Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act of 2003

Mr. President, my amendment is not a low-level yield amendment.

The amendment numbered 750 is at the desk for consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, we are debating the question of whether this country ought to begin developing new nuclear weapons, an important debate, as about important a debate we will have in this Senate in a while. The press gallery is empty because this is not some sex scandal. It does not have sensational aspects to it. It is not a murder investigation. It is about whether this country ought to decide now to begin producing additional nuclear weapons.

I regret this is not debated and reported as a major national initiative so that the American people can be part of this discussion in our democracy. But it is not. I feel very strongly that where we are headed at the moment is in the wrong direction.

I told my colleagues before about a fellow from North Dakota I have always kind of enjoyed watching. He is called the flying farmer from Makoti. Some have heard me tell about it. The flying farmer from Makoti, a guy in a small town of 80 people, Makoti, ND, who drives a car, goes to county fairs and builds himself a ramp and jumps over cars, kind of a dare devil. His name is John Smith. He is actually in the Guiness Book of Records because he drove a car in reverse 500 miles averaging 36 anywhere. That is the claim to fame of the flying farmer from Makoti.

I think to myself, he has nothing over the Senate, especially on this issue. We are fixing to go in reverse a good long ways, with pretty aggressive speed, on the issue of nuclear policy.

We have had in this country an understanding that with respect to nuclear weapons, we have them as a deterrent. We do not have them to use; we have them as a deterrent. We now have people walking around this town engaged in policy discussions, talking about ``usable'' nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons? It is just another weapon. In fact, let's talk about not just nuclear weapons, let's talk about low-yield nuclear weapons. Programs, they say, are mininuclear weapons or micronuclear weapons, usable nuclear weapons. Let's do designer nuclear weapons, they say. Let's now build a new nuclear weapon as a bunker buster nuclear weapon. I have no idea what they are thinking about.

In the paper today we have statements in this debate. We have to go ahead and develop new nuclear weapons because we do not want to tie the hands of our military. If we would not allow additional nuclear weapons to be developed, we would be the only country in the world that cannot produce new nuclear weapons. What on Earth are we thinking about?

Here is the nuclear stockpile for those who cannot sleep at night. There are some apparently who cannot sleep because we do not have enough nuclear weapons. I want to give you a sedative. We have roughly 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world--roughly. No one knows exactly, but these are the best estimates. North Korea, we think, has two or three. Pakistan has some, India has some, United Kingdom has more than a few, Israel, France, China, the United States, 10,600 nuclear weapons--we think, strategic and theater nuclear weapons--and Russia, 18,600 nuclear weapons.

Now, I mentioned yesterday that about a year and a half ago following September 11 there was a threat. Our intelligence community assessed a threat against this country. The threat was that someone has to have stolen a nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal. Terrorists had stolen a nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal and was preparing to detonate that nuclear weapon in this country in either New York or Washington, DC. The intelligence threat picked up, deemed perhaps credible, who knew, and so for a period of time it did not hit the press. For a period of time there was a seizure that terrorists might have a nuclear weapon, might detonate it in the middle of an American city. And then we are not talking 3,000 deaths, we are talking hundreds of thousands of deaths. It was determined a couple of months later that was not a credible threat, and we moved on.

But interestingly enough, the lesson from it was that it was perfectly plausible, to most, that a weapon could have been stolen in Russia, and it was plausible that a terrorist having stolen a nuclear weapon in Russia could have detonated it, had the capability to detonate it. Perfectly plausible.

We have discussed before the command and control of these nuclear weapons in Russia. We know they do not have the safeguards we would like. We know there are three-ring binders with hand notations about inventories of nuclear weapons; 30,000 of them exist in this world. We had a seizure about one being stolen, one being stolen and everyone is greatly concerned, as they should be.

So today we come to the Senate with a bill that says the following: We are not strong enough. We are not secure enough. We are worried about our future. What we need to do is build more nuclear weapons. We need to build low-yield nuclear weapons.

What is a low-yield nuclear weapon? That is one-third the size of the one in Hiroshima. And we need to do bunker buster nuclear weapons, earth penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapons. That is my amendment. It strikes the $11 million in this bill, prevents the opportunity to continue a design, a development, or manufacturer of bunker busting nuclear weapons, development testing, engineering, no funds authorized for feasibility study on the nuclear earth penetrator weapon.

So the question for the Senate in this amendment is very simple. Do you think you cannot sleep at night because we do not have enough nuclear weapons and the only way you will get a good night's rest is if you can build an earth penetrator bunker buster nuclear weapon?

Is that what you think? If so, then vote against my amendment. Katy bar the door. Let's develop another nuclear weapon. We are saying to the rest of the world with this nonsense, we have the right of preemption. We will now renounce the doctrine of first use. We believe there are ``usable'' nuclear weapons, and we need to build low-yield nuclear weapons--new ones. We reserve the right to build nuclear weapons despite the fact that we have had a moratorium for a decade. We believe we ought to have a bunker buster nuclear weapon. You know what the message is to India, to Pakistan, and to other countries that want nuclear weapons: That this country doesn't think we ought to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, or that we ought to prevent the use of nuclear weapons but that we need to bulk up and build new ones, and that we believe they are potentially usable in some future conflict.

That is exactly the wrong message this country ought to be sending to anybody in the rest of the world. What we ought to be telling the rest of the world is we have 10,600, roughly, nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them as a deterrent against anyone who would threaten our liberty.

We don't need more. To build more is simply a green light to every other country in the world that wants to become part of the nuclear community.

I come from a State that understands defense. I support a strong defense. My votes in the Congress will show that. I support a very strong, robust defense system in this country. We have two air bases in the State of North Dakota. One is for K-135 tankers, and the other has both the Minuteman Missile with Mark 12-A warheads, as well as B-52 bombers.

Some have said that if the State of North Dakota seceded from the Union, it would be the third most powerful country in the world.

I know a little something about this. I have seen a nuclear weapon close up. I have studied what they do and what the impact of nuclear weapons are. I have tried to understand deterrent capability.

All of us know that with a world full of nuclear weapons we have been very blessed that we have not had a war with nuclear weapons. All of us know that. As I said yesterday, I have kept in my desk for some long while pieces of material that remind us that the proper approach to dealing with this threat is the approach we have used under Nunn-Lugar and other arms control and arms reduction treaties. This is a piece of metal taken from the shaft of an S-24 missile that had a warhead aimed at the United States. Where that missile was buried in the Soviet Union are now sunflowers. There is no missile. The warhead is gone. There are sunflowers at the place.

How that happened is we paid for the destruction of that missile. We didn't shoot it down. We destroyed it with American taxpayer dollars under arms control agreements.

This is copper metal from a ground-up Russian submarine. We didn't sink the submarine. We destroyed it under Nunn-Lugar and arms control reduction. We paid to have the submarine destroyed.

I also have a metal piece in my desk from a wing flap from a Soviet bomber. We didn't shoot it down. We paid to have the wing sawed off, and that bomber was destroyed with arms reductions and arms control money from Nunn-Lugar.

The fact is we know what succeeds. We know what has reduced tensions and reduced delivery systems. Yet we are told today that America will only be safer in this new day and in this new age of terrorism if we begin building new types of nuclear weapons. We are told by people in positions of significant responsibility in this town with policy roles and responsibility that it is not unthinkable for us to talk about ``usable'' nuclear weapons. In fact, such discussions have occurred in the pages of our Nation's major newspapers with respect to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Let me talk for a moment about the so-called bunker buster or earth penetrator nuclear weapons. This is about whether we should begin the research in this new weapon. They are talking about a bunker buster. I assume they are talking bunker busters because of Afghanistan. I went to Afghanistan. I flew over the mountains where deep in the caves of Afghanistan this twisted, sick, demented murderer named Osama bin Laden with his people plotted the murder of innocent Americans. I understand. They have caves there. I understand it was not easy for us to deal with those caves.

The result is that we have people saying we need an earth penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapon. They are talking the size of a bunker buster up to nearly 70 times larger than Hiroshima. Hiroshima was 15 kilotons.

It seems to me that if you build a 1-megaton nuclear weapon as a bunker buster you are going to bust a whole lot more than a bunker. I am guessing you bust a mountain, you bust the territory for miles and miles and miles around, and you bust any living creature. So I don't know. If the bigger the explosion, the safer we are, the more security we have, then be my guest; I guess this would be your weapon. But the question at this moment in time, at this intersection in America history is, Is this what we want to do?

If today the trucks are moving in North Korea taking spent fuel rods from the nuclear plant, if today those trucks are moving in a way that takes that material to be produced in a nuclear weapon to be sold to terrorists, in a way that has a nuclear weapon showing up 14 months from now in a major American city, is our first responsibility in the Congress and in this country to say what we really need are more nuclear weapons? We have 10,600. Is that really our response? Or ought we decide that there are bigger issues and more important issues for us to be talking about with North Korea and the rest of the world?

Those issues include stopping the spread of nuclear weapons now. I mean stopping the spread now. We have so many countries and so many groups that want access to nuclear weapons. Our job is to be the world leader. We are the superpower. We have the largest economic engine in the world, and we are the military superpower in the world. We, unfortunately or fortunately, have the responsibility and the mantle on our shoulders to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. It is on our watch. It is our job. It is not someone else's job.

How do we stop the spread of nuclear weapons and decide to send the signal to the rest of the world that nuclear weapons cannot be used in this world of ours? Once you start moving nuclear weapons back and forth in anger, this Earth as we know it is gone.

Those people who talk about ``survivable'' nuclear weapons are nuts, just nuts. They still think about tank wars. You have 200 tanks; we have 100 tanks. Then we have a battle. Who has how many tanks remaining? Or if we have 200 and you have 100, that is not the way nuclear war will exist on the face of this Earth.

The only opportunity we have for our children and grandchildren is to prevent the use of nuclear weapons--not to talk about the use of nuclear weapons, which some are now doing. It is in their minds practical to talk about this new day and new age of threat security issues, and to talk about the potential of use of nuclear weapons.

It is interesting to me that in the middle of all of this discussion--even in this bill--I mentioned yesterday that we are going to have $9 billion in this bill for a national missile defense system to intercept an ICBM sent to us by either a rogue state or a terrorist.

First, terrorists and rogue states aren't going to get ICBMs. It is very unlikely. Their delivery of choice is going to be in a container on a tanker ship. It is not going to come in at 18,000 miles an hour. It will come in at 3 miles an hour to a dock in a major American city.

The lowest threat on the threat meter in this country we are spending the most money on is national defense, and the highest threat has the least expenditure. Regrettably, that is the appetite for these programs in the Senate. But when you talk about threat, the threat, it seems to me, is that this country will decide that it makes a U-turn on public policy here with respect to nuclear policy and decide it says to the rest of the world, here is a green light. The green light is to build additional nuclear weapons. We want to build so-called low-yield nuclear weapons, which is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as a low- yield nuclear weapon. We want to build them. Guess what Russia will be saying. We want to build some, too, then. There you go. We want to build earth penetrator bunker buster nuclear weapons. So will others. So we spark a new arms race. Instead of reducing the number of nuclear weapons and making this world a safer place, we will increase the number of nuclear weapons and will actually have other countries understanding that it is our country that talks about the potential use of nuclear weapons in future conflicts.

I think this is the most Byzantine thing I have witnessed in all the years I have served in the Congress. I do not have the foggiest idea how this is not met with the reaction by the American people: What on Earth could you be thinking about? Or aren't you thinking at all? I just do not understand it.

I likely will lose this amendment. It is a small amendment. The amendment deals with a relatively small amount of money but a critically important principle. I am just trying to take one piece out of this bill, the piece that says: Let's start the research to move toward an earth penetrating bunker buster nuclear weapon. Let's just start. Let's just take the first step.

I am saying: Let's not.

If you cannot sleep at night because we have 10,600 nuclear weapons, you are

not going to sleep better at night because you have a bunker buster high-yield jumbo buster nuclear weapon. That is not going to make you sleep better. Take some sleeping pills.

I am happy to yield.

That is correct.

I am sorry, I do not understand your question. Would you rephrase the question.

For purposes of the Senator from Virginia, giving him comfort, let me say my amendment will end the second step. If his point is the research for the bunker buster nuclear weapon was last year a first step, then let me suggest to you my amendment will withhold the money so we do not take the second step.

However, I think the larger point the Senator from Virginia understands. The step this country wants to take, to say there are usable nuclear weapons, that there are designer nuclear weapons that can be produced with lower and higher yields for special kinds of uses is a very dangerous step and exactly the wrong step for those of us who believe our leadership responsibility is both to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. I think the larger point the Senator from Virginia understands. But if he is more comfortable with my saying we will stop the second step rather than the first step, we will stop whatever steps are taken in the wrong direction, in my judgment.

If I may use the word credibility, as the Senator from Virginia did, let me say to those who might listen to this debate or watch this debate, it is incredible to believe Congress will be in charge of every step of the development of this program. That is preposterous. That is not the case on any defense system of which I am aware.

My amendment is very simple, I say to the Senator from Virginia. My amendment prohibits the use of these funds. You did not talk about prohibiting funds. You want to fund it. You want to authorize it. You want to move ahead with it. That is fine. We have a disagreement about that. But there is no credibility issue here.

The question is whether this country wants, with this legislation, to say to the rest of the world, By the way, we have embarked on a new venture here and with this new venture, whether it is last year or this year, it is decided we need new nuclear weapons including bunker busting nuclear weapons.

If the answer to that is yes, that's what we want to do, then the answer is we vote with my colleague from Virginia. If you believe it is moving in exactly the wrong direction, it is driving 500 miles in reverse like the flying farmer from Makoti, if you really believe this is stepping backward, as I do, and dangerous for the rest of the world, you vote no. You vote to strip the money.

Look, money is money, as you know. This $11 million, $15 million is probably not a lot of money to some. But my amendment strips that money to say let's stop this. We do not need earth penetrating bunker busting nuclear weapons. Does the Senator from Virginia believe at this moment we can't sleep because we don't have bunker busting earth penetrating nuclear weapons?

I am sorry, if the Senator wants to talk about credibility, let me correct the Senator, if you do not mind. On page 2 of my amendment it prohibits it for the year 2004, because that's all I can do, with respect to 2004.

And for the year 2004 it says: No funds authorized or appropriated or otherwise made available, et cetera, for a feasibility study.

Let me finish my point. If we are going to be completely accurate here.

That was my understanding.

Let me just make this point because I think it is important. I, too, want to be accurate. I want to be accurate on my side and your side. My amendment prohibits the use of funds

for the earth penetrator weapon to be ``obligated or expended for development, testing, or engineering on a nuclear earth penetrator weapon.'' That is perpetual. And ``(b) Prohibition on Use of Fiscal Year 2004 Funds'' deals only with this fiscal year.

So to be perfectly accurate, the question of the withholding of funds with respect to the feasibility study only applies to this fiscal year. It is not permanently banning that funding because I can only ban it for this year. So I just want to make that point.

I am happy to yield and happy to engage in this colloquy, but I think the issue is quite simple actually: Either one believes we ought to have new nuclear weapons, earth penetrating bunker busters--and I don't remember exactly who showed up to testify yesterday; someone from the Joint Chiefs, I guess, and they have told us that somewhere around the world, somebody is auguring deep into the earth, God forbid, and we might well need a nuclear weapon to go get them.

I would say to people who come around here with those stories: Go get some fresh air. Put some sugar on your cereal. I don't, for the life of me--there are people around here, I swear to you, who, if told our adversaries were creating a cavalry, would be on the floor trying to buy horses. I don't understand this notion that there is a rumor that somebody is doing something, so let's create a new nuclear weapon.

The reason I offer this specific amendment, I say to the Senator from Virginia, is that I know they talked about this in Afghanistan, in Iraq. And they talked about the issue of ``usable'' nuclear weapons. They talked about the difficulty in caves. I have flown over those mountains. I have seen those mountains and the caves. But for us to come back here and say: Oh, by the way, our new global strategy is to create a new class of nuclear weapons--I think that has profound implications with respect to the stability and the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.

No, it does not.

First of all, read the last words, ``development, testing, or engineering,'' and then compare that to (b) in which I am talking about the feasibility study. I am withholding the funds from the feasibility study. I was attempting to make that distinction for you.

I am all for that statement: Why waste money? I am all for that. If the proposition is, what I am trying to do is tell the Defense Department, don't waste money, then sign me up and count me in.

I have deep respect for my colleague from Virginia. We are friends. We disagree on this issue.

Let me make a final point. I know others want to speak on this matter. We are now in a new environment in which the language about the nuclear threat has changed dramatically. We have people who say we really need to begin nuclear testing once again. We have people who say we ought not forswear the first use of nuclear weapons; first use might in some circumstances be perfectly plausible. We have some who say nuclear weapons are ``usable'' as tactical issues, as strategic issues on the battlefield, they are usable nuclear weapons we ought to be considering. There are people who say we need new kinds of nuclear weapons--bigger ones, the jumbo ones, which is the earth penetrator, and smaller ones, the smaller, mininuclear weapons that would be one- third the size of Hiroshima, which certainly is not mini, but that is what they say.

We have people saying all these things in this country, some of them in very responsible policy positions. I think the rest of the world sees all that, listens to that, looks at bills such as this, and says: You know what, the United States has 10,600 nuclear weapons in its arsenal. And they say they need more? And they say they have a right to use them? They will not renounce first use.

They say they want specific, more designer kinds of weapons for battlefield use.

They are saying: You know, the United States has changed. It used to be the United States did everything conceivable in its power to say: Never shall a nuclear weapon be used. Our nuclear weapons are deterrents, deterrents so they never can be used against us and never used against others. But now it has all changed, and there are people who think it is perfectly plausible, it is just another weapons program, just part of our weapons system.

Well, in 2003, with what is happening around the world--terrorists, India, Pakistan, North Korea--I cannot think of a more destructive piece of public policy than to continue with this kind of nonsense. It is not just wrong, it is dangerously wrong, in my judgment.

I yield the floor.

I am happy to yield the time to the Senator.

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

Madam President, I have sent a modification to the desk, a technical modification. I ask to have the modification agreed to.

Madam President, let me conclude with a few comments and indicate, as I should have, that Senator Feinstein of California, Senator Byrd, and Senator Bingaman are all cosponsors of my amendment. Let me conclude by saying I understand there is a difference of opinion about what defending America really is. I don't think it is defending our interests or providing greater national security to be involved in the creation of new nuclear weapons.

I believe the best way to defend our country, especially in a new day and age of terrorism, is to understand we must find ways to prevent terrorists from ever acquiring nuclear weapons, for they surely will use them. We saw what they did with a low-tech weapon, with jet airplanes full of fuel. That was a low-tech weapon.

The ability to acquire nuclear weapons will be a devastating consequence, especially for us in the United States, because terrorists will surely want to use them. It seems to me our job is to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, do everything conceivably possible to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and provide no green lights, no go signs for anybody in the world to believe that we think it is acceptable for the use of nuclear weapons; that we believe nuclear weapons are ``usable'' in battlefield circumstances; that we believe we ought to build additional nuclear weapons, understanding that others will as well. If we want to do low yield, they will also want to. If we want to do penetrating bunker busters, they will want to do them.

Our job, it seems to me, is to say the only success we will be able to claim in the future is that we prevented the spread of nuclear weapons and prevented their use and, over a long period of time, began to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.

Thirty thousand nuclear weapons exist on this earth. The detonation of one will represent the greatest calamity, or potentially represent the greatest calamity in the history of the world. The detonation of one relatively small nuclear weapon in the middle of a major American city could likely cause hundreds of thousands of deaths.

This is a big issue. This is very important. I think people walking around this town talking about usable nuclear weapons, beginning to test nuclear weapons once again, building new designer nuclear weapons, is a terrible mistake. It is sending a signal to the

rest of the world that nuclear weapons are like other weapons. They are not. They are not like other weapons. The only value of a nuclear weapon for us has been as a deterrent to prevent others from using them.

We must, it seems to me, from this day forward, with the world populated by 30,000 nuclear weapons, find a way to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people, to stop the proliferation, and to begin to reduce their number. That ultimately represents our security. That is the way to defend this country: to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, not to build more.

I suspect we will see on this amendment, as we have on the previous amendments, that I will come up short on the vote. I regret that very much. I so strongly believe this country is sending a terrible signal to the rest of the world--Russia, China, Pakistan, India, you name it. I think this is a dreadful mistake. It does not strengthen this country. In my judgment, it makes this country more vulnerable in the long term.

Let me finish as I started. I have been the strongest supporter of this country's system of defense. I voted for the Defense bills. I worked on weapons systems. I think this country needs a robust, strong defense. I have always felt that way. I come from a State with two military airbases and the best Air National Guard in the country. I understand B-52s, KC-135 tankers, and Minuteman missiles.

I support a strong, robust defense. Nuclear weapons are different. They are different. They threaten the very existence of the world as we know it, and that is why it must be dealt with differently. That is why I offer this amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

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.

What is the balance of time remaining?

Mr. President, I thank both colleagues, the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Michigan. I pick up on the statement of my working partner here for so many years, the distinguished ranking member.

What the Senator from Virginia is endeavoring to do today is much like what the Senator from Michigan was endeavoring to do during the markup.

Let us quietly try to assist our colleagues as they formulate their decisions as to what position to take. The Senate spoke yesterday to the effect that we are not going to impose a ban on research. I say to the Senate, that was a wise decision. We should continue with the basic theme that we are not going to impose a ban on this Nation with respect to this system or any other system which may be needed for the defense of this Nation--hopefully, never in terms of weapons of mass destruction--but we cannot send a message to the world that we are just going to ignore the fact that they exist in many parts of the world. We have to maintain a credible inventory ourselves as a deterrent against others who might threaten us. So we should not have a ban. But what we should have is in place a law which is clearly understandable.

Now my colleagues go back and try to revise the existing law which has been in effect since 1994, which I say, with no disrespect to my colleagues. But when it was written--it is very convoluted, it is very difficult to understand because it says: ``LIMITATION--The Security of Energy may not conduct, or provide for the conduct of, research and development''--now they strike those words and put in their own-- ``which could lead to the production by the United States of a low- yield nuclear weapon. . . .''

Now, I have here a list of the seven steps followed in the life of a nuclear system. The first three--the concept study, the feasibility study, the design definition and cost study--have been authorized by the Senate as of yesterday in this amendment.

So we are at this juncture, as my colleague from Rhode Island points to his chart, where the balance of these steps toward the full implementation of a nuclear system should be put in control of whom? And I say it should be put in control of the Congress of the United States, with very clear language.

The statute, I say to my friend from Rhode Island, which you are trying to amend simply says, ``The Secretary . . . may not conduct, or provide for the conduct of'' this next step, full-scale engineering development.

Theoretically, if you are so distrustful of the executive branch-- whether it is this one or a subsequent--they could jump over that--not easily but they could jump over and go on to the other steps. So the way this thing is written, it is very awkward. It says it only stops one step.

So I say that is a bad way to go about it. I say the better, wiser way, as Senator Levin said, is the constructive way, as he pointed out in my amendment. It simply says we are not going to point to one step, we are going to point to all the steps and say as follows: ``The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase''--that is the one you are endeavoring to block by amending this old statute--but I go on: ``or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.''

That language is as clear as crystal. This language is very awkward to interpret and read. It has a flaw in it, that you could literally jump over the one step that you are blocking and proceed, in some manner, albeit not the best, but proceed to the other steps.

My amendment stops it. It is like a stop sign that says: We will not proceed as a nation until this body, the Congress of the United States, acts to authorize and appropriate the funds.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, in the spirit of fairness, I am going to read, once again, the Warner amendment, which says: ``The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase''--that is the phase blocked--``or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.''

Where in the old statute is there any phrase as clear as the one in the Warner amendment which says: Mr. Secretary, you cannot do anything until you are authorized by the Congress?

Yes.

Let me provide it to you.

Mr. President, I reclaim my time.

You cannot point to any language which speaks to this issue with clarity, so it can be understood the world over, as does the Warner amendment. It is as simple as that.

Mr. President, the Senate did that yesterday.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, if I could address the Senate----

This amendment is in the nature of a substitute. However, in fairness to my colleagues, last night the distinguished ranking member and I made an agreement that we would vote once again because there could be colleagues who wish to now join in supporting this amendment.

The yeas and nays have been ordered. Am I correct?

Perhaps we could have a 10-minute vote.

Mr. President, I share the sentiments of my distinguished colleague, but I do observe that the delay on this vote, while it was the last vote on this side, there was a vote on the Democratic side not more than 5 minutes before. We share equally the burdens of the need to move forward on both sides of the aisle.

Right.

Mr. President, I will speak with my distinguished leader and ask if he will give me that unfortunate authority to exercise. If he does, I will exercise it appropriately.

I thank our distinguished leader. May I propound the UC first on the time? Then we will recognize the Senator from Maine for not to exceed 5 minutes. Then the distinguished Senator from North Dakota can proceed under the time agreement; is that agreeable?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 90 minutes equally divided for the debate in relation to the Dorgan low- level yield amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, and that no amendments be in order to that amendment prior to the vote.

The Senator is correct. There is a misstatement in the written text handed to the manager. I apologize. I read it. The Senator is correct. It is the other subject. I ask that the UC be amended accordingly to the statement by the Senator.

I think it is a fair issue to be raised. I was unaware there were additional speakers. If the Senator will give me a moment.

Ten minutes allocated? I ask the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, I will make a deal, I will yield 10 minutes of my time under this UC request to take that up. How about that?

I thank the Senator.

I likewise encourage the adoption of the amendment. I think it is cleared on both sides. I commend the sponsors of this amendment for their hard work.

Under the order, my understanding is now we go to the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, with 90 minutes equally divided.

Amendment No. 750

Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?

I listened very carefully to your statements. You say let's see if we can't stop taking the first step. Am I correct in that?

Am I not correct, last year the Congress of the United States spoke to that issue and took that first step and initiated that program? The first step has been taken.

Last year the Congress in the military authorization bill took the first step on this program, and put money in the bill. The research has already commenced.

I think the point of reference, to be accurate, I would say to my good friend--you are not taking the first step. In other words, this program is ongoing. In this bill are simply the funds to continue what the Congress authorized last year after debate and vote.

I just think accuracy on these very important subjects is absolutely vital to establish credibility among our colleagues. I read from the report language. It says:

This amount includes $21 million for advanced concepts, of

which $15 million is authorized to continue the feasibility

study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator.

So the Senator was incorrect in his representation that he was endeavoring as if to say I am going to stop it now before it gets started. I think that is fair, to let the Congress know, and particularly the Senate, this thing was authorized last year and voted upon, approved, funded. This is a second tranche of funds for research.

Essentially the amendment of the Senator is to establish a total ban on this entire program.

If I may say on my own time, of course, it is the intention of the Senator from Virginia, again in total fairness to our colleagues, to incorporate in this legislation, in this bill, a provision which is identical in purpose to the one we just voted on, the Warner amendment. It will say: The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase, that's the next phase, or any subsequent phase of the nuclear earth penetrator program unless specifically authorized by Congress.

So into this legislation--it had been my intent to put it on in the second degree, but the time agreement understandably precluded that. It may well be other Senators will join us. But this is the intention of the Senator from Virginia. I wish to represent to all colleagues I will endeavor, and I have every reason to believe there is going to be support on the other side, to incorporate this language which will put Congress entirely in control of this program, entirely in control, just as I amended the previous legislation to put Congress entirely in control of every step as it goes along.

The distinguished chairman of the subcommittee is here. I asked him to address the strategic implications and the necessity. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs just yesterday, when I was consulting with him, said there is now a proliferation of effort by nations which have interests antithetical to ours, going deep into the ground to establish facilities to manufacture poison weapons, biological weapons, gas weapons, and possibly nuclear weapons. I think it is prudent that our arsenal of defense deterrence have in it weapons, if I may finish, both nuclear and conventional.

Mind you, there is an ongoing effort parallel to this one to determine whether or not we can achieve the same strategic goals of destruction of deep underground facilities with conventional weapons, which would certainly be used prior to the use of any nuclear weapon. So it is a parallel program of conventional and nuclear.

But I respect my colleague whose views are different than mine. His amendment bans forever this type of weapon--research, development, everything. It stops it cold.

That is correct.

Which study was authorized, I say to my colleague, last year.

Mr. President, I think I said when I took the floor, it would be charged to the Senator from Virginia. It is in the nature of a colloquy which takes place, so statements on my behalf are charged against my time, statements by the Senator from North Dakota on his time.

I readily state you have one position on the concept of whether this Nation should, you said, start up--but I think you agree with me now, it is ongoing--so stop where it is, this program. You make your point. I make my point.

What I am trying to do is to clarify, for the benefit of our colleagues, precisely what I understand your amendment does. What this Senator, or perhaps joined by others, intends to do is, namely, make the effect of the amendment parallel to what we have done three times now. Three times this body has voted not to ban research on a nuclear system. You are asking for a ban.

I draw your attention to your first sentence: ``Effective as of the date of the enactment of this Act, no funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of Energy by this Act or any other Act may be obligated or expended for development, testing,'' and so forth.

Does that not capture the existing funds that were appropriated last year?

But if your amendment would pass, wouldn't it be the effect to the Department of Defense: Why waste last year's money if you are prohibited from spending another nickel?

I think we have clarified this situation as best we can. But I wish to state to my colleagues, it is the intention of this Senator--I hope to be joined by others; and, indeed, one on the other side of the aisle--to put in legislation, as a part of the consideration of this subject of the penetrator, the exact language we had and voted on very strongly here just 15 minutes ago.

Mr. President, that fence was met. The Department submitted its report. On receipt of that report, the program, as authorized last year, commenced. It is an ongoing program.

Mr. President, the use of fences is quite common in a number of areas in the Defense authorization process.

Is this a UC request?

That's correct. If I may add a word or two to this. In the course of my colloquy with the Senator from North Dakota, it was indicated there would be an effort to place in this bill language comparable to what was in the amendment that was voted on immediately prior to this one to give a consistency in the manner in which we are treating these very serious questions. So I will put this on the desk and I will represent to our colleagues that this language will be forthcoming and a part of this bill.

I have indicated to the ranking member that this language, I think, could be voice-voted because I think there is consensus on both sides in an effort to make parallel and to put the Congress clearly into play.

We are prepared to enter into that now.

It is my hope that in the course of Senator Byrd's 20 minutes, if that decision could be made, Senator Byrd would certainly understand the need to maintain the momentum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield back the time on our side. It is my understanding they will be yielding back time on their side.

All time having been yielded back, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to table the amendment.

Madam President, we will consult with the proponent of the underlying amendment. But for the moment, the Senate has tabled this matter.

It is my hope we could proceed to the Nelson amendments. I thank our distinguished colleague from Florida for his cooperation. We can do both by voice vote, it is my hope.

On the one amendment, I would like to be associated with you because I represented throughout the vote, to my side, that the language be incorporated. I yield the floor.

Madam President, if I could bring some new information on that subject? The majority leader had a conversation with me just a minute ago. I have not had a chance to share it.

I intend to stay here, as will other Members on my side, tonight. The majority leader is open to having votes, if necessary, at about 9:30 tonight.

As we say in the law, I plead nolo contendere.

If we get the cooperation and Senators call--we are right here on the floor--and indicate that you desire to have an amendment, we will see if we can accept it. If we cannot, we will proceed to put it in line.

I say to the leadership that we are going to hear from the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia. Following that, I know of one amendment on this side by Senator Hutchison, the Senator from Texas. And we have the amendment by the Senator from New Jersey.

Is that my understanding?

Could we put those in order now, but maybe not lock them in?

I think I can make those arrangements.

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.