Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank our good friend, the very distinguished colleague from Ohio, for his very perceptive and persuasive comments about space programs generally and specifically about the space station. No one in this body speaks with more personal authority than Senator Glenn on these very important issues. What he has said is of great importance to all of us. I share his hope that not only all our colleagues, but people throughout this country, will listen to his comments and his heartfelt statements about the importance of space and of scientific inquiry. urban search and rescue

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator for bringing that to my attention.

Mr. BOND. I fully support strong urban search and rescue teams, especially in the Midwest. I believe FEMA should move quickly to assure an appropriate geographical mix of teams that are funded adequately. Furthermore, FEMA should consider decommissioning some teams that do not meet the urban search and rescue programs' high standards.

Mr. BOND. Yes. endocrine disrupter research

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from New York for his concern for the health of the American public. The legislation under consideration does include funding for basic research on endocrine disrupters. If necessary, the Environmental Protection Agency should consider proposing a reprogramming of funds to develop the screening programs required under the food safety and safe drinking water legislation. I do, however share the Senator's concern that EPA base its testing programs and future regulations on the best science available, particularly as it embarks on relatively new areas of scientific investigation.

Mr. BOND. The Senator from New York is correct. Such a study could provide the Agency and the Congress with a comprehensive analysis of the relative risks from both synthetic and naturally occurring endocrine disrupters and mixtures of both, as well as the most cost- effective way of developing a screening program that identifies substances of potential concern.

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleagues from New York, Oklahoma, and Tennessee for their recommendations, and I agree fully. Given the expected value of this more comprehensive study, I would expect that the Administrator would consult with the National Academy of Sciences prior to the release of the comprehensive study before proposing a testing program for public comment that addresses potential endocrine disrupters. Once the study has been released, the Administrator would be expected to consider the findings and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences included in the study in developing any future testing program or regulatory initiatives. I thank my colleagues for their recommendations. huntsville global hydrology and climate center

Mr. BOND. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Alabama for a question.

Mr. BOND. I would be happy to consider the Senator from Alabama's request in conference.

Mr. BOND. I thank both Senators from Tennessee for raising this important project. I would note that both Senators from Tennessee wrote me earlier this year expressing their strong support for funding in the fiscal year 1997 appropriation for the VA. Unfortunately, we were unable in the committee to provide the funds needed to complete this project since a decision was made to limit VA construction funds to outpatient projects, cemetery projects, and research facilities. However, I note that both Senators have been strong advocates for this project, and that funding for this project will be an issue in conference with the House on the VA-HUD appropriations bill.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would say to my colleagues from Tennessee that I, too, recognize the importance of this project for the James H. Quillen School of Medicine, for our veterans at Mountain Home, and for the State of Tennessee. I assure them that I will give very close consideration to their request when the Senate and House meet in conference on this bill.

Mr. BOND. I will certainly keep in mind the request from my colleagues from New York.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from California a few additional questions on this matter. Senator, you mention the land is under deed restrictions against development inconsistent with veterans needs. If this is the case, why are these organizations worried about suggestions for commercial development?

Mr. BOND. I can assure my colleague that this subcommittee has supported ATSDR in the past, and in particular has supported the minority health professions initiative. It continues to be a worthwhile program, and I am cognizant of the need associated with ongoing research and treatment efforts. I am sure that I and my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Maryland, ranking member on this subcommittee, will keep this in mind as we proceed to conference on the VA, HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill, H.R. 3666.

Mr. BOND. The letter indicates there will be no degradation in the gasoline quality required by the Clean Air Act with respect to imports. My understanding is that foreign refiners will not be allowed to increase the content of precursors of ozone pollution in its gasoline supplied to the United States above the levels currently allowed.

Mr. BOND. I believe the Senator from Montana is correct. The letter indicates the U.S. Government will seek to bring all appropriate and available U.S. enforcement efforts to bear upon foreign refiners to assure that the data foreign refiners provide is useful and reliable.

Mr. BOND. Yes. I am supportive of the House language.

Mr. BOND. The committee understands that the Department of Veterans Affairs is not prepared to create new cemetery space in this region and that there is not an immediate need for additional cemetery space. Are there not higher priorities for the Department of Veterans Affairs for cemetery space in other regions of the United States?

Mr. BOND. I appreciate the issues you have raised and will be pleased to work with Mr. Lewis of the House Appropriations Committee to address this issue in conference. southern oxidants study

Mr. BOND. I understand the priority the Senators from New York and Connecticut place on the restoration of Long Island Sound, and I recognize the unique challenges you face in implementing the long-term management plan. It seems clear that this effort cannot succeed without the guiding hand of the EPA Long Island Sound Office. Knowing of your deep concern, I will do everything I can to support your request in conference and at a minimum maintain funding at its current level. My hope is to secure report language directing the EPA to provide funding to the LISO at a satisfactory level. community development

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, over the past 2 years the committee has worked very hard to eliminate the number of narrowly focused categorical programs in HUD. Instead we have placed a priority on focusing our declining budgetary resources on block grants such as the CDBG program, and other activities designed to increase local flexibility and decisionmaking. I would note that the reported appropriations bill has the effect of increasing the amount available to cities and States under the CDBG program by $300 million. This will maintain the full $4.6 billion level for CDGB. I would add that there is no doubt in my mind that this neighborhood crime intervention program of Marquette qualifies for such CDBG funding. In addition, let me note that earlier this month HUD issued a notice of funding availability for the $50 million appropriated in the current fiscal year for the Economic Development Initiatives Program. This is a nationwide competitive program which is designed to combat urban decline and to foster economic revitalization in our cities. The Marquette University sponsors should definitely consider participation in this competition since their program appears very much on point to the EDI effort, and I suspect, such an application should fare well in this HUD competition. benefits of a disposal endosheath

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I share the concern expressed by Senator D'Amato, and agree with him about the benefits of utilizing a disposal sheath when physicians conduct procedures using a flexible sigmoidoscope on patients to detect colorectal cancer. Disposal sheaths are widely used in private practice. Therefore, I also encourage the Veterans Health Administration to explore their use as a means of protecting veterans from the risk of cross-contamination. nasa's academic programs

Mr. BOND. I will be pleased to give your request every consideration during conference deliberations with the House. future use of land adjacent to the los angeles national cemetery

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair and thank my colleague, the ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Maryland. Before proceeding with the opening statements and the usual motions to begin consideration of the appropriations bill--and we are going to be doing a lot of that today--I would like to go over, for our Members and the staff, our intentions, how we would like to be able to expedite floor consideration of this measure. The bill was reported by the Committee on Appropriations 6 weeks ago, on July 11. We tried very hard to minimize the number of new issues raised in the recommendations. Where compromises have been achieved, we have restated bill language and mirrored funding levels, reflecting the agreements for the current fiscal year. We think we have made a good- faith effort to avoid reopening controversial issues. Again, I express my sincere thanks to the ranking member. This has been a bipartisan effort to try to move this bill forward. But in an $85 billion appropriations bill, there are disputes and policy differences. We did make a concerted effort to minimize the issues, specifically with the intent of facilitating consideration of this bill. It is critical that we move this bill quickly if we are to avoid the disruption, the waste, and inefficiencies which would result if we failed to enact the bill before the start of the fiscal year and have to resort to cumbersome continuing resolutions or other measures. I add, as I did in the discussion when this bill was brought up en bloc for consideration prior to the August recess, that there is a supplemental appropriation, increasing the loan limitation of the Government National Mortgage Corporation, or Ginnie Mae, as most people know it, which has to be enacted soon to prevent the disruption of orderly placement and financing of FHA- and Veterans' Administration- guaranteed mortgages later this month. If we do not get this bill passed and sent to the President, they are going to run out of opportunities to refinance these mortgages later this month. I think that is something we ought to be concerned about. The bill also provides an extension of the Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance authorization, which is necessary to continue FEMA's writing of these critical insurance policies beyond the end of this month. Coming from a State where floods happen and flood insurance is vital, I ask all my colleague to focus on the fact that there are these gravely needed portions of the bill that are in some ways even more important than the appropriations parts for some individuals. It is my view that our efforts to avoid unnecessary disputes have been successful, laying the groundwork for a relatively quick disposition of the bill. I will be making the standard motions for en bloc consideration of the committee amendments after my ranking member has the opportunity to be heard. In the course of that motion, I will propose a compromise on the FHA home mortgage issue, which provides for a narrow demonstration of a revised downpayment formula, limited to the States of Alaska and Hawaii, which I believe is acceptable to all sides. We had much interest from Members on the entire matter of the FHA issues. I want everyone to be on notice we are going to be dealing with those. We hope the compromise is acceptable. Beyond that matter, we have a number of other noncontroversial amendments, several of which make necessary technical and clarifying changes in the bill. We have heard of other issues which we are attempting to work out. All Members, please be on notice that at this point we can dispose of all but a handful of amendments within the hour. At that time it is the floor managers' intent to seek time agreements on remaining amendments which do require some debate and rollcall votes. We are limited in the amount of time that we have to deal with this bill. I ask Members or their staffs to contact us so we can provide this in an orderly fashion, for debate today and votes tomorrow, to move on with this bill. The issues in dispute include an amendment to delete the space station funding, by the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers; an amendment by the Senators from New Hampshire and Wisconsin, Mr. Smith and Mr. Feingold, proposing to terminate U.S. participation in the Bion space life sciences mission; and one by the minority leader, the Senator from South Dakota, relating to a new VA entitlement program and discretionary benefits for the offspring of veterans in Vietnam suffering from spina bifida. I hope we can arrive at time agreements so we can air all sides of these issues and move on to a prompt resolution. I ask any Member who has an issue to come down to the floor and to work with us to address these concerns. If you work with our floor staff and leadership, we will be seeking to limit time for debate on a short list of remaining amendments by the conclusion of debate today. Again, I urge any Member who has concern over an issue under the subcommittee's jurisdiction, come to the floor so we can work to find an acceptable compromise or at least establish time agreements to facilitate debate and disposition. From past experience, I know there are likely to be a flurry of colloquies that we are asked to accept at the last moment. We have had some of those submitted to us. Both the ranking member and I need to look at the colloquies. In the past, sometimes colloquies have gone in which have caused problems for other Senators. We will be happy to accept as many of the colloquies as we can, if we can get them cleared and make sure that everyone is comfortable with them. But to do that we really need to have them by 5 o'clock today if we are to be able to give them the full consideration so that we do not have any unnecessary delay tomorrow or have to put off consideration of those issues to a later time. Mr. President, having said that, it is my pleasure to present to the Senate the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 as reported by the Committee on Appropriations. I am especially pleased that I am doing so prior to the start of the fiscal year rather than 6 months after it has begun. That is a pleasant change for us. None of us want to repeat the long delays and frustrations we experienced during the past year, being unable to enact this critical funding measure. Unfortunately, less than a month of legislative activity remains in this session. So if we are to avoid a lapse of funding, or the necessity of a continuing resolution, and if we are to deal with the problems that I mentioned in my earlier statements, we have to act quickly. The bill before us attempts to provide a fair and balanced approach to many competing programs and activities under the VA-HUD subcommittee's jurisdiction, within the constraints imposed by a very tight budget allocation. We have attempted to avoid reopening past disagreements and controversy which blocked the bill last year. It is our hope that by pursuing this course, we can expedite consideration and enactment of the measure. Our efforts to facilitate this measure has meant that the bill, in a number of respects, reflects funding levels and policies which are compromises between very different viewpoints. Nobody is going to be happy with all of the decisions we have reached in this bill. Certainly I have had to make many compromises myself in the hopes of making it acceptable. One example is inclusion of funds at the 1996 enacted level for the Corporation for National and Community Service. I and many others on my side continue to have some strong reservations about the program. No doubt that failure to fund the program would result in a Presidential veto. I think that there are reforms that have been enacted and will be enacted that can improve the operation of the program. Despite the misgivings, the bill proposes to maintain the current level of funding for the program, less than what is requested, more than what I believe is warranted, but certainly more than would be included in a continuing resolution or other subsequent action if we have to deal with vetoes of this measure. With respect to other agencies funded in the bill, the committee has attempted to balance a wide variety of competing interests within a very constrained budget allocation. The committee recommendation provides $39 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, including full funding for VA medical care and an increase for VA research. VA medical programs were afforded the highest priority in order to assure quality care for all veterans. The veterans currently being served by the VA will receive that quality care. There will be a smooth transition to a new organizational structure with the emphasis we expect on a managed care approach. For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the committee recommendation continues the policies and programmatic reforms enacted last year. We are hopeful and strongly support enactment of a comprehensive public and assisted housing reform bill from the authorizing committees. Make no mistake about it, we believe that we have to have authorizing legislation. We would like to see it done. But this appropriations bill contains temporary extensions of provisions needed to halt the ever increasing cost of housing subsidy commitments. And as I point out, and as the Secretary has agreed, under the reduced funding levels, many of these programmatic changes have to be made right now in the appropriations measure to enable particularly local housing authorities, public housing agencies to deal with the reduced levels of funding. We cannot cut back on the funds without giving relief to the local agencies who must administer the program. That is why in the HUD provisions there are temporary authorizing provisions to facilitate their use of the lower amounts of resources available until such time as we get a good authorizing bill that establishes a new framework. Similarly, the appropriations bill complements the multifamily housing restructuring proposals now under consideration by the authorizing committee. We cannot continue excessive subsidies currently being paid to sustain the inventory of nearly a million apartments for low-income families. Unless we in Congress act to reduce the excessive debt of this housing inventory along with implementing other management improvements, there could be massive defaults and widespread resident displacement. So make no mistake about it, the housing provisions in this appropriations bill are vitally important. The complexity and difficulty of developing a consensus on these issues obviously is substantial. Project owners, including limited and general partners, project managers, the residents themselves with the greatest stake in it, the State housing finance agencies, local community development organizations, bondholders, and municipal governments are among those with significant interests in how we address this issue. These interests are, while we seek the same general goals, often divergent and sometimes competing. We must be mindful of the fact that we have billions of taxpayer dollars previously invested in this multifamily housing inventory, and billions more which are at risk over the next several years depending on which policies and financing mechanisms we select to deal with these issues. The reported bill reflects our attempts at finding a reasonable balance between these sometimes conflicting concerns. We cannot afford to continue to pay excessive, way above market-rate subsidies for these multifamily housing projects through our supplements of rent through section 8, even those which provide very good housing for low-income families. And some portions of this inventory, I might add, are little more than slums that it was intended to replace. Those have to be dealt with as well. The committee recommendation is not a comprehensive solution. We are striving for a workable compromise. It simply is an attempt to deal with the issues in that fraction of the multifamily inventory that has section 8 contracts expiring during fiscal year 1997. We are acting solely because of affirmative efforts and the forward motion necessary to prevent defaults and potential resident displacement during the fiscal year. This ought to be of great importance to all Members of this body. Many people will shy away from housing because it is complicated. But let me tell you, if we fail to do our job, there could be citizens in our States who are left without housing, which I think is a result that we must avoid. Since this bill was reported, we have heard from a number of affected parties, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, who have made suggestions as to how our proposal could be improved or made more effective. We are examining these ideas and incorporating the good ones as they come along. We may be able to recommend a perfecting amendment to our multifamily housing provisions. We intend to do so before the bill is finally passed. In any event, since the House bill contained no recommendations on this issue, we will have extensive discussions on these concerns prior to and during conference. I hope that we can come out of conference, if not out of this body, which will be my first choice, with a workable temporary solution. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge and express my sincere thanks for the critically important role that the Senator from Oregon, the chairman of our full Appropriations Committee, has played in addressing the potential adverse effects of the House budgetary allocations. Specifically, Senator Hatfield has recognized how that allocation would curtail our ability to maintain housing occupied by low-income families in developments which could prepay their subsidized mortgages and convert to market-rate housing. Based on the chairman's recommendation, the committee revised the subcommittee's allocation which enabled us to include $19.7 billion for HUD. Perhaps what is more important, the increase in our outlay allocation allowed the increased funding for activities which prevent the displacement of currently assisted families through contract renewals and housing prevention payments. I am especially pleased that the bill restores funding for the Community Development Block Grants program, the CDBG, at the current full fiscal year 1996 level of $4.6 billion and does not have to withhold $300 million from the obligation as was proposed in the House- passed bill, operating under a lower allocation. For the Environmental Protection Agency, the recommendation totals $6.6 billion, an increase of $70 million over last year, with increases in key areas, particularly grants to States. Most programs are funded at last year's level, and programs such as Superfund and safe drinking water revolving funds are increased as requested by the President. Despite the very compelling arguments made by some Members, this recommendation does not include so-called riders in EPA in view of our desire to keep this bill as free of controversy as possible in the limited time available. For FEMA, the bill provides the President's full request and, in addition, restores $1 billion in previously rescinded disaster relief funds which FEMA anticipates will be needed to meet ongoing disaster relief requirements. The recommendations for NASA totals $13.7 billion, an increase of $100 million over the House, and restores funds for the critical Mission to Planet Earth program to study global climate change. Finally, $3.27 billion is recommended for the National Science Foundation, an increase of $55 million over the 1996 level and $22 million over the House amount, with very high priority given to instrumentation and informal science education. I note it was only 4 months ago we finally gained enactment of the bill for the current fiscal year. As a consequence, much of what is recommended simply builds on agreements achieved in that measure. Mr. President, in aggregate, this bill appears to provide $2.1 billion more than the fiscal year 1996 appropriations level. But this reflects two major adjustments which are unrelated to program levels. The first is an increase of $1.1 billion to replenish the FEMA disaster relief account, which was drained by that amount to accommodate other appropriations measures in the cycle for the current year. The other change is $948 million in one-time legislative savings which were enacted for HUD housing programs. When these adjustments are made, the net aggregate increase in program funding is reduced to $84 million, or just one-tenth of 1 percent of the fiscal year 1996 appropriation. Mr. President, this very modest increase, all but a freeze, reflects the net of increases and decreases in several of our agencies. The biggest increase, $481 million, was provided for the discretionary programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The only other agencies to receive significant increases were the Environmental Protection Agency, with a $70 million increase, and the National Science Foundation, which received $55 million more than last year. These increases were offset by cuts of $411 million in HUD and $200 million in NASA. Finally, again, I express my sincere appreciation to my ranking member and valuable colleague, the Senator from Maryland. I appreciate her assistance and cooperation in putting this bill together. I now take pleasure in yielding the floor to her for such statement as she wishes to make. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. BOND. I am aware of the important scientifically based contributions made by the university-based Southern Oxidants Study to understanding the causes of ground level ozone pollution in the Southeast as well as other areas of the country. I agree that the Environmental Protection Agency should continue to provide the appropriate funding to ensure that the critical objectives of the study can be fulfilled. PCB-landfill Permit Application