Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Recreation Fee Authority Act of 2003. This legislation modifies the congressionally created Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The issue of user fees on public lands is a difficult one. As you know, our Nation's parks and recreation areas are in serious trouble and have significant maintenance and infrastructure needs. The National Park Service alone has roughly a $5 billion backlog in maintenance and infrastructure repair. There are a number of reasons for this funding shortage, including poor park management, congressional inaction and apathy from the American public. Currently, the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program allows the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service to collect and expend funds for areas in need of additional financial support. Agencies collect fees for admission to a unit or site for special uses such as boating and back country camping fees and are able to use 80 percent of the receipts for protection and enhancement in that area. Fees are typically used for visitor services, maintenance and repair of facilities as well as cultural and natural resource management. The remaining 20 percent is used on an agency-wide basis for parts of the system, which are precluded from participating in the Recreation Fee Demonstration program. The legislation I am introducing today allows permanent authorization of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program for national parks, and provides some new flexibility. For example, many visitors frequent national and State parks, but are not allowed to use State and national passes interchangeably. In cooperation with State agencies, the Secretary of the Interior will be authorized to enter into revenue sharing agreements to accept state and national park passes at sites within that state--providing a cost savings and convenience for the visitor. In the past, concerns have been expressed about ``nickel and dime'' efforts where there appears to be a lack of planning and coordination by agency officials. Fee programs under this legislation would be established at fair and equitable rates. Each unit would perform an analysis to consider benefits and services provided to the visitor, cumulative effect of fees, public policy and management objectives and feasibility of fee collection. This review would serve as a business plan for each site so that managers could utilize scarce resources in the most efficient manner. The Recreation Fee Demonstration program was an effort by Congress to allow public land agencies to obtain funding in addition to their annual appropriations. This legislation will help provide resources for badly needed improvement projects and ensure an enhanced experience for all visitors. We need to guarantee our national treasures are available for generations to come. I believe that Congress, the National Park Service and those interested in helping our parks should cooperate on initiatives to protect resources, increase visitor services and improve management throughout the system. Working together, we can ensure that these areas will remain affordable and accessible for everyone. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. If we are going to debate this, it says nothing about it in the text of the bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this amendment, like the last one, ought to be verified and categorized as violating the truth-in-advertising law. This amendment has nothing to do with education. It does not mention education other than in the title. All it does is eliminate the top rate reduction which hurts small businesses. It cuts the dividend provision. This is an amendment that will actually increase taxes. It has nothing to do with education, and it should be defeated.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we believe it is legitimate and we want to move forward. All this does is do away with dividends. Therefore, we are agreeable to having an up-or-down vote.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this amendment is not germane and I raise a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. I raise the point that it is not germane.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, after looking at it, it is our opinion that these numbers have nothing to do with it. It just guts the numbers and, therefore, it is not germane, and we raise the point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. We have no objection to the amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. It has nothing to do with prescription drugs.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman, I oppose this amendment. It is not germane to the underlying bill. It takes money away from our job creation package, and it is premature. The amendment is premature because the Finance Committee will shortly take up a comprehensive Medicare prescription drug and Medicare improvement bill. We are on target to do so before the Fourth of July recess. The committee has been working to reach out to both Democrats and Republicans on a policy that makes sense and can work, and most of all we are here to help seniors get access to prescription drugs. The budget resolution contains the reserve fund of $400 billion that we intend to spend in a bipartisan way on behalf of seniors who have lacked affordable drug coverage for too long. The President deserves credit for kick-starting the debate on Medicare this year by dedicating $400 billion in this budget to make Medicare stronger. We have come a long way toward accomplishing that goal. The chairman continues to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. THOMAS. While we are coming to an agreement, could we move forward. Senator Gregg is prepared with his amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to Senator Gregg.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on our side we have just three, a Gregg amendment, and possibly two Santorum amendments.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this has been an interesting dialog and certainly does show a different point of view on that side of the aisle as opposed to this side of the aisle. The Senator from Nevada summed it up pretty well when he said it is all about spending. That is exactly what it is. The question is whether you are trying to do something to stimulate the creation of jobs or whether you want to throw money out and spend it, such as $40 billion. What we are talking about is doing something about the economy. It seems as we go through this, we do not ever recognize the situation we are in. One of the reasons we have a problem is that sources of revenue have been reduced substantially because the economy has weakened. They do not talk about that. That is why we are doing some of the things that are different than we may have done before. Revenues registered in 2000 were over $2 trillion, and they fell to the low $2 trillions; and in 2002 we are $1.8 trillion because the economy is not working. What we are trying to do is to stimulate that economy, of course. There is talk about doing everything for Warren Buffett. That talk is not true, and it has nothing to do with what we are seeking to do. Do you think acceleration of the 10 percent regular income tax rate is good for Warren Buffett? I don't think so. What we are talking about is raising the amount of money that is tax free for people in the bottom line. We are talking about the acceleration of the regular income tax cuts that were put into place to make it happen more quickly. What we are trying to do is stimulate the economy. Do you think acceleration of the marriage penalty tax is for Warren Buffett? I don't believe so. It is for everyone. On the question of fairness in taxation for people who are single or married, Warren Buffett has nothing to do with it. Acceleration of child tax credit that is Warren Buffett? I don't believe so. How about small business expensing? This is one of the most important things we can possibly do with regard to the economy. It has nothing to do with Warren Buffett. What we really have is a real declaration of difference in what we are seeking to do. We are seeking to recognize the situation we are in, recognize that part of the reason for reduced income is the economy, and that instead of spending, we are seeking to create jobs. It is time for a vote. On this bill, Mr. President, this language is not germane to the legislation now before the Senate. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 305(b)2) of the Congressional Budget Act, 1974.

Mr. THOMAS. I understand we will vote in 5 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Following the hour, I will be recognized to lay down the bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, what we would like to do is allocate 15 minutes to the Republicans, 15 minutes to the Democrats, 15 minutes to the Republicans, and 15 minutes for the Democrats, for a total of 1 hour as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS. I have no objection.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am glad we have begun this debate to do something that is necessary to help solve a problem we have in this country. Clearly, there will be differences in our views as to how we do this, and I guess that is no surprise. I think most all of us agree something has to be done to help our economy. We do not agree on what is the best way to do that, of course. There are pretty general differences in how it ought to be resolved. My friends on the other side of the aisle are more interested in sending out money on a short-term basis, sending checks to a bunch of people for 1 year; whereas we on this side are trying to find ways to create jobs, ways to change the economy so there is a future of prosperity rather than some kind of a Band-Aid that will surely wear out at the end of a year. So it is difficult, of course, and I understand that. But I do believe there is a clear difference between having a plan that will do something over time or simply doing something that will have an impact next week but will not continue. For example, if you are going to do something for businesses, they have to have some confidence that what they are doing is going to last for a while. People do not change the way they manage their business because there is going to be a 1-year kind of a change. I think that is so true. So you have to do something that is a little more permanent than that. I think we have to have a commitment to see to it that what we do, and what our vision is, really changes the economy--not having a Band- Aid, not having a patch, but doing something that will cause the economy, then, to have a good future for all the families in this country. One of the differences, of course, is that our view is we need investments to create jobs, not to have a little more spending for a short period of time that will not be enough to stimulate the idea of reinvesting, but to stimulate the economy thus creating jobs. Of course, by reducing taxes you put money in people's hands over a period of time. Most people have a view as to how they plan to operate economically in the future. One little burst of money does not make much of a difference in what a person does in their economic plan. We need to have something that is dependable for the future. We need something that is stimulative to both the consumer sector and the business sector. In relation to the President's proposal, I think particularly in the media, benefits from dividends have been largely dwelt upon, which is valid, but there is a very large other sector. The Senator from Montana talked about that. We have a consumer base and a business base, and we need to have both of them. This bill will have an impact. As a matter of fact, in the first 18 months, $144 billion is put into the economy. That is a short period of time. That is a lot of dough in a short while. So that is an example of the kinds of things that are in the bill. I think we need to really make sure that we talk about the different items in the bill when we talk about it. Of course, all of us must recognize we are in an unusual situation. People go back to the late 1990s and compare that period of time to present day. In the late 1990s, we had not had a turndown in the economy. In the late 1990s and the early 2000s, we had not had September 11, we had not had homeland defense, we had not had Iraq, we had not had an economy that was going down for several years. Today we have a different kind of situation. So it is sort of interesting to me. I suppose I have tried as hard as anyone to be a budget balancer in this place, but I recognize you cannot talk about the same things under different circumstances. You can talk about balanced budgets all you want--and it is something I surely agree with--but when you are in a pit in terms of the economy, you have to do something so the economy will grow and replace that deficit. That is the whole purpose of what we are talking about. We face, of course, an economic slowdown that began before the year 2000. The events of September 11 changed our world, stopped any recovery. The uncertainty of where we have been over the last several years has slowed down investment. There is no question about that. Now we are a little closer to the end of that, hopefully. The war and ongoing terrorism have created a challenge. We have to create an environment that spurs both short- and long-term growth. The idea that we ought to do something for just a year to help the economy has been tried. It did not work. If you are a businessperson, if you are planning for your family, if you are doing anything long term, you have to know what you are doing is not going to expire in the next 9 months. So I think that is an important idea for us to build on. Of course, tax reductions will very quickly put money in people's pockets--and a very broad part of the economy, as a matter of fact. That will help create the confidence necessary to do some of what this economy needs. I disagree with those who maintain that the answer to strengthening our economy is to go on another Federal Government spending binge. I believe we are already spending too much. I am interested in reducing taxes and changing some of the ways we do business. But we are talking now about a bill that moves us in the right direction, one that has innovation and inspiration for investment, wanting to do something that gives incentives to do that. I was just in Wyoming over this past weekend talking to the Governor about the economy and the vision we want for our State and our country and our families over time, we need to really kind of know where we are going so we can measure what we do against what we do in the interim to see if we are going to get there. The governor said something about: I am more interested in figuring out what to do, getting on with it. Getting on with it doesn't work unless you know where you want to go. That needs to be part of the case here. Today we are considering a tax relief bill that will point the economy in the right direction. It is a good package. It puts money in the pockets of hard-working Americans, spurs investment, builds confidence in the economy, creates employment opportunities throughout America. Employment opportunities are the key. Some of the provisions include accelerating the reduction in individual tax rates for everyone. As to this idea that it is just for the wealthy, of course, someone who pays a great deal in taxes gets more dollars out of it, but as a percentage, it is to help everyone. It increases small business expensing limits. One of the real things we can do is cause these small businesses to invest. It creates increased relief for individuals on the minimum tax. We have these tax deductions all along the line. And then we say, yes, but you can't use them because we have a minimum tax. I agree with the Senator, we need to do some tax changes just in the structure. Increase the child tax credit. We talk about dividends. There are other things that are there: provide marriage penalty relief and, of course, the dividends. The dividends are not so much entirely just what people get out in dividends, but what it does to the corporate sector in how they function, how they operate, how they will be expanding, how they will create employment. These go beyond simply the distribution at the moment. I am particularly pleased with the provisions that benefit small businesses; namely, of course, the acceleration of the individual tax rates. It increases small business expensing limits. Four out of five businesses have fewer than 20 employees. Generally we are talking about small business. Small firms are responsible for 55 percent of the new innovations and changes. From 1994 to 1998, nearly 11 million net jobs were added to the economy. Businesses that employed fewer than 20 workers created 80 percent of those jobs over that period of time. It is a share of the private and nonfarm gross productive produced by small businesses which sustains stability over time. It is approximately 50 percent of the GDP. We need to take a long look at that. One of the things I think is important that we ought to talk about is the taxpayers in the highest income brackets are often entrepreneurs and small business owners, not just high-paid executives or people living off investment. Small business owners typically report their profits in their individual income tax returns. So that individual income tax is effectively the small business tax. When we talk about people who are earning more money getting some reduction, often those are small businesses that will put that money back in terms of investments. Small businesses frequently pay the highest marginal rate. Taxpayers in the highest rate currently face a marginal rate of 38.6 percent. Although they file less than 1 percent of all tax returns, these taxpayers account for 16 percent of reported income, more than 31 percent of individual income tax payments. Small business owners receive almost 80 percent of the tax relief from the top marginal tax rates of 35 percent. What we are seeking to do is to generate those jobs in the small businesses. Particularly, I suppose, in States such as Montana and Wyoming where almost all of our businesses are small, that is a crucial part of the economy. More than 98 percent of all companies have fewer than 100 employees. This is where we ought to be really focusing. We talk about the dividend exclusion, of course, the economic impact of it. Double taxation of corporate earnings can eat up 60 percent of the profits, and the Federal tax is 35 percent at the corporate level, and another 38.6 percent of the remaining 65 percent at the individual level. There is something wrong with that--if you invest in a company and that money, before you can get it back, is taxed at that rate. That doesn't, of course, include any State or local taxes. So the tax burden on dividends could be higher than 60 percent. This bill is a downpayment on ending double taxation. It is less than the President asked for. It is really less than the House has in theirs. But it is something that has a real impact on the future of jobs in this country. We have a real challenge before us. I know we will be involved in many different views and all kinds of debate and discussion. There will be a great deal of interest in sending money back to the States. There is quite a bit of evidence that in most States over the last few years spending has gone up tremendously, taxing has gone down. So there are going to have to be some changes there. In our bill we put $20 billion, most of it to be designed for Medicaid. I hope, again, that we don't, in this effort to do something to help, increase the long-term arrangement as to who is going to pay for these various programs. I happen to be one who thinks government closer to the people is the best way to go and that we ought to give the States more and more opportunity to do their own thing by reducing our taxes. And if they need more taxes, that is where it ought to be, so that it can conform to the needs of a particular State. We are going to be involved. As I understand the rule, there is a 20- hour limit on the debate on this reconciliation bill. That is good. We will need to address ourselves to a good many amendments. We talked about a good many of them in our committee before we got here. They deserve consideration. We should do that. All I ask is that we keep in mind we really ought to have a goal. That is to strengthen the economy in a way that extends over time; that we create opportunities rather than payouts; that we have an opportunity to have a stronger economy for a period of time. And that is really what it is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, momentarily the Senate will begin consideration of the jobs and economic growth reconciliation bill. Under the previous order, there will be up to 2 hours for debate on the bill today with no amendments in order. There will be no rollcall votes during today's session. On Tuesday, the Senate will begin the amendment process with respect to the jobs and economic growth reconciliation bill. There will be busy sessions throughout the week as the Senate considers and completes the jobs and economic growth bill. Later in the week, the Senate will also consider the bipartisan global HIV/AIDS bill and the debt limit extension legislation. In order for the Senate to complete action on these measures, late nights and rollcall votes should be expected throughout the week. On behalf of the majority leader, I advise my colleagues to make the necessary scheduling arrangements. I also alert my colleagues that there may be a possible weekend session, since these are must-pass items and there are only a few remaining days before the Memorial Day recess. The majority leader will make further announcements regarding the schedule as we make progress on the items that I have just mentioned. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I object.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 4:30 with the time equally divided.

Mr. THOMAS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.