Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada believes it is not adequate. Indeed, I think the amount of money that has been----

Mr. BRYAN. I will yield.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I must say I have difficulty following the arguments of my friend from Idaho. First, I have no objection to--in fact, I am very supportive of it--the amendment offered by Senator Domenici last week. That has to do with hazardous fuels reduction, $120 million going to the Forest Service, $120 million going to BLM. I am for that. As the Senator knows, that is a separate budget category entirely than the issue of the Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment. That is a subcategory of fire operations. What we are talking about is preparedness money, a totally different concept. The issue is not whether Lake Tahoe could be harmed. Lake Tahoe does not have a commercial harvest timber program as such. It is minimal. We are talking about the money that is necessary to do the hazardous fuels reduction. The Senator from Nevada is very supportive of that. The Senator from Nevada wants to see more money set aside for preparedness and planning which is cost effective. Let me, by way of an additional comment, point out that the program which the Senator from Nevada supports is cost effective; that is, it saves taxpayers dollars. It is a savings. The argument that the Senator from Idaho made refers to a program that has cost taxpayers, between 1992 and 1997, $2 billion. We are subsidizing them. I do not think that is a particularly good value. But even though I might not think it is a particularly good value, I have not sought to eliminate that program. That program would be funded, if the Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment were offered, for $220 million. That is what the President recommended. So what we are simply trying to do is to reprogram some of that money into an area that would be cost effective, in terms of planning and preparedness--something that all of the agencies that interface with the urban, forest, local, State, and Federal support and favor--and simply reduce, by the amount of $30 million, the amount that would go into a timber harvest program that has been found, by the GAO, and other internal reports, to be cost ineffective in a substantial subsidy. So the issue is not, as my colleague from Idaho suggested, whether you favor timber harvest in the national forests--that is not the issue we are debating today; maybe he wants to make that the issue--but the question of where you allocate the funds.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment with my colleague from Illinois that is a win-win for the American taxpayer and for those communities that reside near our National Forests. The Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment will cut $30 million from the Forest Service's money losing timber program and shift $15 million to needed fire planning and preparedness activities. Thee is a crucial need for increased fire planning on our National Forests. Our amendment responds to the findings of a recent internal Forest Service report that found that the agency was violating its own National Fire Management Policy due to the lack of ``Fire Management Plans'' for each national forest. The report indicated that fire management planning has not been a priority within the Forest Service, with less than 5 percent of the National Forests having current, approved fire plans. The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy calls for ``every area with burnable vegetation [to] have an approved Fire Management Plan.'' The Wildland Fire program protects life, property, and natural resources on the 192 million acres of National Forest System lands as well as an additional 20 million acres of adjacent State and private lands that are protected through fee or reciprocal protection agreements. In my home state of Nevada, we have a multi-jurisdictional firefighting organization known as the Sierra Front, which is comprised of federal, state, and local fire management agencies. I might say, parenthetically, in my experience both as a former Governor and as a member of this body, the Sierra Front has done an extraordinary job in terms of coordinating and preparing its own activities and is relied upon by local, State, as well as national forest administrators for a coordinated effort. There are similar organizations in other States, and all of these organizations depend heavily on Federal fire preparedness funds for necessary training and organizational planning activities. The amendment we offer will provide an additional $15 million for the Forest Service to enhance its capability to prevent, detect, or take prompt, effective, official suppression action on wildlife fires. There is a financial benefit, a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be considered. I bring my colleagues' attention to an internal Forest Service report issued earlier this year entitled ``Policy implications of large fire management, the strategic assessment of factors influencing the cost.'' I think our colleagues will be interested to know that this report concludes that estimates have shown that for every dollar of appropriated preparedness dollars received, there is a savings of $5 to $7 in fire suppression and emergency rehabilitation funds spent. The point that needs to be made is, a little fire management planning goes a long way to reduce and to minimize the overall impact when fire comes because of the training, the planning, and the preparedness activities that go on as a result of that. That is a dollar savings to the American taxpayer and, in my judgment, is a very prudent expenditure of Federal dollars. Unfortunately, notwithstanding this assessment, the myth that commercial logging is the best method of fuels reduction is driving some of my colleagues to appropriate more funds for the timber program at the expense of needed fire plans for national forests, increased education for residents on wildland boundaries, and on fire preparedness activities. In fact, to the contrary, it is widely recognized in the scientific community that past commercial logging and associated roadbuilding activities are the prime culprits for the severity of many of our wildfires. Commercial logging removes the least flammable portion of trees-- their main stems or trunks, while leaving behind their most flammable portions--their needles and limbs, directly on the ground. Untreated logging slash can adversely affect fire behavior for up to 30 years following the logging operations. According to the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report, issued in 1996 by the Federal Government, timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate and fuel accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity. In addition, a recent GAO report stated that: Mechanically removing fuels through commercial timber harvesting and other means can also have adverse effects on wildlife habitat and water quality in many areas. Officials told GAO that, because of these effects, a large-scale expansion of commercial timber harvesting alone for removing materials would not be feasible. However, because the Forest Service relies on the timber program for funding many of its other activities, including reducing fuels, it has often used this program to address the wildfire problem. The difficulty with such an approach, however, is that the lands with commercially valuable timber are often not those with the greatest wildfire hazards. Logging causes adverse changes in forest composition--intensive thinning and clearcutting dry out soils and leave behind debris that becomes tinder dry in open clearcuts. Congress should invest in proactive fire planning and non-commercial hazardous fuels reduction projects as the best means of avoiding the high costs to taxpayers, damage to ecosystems, and risk to firefighters from reactive, unplanned, emergency fire suppression actions. This bill contains $250 million for the administration of the timber sale program, which is more than $30 million above the Administration's budget request. These expenditures for a money losing timber program are an enormous drain on the Treasury. In their most recent Forest Management Program Annual Report, July, 1998, the Forest Service admits to losing $88.6 million from their timber program in FY97. This was the second consecutive year that the Forest Service reported a loss. In addition to the reported loss, the $88.6 million figure excludes a full accounting of all costs associated with logging. In past fiscal years, independent analyses estimate the loss from below-cost timber sales are far greater than those reported by the Forest Service. The General Accounting Office estimated that the timber program cost taxpayers at least $2 billion from 1922 to 1997, and in recent testimony they indicated that ``[t]he Forest Service is still years away from providing the Congress and the public with a clear understanding of what is being accomplished with taxpayer dollars.'' Our amendment would reduce funding for the Forest Service's timber program by $30 million to the level requested by the Administration. In spite of the fact that our National Forest supply a mere 4% of our nation's annual timber harvest, this bill continues to reflect the dominance of the timber program at the expense of other programs designed to improve forest health and enhance the public's enjoyment of our national forest. Over 380,000 miles of roads criss-cross the national forests--that is over eight times the distance of the Federal Interstate Highway System--and, in addition, there are an additional 40,000 miles of univentoried roads. The Forest Service estimates that over 80% of these roads are not maintained to public safety and environmental standards. As a matter of public policy, I would argue that it makes more sense to maintain the roads we already have than to spend money building new roads we don't need for a logging program that costs taxpayers millions of dollars each year. I urge my colleagues to support the Bryan-Fitzgerald amendment to cut wasteful subsidies for the commercial timber industry and to enhance the Forest Service's ability to combat the devastating wildfires confronting many of our communities in the West. I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. I appreciate the distinguished leader's comments. The Senator from Washington has honored his commitment because, as the Senator knows, I had a previous commitment earlier in the day. I thank the Senator for his accommodation. As I understand the parliamentary status, I will need to seek unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. BRYAN. I am not sure I would agree with the Senator from Idaho. Clearly, the hazardous fuels reduction program, in which we have provided, as you pointed out, 120 million additional dollars, would be the program that would address that issue, in my judgment. I know other colleagues need to speak.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada would agree with that.

Mr. BRYAN. It is indeed.

Mr. BRYAN. I would yield for one more question.

Mr. BRYAN. I would say to the Senator from Idaho, I thought we were all Americans, and these positions did not represent a particular party; they represent the entire country. The national forests belong not to Democrats or Republicans.

Mr. BRYAN. You can't have it both ways.

Mr. BRYAN. The program that is called timber harvest.

Mr. BRYAN. Did they argue for more?

Mr. BRYAN. If the Senator follows that line of reasoning, would he not agree the same managers will tell you that $220 million is adequate for the timber harvest program, would the Senator agree with that?

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

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I notice the enthusiastic response by the distinguished Presiding Officer. Mr. President, you will be pleased to hear, and our colleagues who are listening will be pleased to hear, I yield the floor.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I preface my comments this afternoon by praising the distinguished public service of the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the very able and distinguished senior Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan. Senator Moynihan is not only a treasure for his own State; he is a national resource. This institution and this country will greatly miss his public service. His years of experience have provided context and perspective for many of the policy debates in which we have been engaged since I have been a Member of this body and, more specifically, since becoming a member of the Senate Finance Committee and having had the opportunity to meet with him. He always acts in a gracious way, with much charm and considerable Irish wit and humor that makes every meeting of the Senate Finance Committee something special because of his wisdom, his insight, and the manner in which he presents his case. I am pleased to be supportive of the alternative marriage penalty relief measure of which he is the prime architect, and I will discuss that more in just a moment. My purpose in coming to the floor this afternoon is to oppose the legislation before us today. I do so with regret because it is my view that it would be possible for us to craft a bipartisan measure which would accomplish the result sought by those of us who believe the marriage penalty is unfair and should be eliminated. Unfortunately, this measure will pass. It will do so on a partisan vote, and, most assuredly, the President will veto this measure and we will, in effect, have missed an opportunity to alleviate a burden that millions of Americans endure, that is unfair, and that we could correct before this session of the Congress concludes. I regret that very deeply, and I am hopeful we may extricate ourselves from the situation we face. This measure is described as providing relief from a marriage penalty. Let me say that it sails under false colors. No. 1, it does not provide the relief its advocates contend. No. 2, it provides substantial tax relief to those who are not facing a marriage penalty, who enjoy a marriage bonus, and to at least 29 million others who are not married at all. Providing relief in these two other categories may be an area of legitimate debate and concern, but it could hardly be argued that this is providing relief from an onerous marriage penalty. I much appreciate the support of our distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee to provide relief to taxpayers who are currently paying the penalty. As I said, this does much more and, I think in doing so, diminishes our effort to solve the problem. My own view is that as a result of the surpluses that have accrued, we ought to be paying down the national debt and taking care of the Social Security and Medicare problem that is longstanding and that threatens to engulf us in those outyears as more and more people become eligible for that program. We ought to be providing a prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare and, yes, we ought to be providing some tax relief, but we ought to do so in a very targeted fashion. I believe that appropriately one of those targets is eliminating the marriage penalty, and I will talk more about the specifics of the proposal in just a moment. The proposal before us not only is not targeted and is misdirected, in my view, it is also enormously costly. Although we are debating this matter in the context of reconciliation, a concept that I suspect is lost on most Americans who may be watching the proceedings of the Senate this afternoon, that is in a 5-year constraint. In point of fact, what we are talking about is a 10-year bill and a 10-year cost. The proposal the majority advances would cost $248 billion. In my view, we squander much of the surplus that could be devoted to these other priorities and yet fail to achieve what the majority says is its priority, and that is to eliminate the marriage penalty. Let me talk for a moment about what the marriage penalty is because not everybody perhaps understands it. Because of certain anomalies in the Tax Code, when millions and millions of married couples in which both are wage earners--a situation that has become increasingly frequent in recent years--combine their incomes, some married couples pay a penalty, and that is wrong and we ought to correct that. It is indefensible and, indeed, one can even argue that it is morally improper as well. Twenty-five million Americans pay a marriage penalty, and that is the target to which I want to address my comments. Because of the anomalies in the Tax Code, another 21 million Americans receive a marriage bonus; that is, they benefit by reason of the provisions of the Tax Code. In my view, that is not what the target ought to be. Those married couples will, under the provision of the Republican plan, receive a bonus on top of a bonus, and that, it seems to me, ought not be where our priorities are focused. Let me point, if I may, to the chart to my right. The total cost of this plan, as I indicated, is $248 billion over a 10-year period of time. Note that 40 percent of those who will be beneficiaries under the plan--40 percent receive 40 percent of the $248 billion; 60 percent of that $248 billion goes to those who are in the bonus category; and 23 percent do not have any penalty at all, no impact by virtue of the marriage penalty. Of the total amount we are providing in the form of tax relief, only 40 percent--substantially less than half--actually is targeted to the marriage penalty. That is on what we ought to be focusing our attention. Sixty percent of the tax relief provided in this measure has nothing to do with the marriage penalty at all. Moreover, under the bill that is offered by the majority, we have individuals who will be affected. Some 5 million additional taxpayers will be caught up under what is referred to as an alternative minimum tax. The Republican proposal does not reduce the tax rolls of the AMT, or the alternative minimum tax; it greatly expands it. That is why I have called this proposal something that masquerades as marriage penalty relief because it is much more than that and, at the same time, much less. The proposal the majority has advanced in terms of its ostensible claim of providing a marriage penalty relief is, at best, a half trillion dollars. Earlier in my comments, I praised the ranking member of the Finance Committee, the able Senator from New York. His approach, it strikes me, does what we are trying to accomplish: It eliminates the marriage penalty, but it does so in a very targeted and specific way, and that ought to be the guiding principle. If we are serious about eliminating the marriage penalty and providing relief for those taxpayers, 25 million in America, that ought to be the focus. It is simple and is more targeted. The reconciliation bill before us relies on a complex scheme of bracketed extensions, deduction increases, and allowance of personal preference. One would have to have a Ph.D. from MIT to figure how the calculations are made. I thought, in the waning days of the 106th Congress, if there was one thing on which we could agree--both those on the other side of the aisle and those on our side of the aisle; those who find themselves to the right of center, to the left of center, and the moderates--we ought not to do anything to make the Tax Code more complicated. Each summer, as I know a number of my colleagues do, I spend the entire recess doing townhall meetings across my State. Not surprisingly, there are different views as to what we ought to be doing. But no one has argued: You know, what you need to do, Senator, is, return to Washington and try to make this Tax Code more complicated. May I say that the proposal advanced by the majority will add dozens--maybe hundreds--of new pages of regulations. By contrast, the Democratic alternative provides simplicity. Taxpayers would be allowed a choice, not a difficult concept for us in America: If you benefit under the Tax Code, as a married person, by filing as a single person, that is your option, and you can do so--no ifs, ands, or buts. And conversely, if you benefit as a married person by filing a joint return, that is your choice as well. It is that simple. Whatever fits your individual need. It is tailored, it is specific, and it is simple. That is what we are talking about. And I believe that is what we should be all about. Moreover, it is far less expensive than the proposal offered by the Republican majority--much less expensive. It leaves monies to deal with the priorities I have outlined that I think most Americans support: Providing extended solvency to Social Security and Medicare and a prescription drug benefit, and, yes, to pay down that enormous national debt that exploded during the 1980s and early 1990s. Moreover, the proposal that we advance, the one that Senator Moynihan has so ably crafted, completely wipes out the marriage penalty-- completely wipes it out--without irresponsibly awarding cash bonuses to those who already receive a break under the Tax Code. While the majority's proposal only addresses a grand total of three marriage penalties in the entire Tax Code, the proposal that we offer would address every single one of the 65 marriage penalties in the Tax Code. It is understandable, it is simple, it is targeted, and it is comprehensive. It does the job. I will illustrate this point of simplicity with an example, if I may. I have asserted that under the plan the majority has advocated, it does not wipe out the marriage penalty relief for many. This chart I have here shows an example. Under this example, a married couple--wife and husband--each earn $35,000 a year. Their joint return reflects $70,000 in joint income. As individuals, they would pay a tax of $8,407. But if they were filing a joint return, they would pay $9,532. Under the current law, they must file jointly. That is the marriage penalty. That is what we are talking about, probably not a situation that is too dissimilar for thousands of married couples--perhaps hundred of thousands. By virtue of being married, they pay $1,125 more than two single individuals with the identical incomes--the woman earning $35,000, the man earning $35,000, who are able to file individually as opposed to a joint return. Under the bill before us, only $443 of relief is provided. That is only 39 percent of the penalty. So to those couples who are in the situation of being led to believe that if the bill that has been advocated by the majority is passed, they are going to get relief, they are going to be very disappointed because they are not getting all the relief; they are only getting 39 percent. Under the Democratic plan, crafted by the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, 100-percent relief is achieved, the full $1,125. And how is that done? Not through a convoluted approach of either compressing or enlarging the brackets, or adjusting the deductions, or from some other kind of incantation in the Tax Code, with which we are all so familiar making our Tax Code such a complicated burden for the average citizen to fill out. By the simple provision--one line in the Tax Code--it is your choice. You may file individually or you may file a joint return. Obviously, this couple would choose to file individually and in so doing would reduce their tax liability by $1,125. That is real relief. That is targeted relief. That is what our proposal is all about. It is easy to understand. It provides the virtue of simplicity. It does the job, and it is targeted. I am going to conclude because I know the distinguished Presiding Officer has other matters to attend, and this Senator does as well. I am hopeful that we can extricate ourselves from this abyss into which we are about to fall. Most of us in the Chamber agree that the marriage penalty is fundamentally wrong. We can solve it with a bipartisan approach, less expensively, simply, and completely by adopting this choice. I certainly hope that we do so. I pledge to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I look forward to working with them and hope that we can accomplish it. The course of action that we are pursuing is a collision course. The wheels are going to come off this train. This proposal will not become law, nor should it, because it does not provide complete relief from the marriage penalty, but it does provide extraordinary tax relief to those who are unaffected in any way by it, for those who already receive a bonus. That is not the kind of targeted tax relief we ought to be providing. Mr. President, I think from a parliamentary point of view, all I need to do is yield the floor, and under the previous unanimous consent agreement, we are in adjournment; am I correct?

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am always pleased to yield to my friend and colleague from Minnesota. I know how deeply he feels about these issues. I was happy to provide him the time to speak.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the distinguished floor manager.

Mr. BRYAN. As long as I am protected, I will be happy to yield to my friend from Alabama, and I ask unanimous consent that I be next in line for the purposes of offering an amendment after our distinguished colleague from Alabama.

Mr. BRYAN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BRYAN. I inquire of the Chair, there is a unanimous consent agreement that at 6:30 p.m. draconian things happen. I do not want to be precluded from offering my amendment.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator from Virginia. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague from Virginia in offering a Medicare drug program. For the 223,000 Nevadans who are Medicare recipients, no legislation we will debate in this Congress is more important for them. Two-thirds of them have either no prescription drug coverage at all or inadequate coverage--this at a time when prescription drug prices are increasing at a rate of nearly 20 percent a year. I will talk about what this measure will do. First, it provides guaranteed and universal access to prescription drugs. Unlike some of the other proposals being debated, this benefit will actually be available because it is offered as an integral part of the Medicare program. Second--and this is important--the benefit is comprehensive and defined, simple. It is understandable. Beneficiaries understand what the coverage is, and it will not change from year to year or month to month. Moreover, this is the only proposal to offer complete coverage after the deductible. There are no gaps or limits. The bottom line: All seniors will be guaranteed access to affordable drugs and will have the peace of mind knowing that full coverage is provided for any and all expenses above $4,000. Any expenses for prescription medication above $4,000 are completely handled under this program. Third, this benefit is affordable for all beneficiaries. Those with the lowest incomes are provided the most assistance. Finally, and critically, this proposal maximizes competition and provides choices. All of us who have been privileged to serve on the Finance Committee and to study this issue recognize the element of competition and choice as being an essential reform. This is not a one- size-fits-all program. Multiple private businesses are used to administer and deliver the benefit so there is competition at two levels: first, in terms of who are being chosen to provide the benefit and, second, those who are chosen compete and try to sign up beneficiaries for that program. So there is both competition and choice. In sum, this amendment gives beneficiaries what they need most--long overdue coverage of prescription drugs--and it also injects competition into the program and provides choices for beneficiaries. It is the first proposal to offer universal, guaranteed, affordable, fully- defined comprehensive coverage, no limits, no gaps, no gimmicks. This proposal is for real. Beneficiaries will know what they are getting, and they will know without a doubt that the benefit will actually be provided. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Virginia. The time to act is now. I yield the remainder of my unused time to the Senator from Virginia.