDS is pandemic. And, terrorism threatens our daily lives.

Our world is, indeed, a very dangerous and unstable place. We know this. And, while we are well aware of the many global ``hotspots''--the conflicts and the violence and the human suffering--there are parts of the world, which I believe, we have neglected. There are parts of the world, where human tragedy is the order of the day--where children are killed, where women are raped and beaten, and where people are routinely tortured--their bodies maimed and mutilated.

One area of the world where such atrocities are occurring on a daily basis is in Sierra Leone, Africa. For at least a decade, Sierra Leone, one of the world's poorest nations, has been embroiled in civil war. Rebel groups--most notably, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF)--have been fighting for years to overthrow the recognized government. In the process, violence has erupted as the rebels have fought to seize control of the country's profitable diamond fields, which in turn, helps finance their terrorist regime.

Once in control of a diamond field, the rebels confiscate the diamonds and then launder them onto the legitimate market through other nearby nations, like Liberia. Known as ``conflict'' or ``blood'' diamonds, these gems are a very lucrative business for the rebel groups. In fact, over the past decade, the rebels have smuggled out of Africa approximately $10 billion dollars in these diamonds.

It is nearly impossible to distinguish the illegally gathered diamonds from legitimate or ``clean'' stones. And so, regrettably and unwittingly, the United States--as the world's biggest buyer of diamonds--has contributed to the violence. Our nation accounted for more than half of the $57.5 billion in global retail diamond trade last year, and some estimates suggest that illegal diamonds from Africa account for as much as 15 percent of the overall diamond trade.

Since the start of the rebel's quest for control of Sierra Leone's diamond supply, half of the nation's population of 4.5 million have left their homes, and at least a half-million have left the country. But, it is the children of Sierra Leone who are bearing the biggest brunt of the rebel insurgency. For over eight years, the RUF has conscripted children--children often as young as 7 or 8 years old--to be soldiers in their make-shift army. They have ripped at least 12,000 children from their families.

As a result of deliberate and systematic brutalization, child soldiers have become some of the most vicious--and effective--fighters within the rebel factions. The rebel army--child-soldiers included--has terrorized Sierra Leone's population, killing, abducting, raping, and hacking off the limbs of victims with their machetes. This chopping off of limbs is the RUF's trademark strategy. In Freetown, the surgeons are frantic. Scores of men, women, and children--their hands partly chopped off--have flooded the main hospital. Amputating as quickly as they can, doctors toss severed hands into a communal bucket.

The RUF frequently and forcibly injects the children with cocaine in preparation for battle. In many cases, the rebels force the child- soldiers at gunpoint to kill their own family members or neighbors and friends. Not only are these children traumatized by what they are forced to do, they also are afraid to be reunited with their families because of the possibility of retribution.

Mr. President, I cannot understate nor can I fully describe the horrific abuses these children are suffering. The most vivid accounts come from the child-soldiers themselves. I'd like to read a few of their stories, taken from Amnesty International's 1998 report, ``Sierra Leone--A Year of Atrocities against Civilians.'' According to one child's recollection:

Civilians were rounded up, in groups or in lines, and then

taken individually to a pounding block in the village where

their hands, arms, or legs were cut with a machete. In some

villages, after the civilians were rounded up, they were

stripped naked. Men were then ordered to rape members of

their own family. If they refused, their arms were cut off

and the women were raped by rebel forces, often in front of

their husbands . . . victims of these atrocities also

reported women and children being rounded up and locked into

houses which were then set [on fire].

A young man from Lunsar, describing a rebel attack, said this:

Ten people were captured by the rebels and they asked us to

form a [line]. My brother was removed from the [line], and

they killed him with a rifle, and they cut his head with a

knife. After this, they killed his pregnant wife. There was

an argument among the rebels about the sex of the baby she

was carrying, so they decided to open her stomach to see the

baby.

According to Komba, a teenager:

My legs were cut with blades and cocaine was rubbed in the

wounds. Afterwards, I felt like a big person. I saw the other

people like chickens and rats. I wanted to kill them.

Rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual abuse of girls and women have been systematic, organized, and widespread. Many of those abducted have been forced to become the ``wives'' of combatants.

According to Isatu, an abducted teenage girl:

I did not want to go; I was forced to go. They killed a lot

of women who refused to go with them.

She was forced to become the sexual partner of the combatant who captured her and is now the mother of their three-month-old baby:

When they capture young girls, you belong to the soldier

who captured you. I was `married' to him.

We are losing these children--an entire generation of children. If the situation does not improve, these kids have no future. But, as long as the rebel's diamond trade remains unchallenged, nothing will change.

That is why I have been working with Senators Durbin, Feingold, and Gregg for over two years to pass legislation that would help stem this illegal trade in conflict diamonds. Together, we have worked extensively with our House colleagues, including my good friend and former colleague from Ohio, Tony Hall, and Frank Wolf from Virginia, to develop much needed legislation to help remove the rebel's market incentive.

And, while we have not yet been successful in getting this legislation signed into law, I credit my colleagues' continued commitment to this often forgotten issue. I know our countless congressional hearings, meetings, letters and legislative initiatives have encouraged the Administration and the international community to keep this issue alive. We have kept the pressure on, and we are beginning to see some positive results.

Mr. President, just this past January 1st, an international agreement called the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme was launched. Specifically, this is a voluntary, international diamond certification system among over 50 participant countries, including all of the major diamond producing and trading countries. This is a positive step in the right direction, and I commend the tireless work of human rights

advocates and the diamond industry for making this certification system a reality.

Because of their success, Mr. President, today we are faced with the urgent need of providing legislative measures to enable effective U.S. implementation of the certification scheme. We need to provide the Administration with the authorization necessary to ensure U.S. compliance with this global, regulatory framework. That is why I am here today to introduce legislation that commits the United States to mandatory implementation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.

I join my distinguished colleagues, Senators Grassley, Durbin, Feingold, Bingaman, Talent, and Snowe, to introduce the ``Clean Diamond Trade Act.'' This legislation is very similar to a measure introduced in the House last week, H.R. 1415. Our bill is very simple. The whole idea behind it is to commit the United States to a system of controls on the export and import of diamonds, so that buyers can be certain that their purchases are not fueling the rebel campaign.

Specifically, our legislation would prohibit the import of any rough diamond that has not been controlled through the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. Put simply, this means that every diamond brought into the United States would require a certificate of origin and authenticity, indicating that a rebel or terrorist group has not laundered it onto the legitimate market.

Additionally, the bill calls on the President to report annually to Congress on the control system's effectiveness and also requires the General Accounting Office to report on the law's effectiveness within two years of enactment.

Finally, Mr. President, our bill emphasizes that the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is an ongoing process and that our government should continue to work with the international community to strengthen the effectiveness of this global regulatory framework. As the world's biggest diamond customer--purchasing well over half of the world's diamonds--our nation has a moral responsibility to show continued leadership on this issue.

Quite candidly, there are a lot of things in this world--a lot of terrible, tragic things--that we don't have the power to change or to fix. But today, we can change something. We can make a difference. We have the power to help put an end to the indescribable suffering and violence caused by diamond-related conflicts. We have that power, and we must use it. And so, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this much-needed legislation.

We have an obligation--a moral responsibility--to help stop the violence, the brutality, the needless killing and maiming. No other child should kill or be killed in diamond-related conflicts. I believe that it is absolutely imperative that we pass the bill we have introduced quickly and help end these atrocities once and for all.

It is the humane thing to do. It is the right thing to do. It is the only thing to do.

I thank the Chair and yield the Floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation, which will have a tremendous impact on the lives of blind people throughout the country. In 1996, with the passage of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, Congress broke the historic 20-year link between blind people and senior citizens in regards to the Social Security earnings. Previously, that linkage to earnings limits helped many blind people become self-sufficient and productive members of society.

The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act raised the earnings limit for seniors, without giving blind people the same opportunity. My intent when I sponsored that legislation was not to break the link between blind people and the senior population. Since then, I have worked with a bipartisan group of senators, in the spirit of fairness, to ensure that the blind population receives a raise in earnings limits, similar to that afforded to seniors under the 1996 Act. We must not continue policies which discourage blind individuals from working and contributing to our nation. I believe we should provide blind people with the opportunity to be productive and ``make it'' on their own.

Today I am joined by my good friend Senator Dodd, and a bipartisan group of senators, in introducing the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003. This bill is

similar in purpose to the Blind Person's Earnings Equity Act, which I sponsored in previous Congresses. Over a five year period of time, the Blind Empowerment Act raises the earnings exemption for blind persons to afford them with greater flexibility to achieve their professional and personal goals, without sacrificing Social Security benefits.

The earnings test treatment of our blind and senior populations historically has been identical. From 1977, blind persons and senior citizens shared the identical earnings exemption threshold under Title II of the Social Security Act. The earnings limit for the blind is currently $1,330 a month for fiscal year (FY) 2003, had the link not been broken in the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, it would be $2,560 today. Senior citizens are now given unlimited opportunity to increase their earnings without losing a portion of their Social Security benefits. The blind, however, have been left behind.

The Social Security earnings test imposes as great a work disincentive for blind people as it once did for senior citizens. In fact, the earnings test probably provides a greater aggregate disincentive for blind individuals because many blind beneficiaries are of working age and are capable of valuable and productive work.

Blindness is often associated with adverse social and economic consequences. Many blind individuals who desperately want to work encounter enormous obstacles to achieve sustained employment or any employment at all. They take great pride in being able to work and contribute to society. By linking the blind with seniors in 1977, Congress provided a great deal of hope and an incentive for blind people to enter the work force. By not allowing blind individuals the opportunity to increase their earnings, as we have for senior citizens, we are now taking that hope away from them.

Blind people are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the earnings test by working more, which will increase their tax payments and purchasing power allowing the blind to make a greater contribution to the general economy. In addition, encouraging blind individuals to work and allowing them to work more without being penalized would bring additional revenue into the Social Security trust funds as well as the federal Treasury.

I hope that this Congress will finally address issues regarding the overall structure of the Social Security system and work towards solutions that will strengthen the system for seniors of today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is absolutely crucial that we include raising the earnings test for blind individuals as a part of any Social Security bill we enact this year.

I urge each of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003, to restore fair and equitable treatment for our blind citizens and to give the blind community increased financial independence. Our Nation would be better served if we restore hope for the blind and provide them with the freedom, opportunities and fairness afforded to our Nation's seniors.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation, which will have a tremendous impact on the lives of blind people throughout the country. In 1996, with the passage of the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, Congress broke the historic 20-year link between blind people and senior citizens in regards to the Social Security earnings. Previously, that linkage to earnings limits helped many blind people become self-sufficient and productive members of society.

The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act raised the earnings limit for seniors, without giving blind people the same opportunity. My intent when I sponsored that legislation was not to break the link between blind people and the senior population. Since then, I have worked with a bipartisan group of senators, in the spirit of fairness, to ensure that the blind population receives a raise in earnings limits, similar to that afforded to seniors under the 1996 Act. We must not continue policies which discourage blind individuals from working and contributing to our nation. I believe we should provide blind people with the opportunity to be productive and ``make it'' on their own.

Today I am joined by my good friend Senator Dodd, and a bipartisan group of senators, in introducing the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003. This bill is

similar in purpose to the Blind Person's Earnings Equity Act, which I sponsored in previous Congresses. Over a five year period of time, the Blind Empowerment Act raises the earnings exemption for blind persons to afford them with greater flexibility to achieve their professional and personal goals, without sacrificing Social Security benefits.

The earnings test treatment of our blind and senior populations historically has been identical. From 1977, blind persons and senior citizens shared the identical earnings exemption threshold under Title II of the Social Security Act. The earnings limit for the blind is currently $1,330 a month for fiscal year (FY) 2003, had the link not been broken in the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act, it would be $2,560 today. Senior citizens are now given unlimited opportunity to increase their earnings without losing a portion of their Social Security benefits. The blind, however, have been left behind.

The Social Security earnings test imposes as great a work disincentive for blind people as it once did for senior citizens. In fact, the earnings test probably provides a greater aggregate disincentive for blind individuals because many blind beneficiaries are of working age and are capable of valuable and productive work.

Blindness is often associated with adverse social and economic consequences. Many blind individuals who desperately want to work encounter enormous obstacles to achieve sustained employment or any employment at all. They take great pride in being able to work and contribute to society. By linking the blind with seniors in 1977, Congress provided a great deal of hope and an incentive for blind people to enter the work force. By not allowing blind individuals the opportunity to increase their earnings, as we have for senior citizens, we are now taking that hope away from them.

Blind people are likely to respond favorably to an increase in the earnings test by working more, which will increase their tax payments and purchasing power allowing the blind to make a greater contribution to the general economy. In addition, encouraging blind individuals to work and allowing them to work more without being penalized would bring additional revenue into the Social Security trust funds as well as the federal Treasury.

I hope that this Congress will finally address issues regarding the overall structure of the Social Security system and work towards solutions that will strengthen the system for seniors of today and tomorrow without placing an unfair burden on working Americans. It is absolutely crucial that we include raising the earnings test for blind individuals as a part of any Social Security bill we enact this year.

I urge each of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003, to restore fair and equitable treatment for our blind citizens and to give the blind community increased financial independence. Our Nation would be better served if we restore hope for the blind and provide them with the freedom, opportunities and fairness afforded to our Nation's seniors.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Blind Empowerment Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, to introduce a bill that will promote the expanded use of an environmentally sound and efficient energy technology--fuel cell power.

The United States has had a long, inseparable relationship with energy. The Americans of the 19th century would not have populated the West as they did without the railroad and its steam engines. New York's Pearl Street Station, designed by Thomas Edison in 1882, demonstrated the immense possibilities of large-scale electricity generation that would revolutionize our Nation and the world. And, of course, the 20th century is posted with landmark American innovations an inventions in oil use and production, nuclear power, and solar energy.

As we begin our journey into the 21st century, we must begin a new chapter for energy use through fuel cell power. Fuel cells are not a futuristic dream, as every manned U.S. space mission has relied upon fuel cells for electricity and drinking water. From a New York City police station to a postal facility in Alaska to hospitals, schools, banks, military installations and manufacturing facilities around the world, fuel cell units are efficiently generating dependable power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for upwards of 2 years with only routine maintenance.

Fuel cell technology offers a clean, secure, efficient, and dependable source of energy that should be part of our national energy strategy. Not only do fuel cells deliver the high quality, reliable power that is considered an absolute necessity for many portions of our society, they reduce grid demand while improving grid flexibility. Fuel cells are an ideal energy source to address the Nation's pressing energy needs.

Using electro-chemical reaction to convert energy from hydrogen-rich fuel cell sources into electricity, fuel cells reduce the need for fossil fuel consumption. And, since no combustion is involved, fuel cells produce virtually no air pollution and significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the major greenhouse gas thought to be responsible for climate change variability. In fact, a 200 kilowatt fuel power plant produces less than one ounce of pollutants for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity it yields. In comparison, the average fossil fuel plans produces nearly 25 pounds of pollutants to generate the same 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity. That is 400 times the amount of a fuel cell power plant.

The current problem is that it is difficult for the consumer to take advantage of fuel cells because, as with any new technology, the introductory price is high. To create the market incentives necessary to speed the commercialization of this technology, the Lieberman-Snow legislation provides a property owner a five year, $1,000 per kilowatt stationary fuel cell tax credit, including labor and installation costs, for business and non business power plants--stationary and portable--that have an electrical generation efficiency greater than 30 percent and generate at least 0.5 kilowatts of electricity using an electrochemical process. To put this electrical generation in perspective, a home uses approximately 1 to 2 kilowatts of power, on average.

By lowering the initial price for consumers, market introduction and production volume of fuel cells will be accelerated with the end result being a significant reduction in manufacturing costs. The decrease in price would enable even more consumers to use one of the cleanest, most reliable and most efficient means to generate electricity. This tailored fuel cell tax credit for a stationary and portable fuel cells is designed to benefit the widest range of potential fuel cell customers and manufacturers with a meaningful incentive for the purchase of fuel cells for residential and commercial use.

As summer approaches, power shortages and interruptions can be expected throughout the country. We must increase our investment and commitment to non-traditional energy sources such as fuel cells. This reliable, combustion-free power provided by fuel cells in a sensible alternative that is available today. I urge my colleagues to support us for a sensible fuel cell power tax credit.