Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I was pleased this morning to honor the work of the Agricultural Research Service and the U.S. National Arboretum by planting a newly developed disease-resistant American elm on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol. Joining me was Dr. Floyd Horn, Administrator of the Agricultural Research Service; Larry Coughlin, President of the Friends of the National Arboretum and former Congressman from Pennsylvania; my good friend, fellow tree junkie, and liberally utilized advisor, Dr. Tom Elias, Director of the National Arboretum; and Dr. Denny Townsend, the scientist who has spent a lifetime studying and developing new trees for cities and towns and the person responsible for developing this new American elm. I also want to thank the Architect of the Capitol, Mr. William Ensign and the Landscape Architect in his office, Mr. Matthew Evans for their professional assistance in facilitating this event. The Dutch elm disease has ravaged our native American elms for over 65 years and has largely eliminated these magnificent trees from cities and towns throughout the eastern and Midwestern United States. But now, with the help of Dr. Townsend, and the National Arboretum, we stand a great chance of seeing a return of the stately and valuable American elm. I am delighted to be the congressional sponsor of the tree planting ceremony to honor the many accomplishments of the National Arboretum and the ARS in their contributions to the city and town landscapes in the United States. The purpose of the ceremony was to recognize the National Arboretum of the Agricultural Research Service. Over 645 new and improved varieties of ornamental and floral plants have been developed and released. Truly a remarkable record. The Arboretum has given us hundreds of Glen Dale hybrid azaleas, several flowering pear trees, the very popular and widely grown hybrids and selections of crape myrtles and viburnums, a disease resistant sycamore suitable for city streets, new red maples, numerous hollies and magnolias, and now a series of new elms including Valley Forge and New Harmony. There is no question that the Arboretum has contributed greatly to the growth of the nursery and floral industries in the U.S. Their introductions, releases, and discoveries have helped to make the green industries the number one growth industry within Agriculture in America. I am especially proud of the new cooperative agreement recently entered into between the Arboretum and the University of Missouri. On February 7, 1996, a memorandum of understanding was signed to establish a U.S. National Arboretum Midwest Plant Research and Education Site at the Horticulture and Agroforestry Research Center in New Franklin, MO. The new program will provide significant research and educational opportunities for all of us in our mission to discover, develop, and disseminate knowledge for the stewardship and sustainable use of human and natural resources. With this in mind, our planting at MU will be arranged to enable visitors, such as homeowners, and nurserymen to make easy comparisons between selections for their use. This relationship with the Arboretum will provide practical benefits to many ordinary Americans, while providing the research community at Missouri access to numerous vegetative types that can be used for scientific study and educational purposes. In Missouri, we are very excited about this new relationship with the Arboretum. I offer a hearty congratulations to Dr. Horn, Dr. Elias, and Dr. Townsend. Our country is grateful for people like you and your work in developing new and better trees, shrubs and other flower plants for the benefit of our national landscape and our environment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure that will assist the President of the United States in carrying out a promise he made to the people of Wisconsin that he would approve the Wisconsin Works program. There have been some problems getting welfare actually acted on. I had a very nice letter from the President last year for the work that we did on the welfare reform bill. But that measure got vetoed and so did a subsequent measure. Now, the President has said that he supports the welfare reform demonstration project in Wisconsin, known as Wisconsin Works. Well, today, on behalf of myself, Senators Coats, Abraham, Gramm of Texas, Ashcroft, Craig, Coverdell, Grassley, Gregg, Santorum, Faircloth, and Nickles, I am submitting a very brief bill, which, in substance, says that when waivers are submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Services to conduct a demonstration project known as Wisconsin Works, those waivers shall be deemed approved. We have heard many stories about the need to reform welfare, Mr. President, and one of those stories that has been repeated recently is that of an experiment in Sedalia, MO, where applicants for food stamps were sent to an employer. Many of them took jobs, which is good. It moved them off public assistance. Those who were turned down because they were not capable could stay on public assistance. Those who refused to show up were taken off of the food stamp rolls. So there was an incentive for those who did not want to work. Two people went for the job, but they were turned down because they tested positively for drugs. Under existing Federal law, the State of Missouri could not sanction those people, even though they were turned down for a job because they tested positive for drugs. The simple point of that is that that creates the most perverse of incentives--the incentive for people who are on public assistance and who do not want to have to take a job to get on drugs and they can stay on the public assistance rolls. That is the kind of thing that needs to be changed. That is why we need welfare reform. Today, Mr. President, I am simply acting to expedite one of the many waivers now pending from the States, which has been delayed, I understand from the Governors, an average of 210 days. This measure, if and when adopted, will deem the waivers submitted by the State of Wisconsin to be approved.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I will be very brief. First, I want to express my deep appreciation to our esteemed leader of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici of New Mexico, for doing an outstanding job. My appreciation also goes to Senator Exon for his steadfastness and to the members of the staff, who have done a remarkable job. It has been a pleasure and a real treat to work with them. It has been an extremely difficult measure, but they did it very well.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Yes, it is in the Vice President's office. Amendment No. 4019, As Modified

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I say to my good friend from Texas, I show to my other friends, just some rough calculations we have done. So far, we have six tax increases that are proposed in amendments on this budget resolution. The Senator from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, $50 billion; Senator Boxer, $18 billion; Senator Wyden, $1 billion; Senator Kerry, $48 billion; Senator Kerry, $6 billion; Senator Byrd, $65 billion. As we calculate that, that comes up to about $188 billion.

Mr. BOND. I see our distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee here, whose good office is responsible for helping frame this overall budget debate. I am happy to yield to him if he has some comments on this at this time. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. As I understand it, I say to the Senator, that would not go for tax relief. That would go for increased spending. Now we are getting up--the record was set, I believe, in 1993, where we had a $240 billion tax increase. We still have a few hours left on this resolution, and all we need is about, as I calculate it, about $52 billion more in tax increases, and we could go over that $240 billion. Does the Senator think maybe there is an effort to break that record?

Mr. BOND. Talking about the taxation philosophy. I wonder if he has taken a look at the amendments presented on this budget resolution. Does the Senator see a theme in the amendments that have been presented in this budget resolution?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require off the resolution. I ask the Senator from Texas if he will spend a minute with me.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator from Texas 8 minutes on the argument on the appeal of the ruling on the point of order.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Texas, is he prepared to go forward?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes off of the resolution, not on this point in specific. I have a desire to talk about an amendment, No. 4012, the Harkin amendment, which cuts other committees and adds $2.7 billion to the Labor, HHS subcommittee. I say that for the information of any of my colleagues who may wish to join in. Let me just say in respect to the discussions we have had, very important discussions over the procedure in the Budget Act, I disagree with the ranking member on the other side, who ascribes politics to the process and to the Parliamentarian. I think it is time we had some good policy, because in the past this body, with the active involvement of the Presidents of the United States, has run up a $5 trillion debt, almost $18,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. We are in the process of threatening the disability of our Government budget and the economy of this country as a whole if we do not pass a budget that responsibly gets us on a path to balance in the near future. The budget resolution before us proposes to do that. It is a difficult budget. It is not easy, but I believe it is one that merits support. There was discussion about the budget the President supported. That budget has been voted down. That budget proposed spending and said if it did not get to zero deficit in 2002, several automatic actions should be taken. Those automatic actions lead to about a $16 billion tax increase and increase in spectrum fees, which would come to a middle-class tax increase in 2002, plus $67 billion in cuts in domestic discretionary programs that would be extremely painful and, frankly, from what we have heard from some of the administration officials, they may even have no intention of pursuing. Let me get back to the budget that is before us and, in particular, the Harkin-Specter amendment. This amendment, No. 4012, proposes to increase by $2.7 billion the amount in the functions for education, training and social services and for health activities. Everybody likes to be for education and for health care. That sounds very appealing. But that takes money out of other budgets that have been strapped--and severely strapped in the past. I note that it takes money out of the defense budget in many areas where there is no fat. It takes money, in specific, out of the budget for the Veterans' Administration and EPA, where we have suffered great cuts in the past. Last year there was a rescission of $7 billion out of the funding for the VA, HUD, EPA subcommittee. Then, in the appropriations bills, there was about an $8 billion cut in these functions. Here the amendment before us would take more money from those functions and add it to the Labor, HHS subcommittee. Frankly, that budget under this bill before us would go up slightly for education. Certainly, we all like education. But the problem is very serious when you take a look at where this money would have to come from. The proponents of this amendment say it will come out of administrative costs. This amendment says nothing about administrative costs. It just takes $1.2 billion out of one place, $1.5 billion out of another, $1.4 billion and $1.4 billion. It does not say anything about administrative costs. It does not define any fat. The cuts that were taken in the VA, HUD, EPA subcommittee last year were draconian cuts. We had to look everywhere we could to find ways to cut low-priority programs to enable us to fund the major programs funded in EPA and Veterans' Administration. Just last week, this body voted overwhelmingly, 75 to 23, against very severe cuts that the President had proposed to take out of veterans medical care. In addition, I think every Member of this body will recall that during the debates on the 1996 appropriations bill, the current-year spending bills, everybody wanted to spend more on the environment. Everybody had something more they wanted to add to environmental spending. Let me make it quite clear that if this amendment is adopted, the money is going to come out of the environment and/or Veterans' Administration health care. There is no other pot for it to come out of. There is no category of administrative costs and administrative waste that is going to be reduced. This money is going to come out of the environment and/or veterans health care. I know everybody would like to put more money in education. Certainly, I would as well. But after the battles that we have had here, to try to get the funds increased to carry out the vital environmental programs that the EPA is charged with, I would be very surprised if people will vote to cut the environment, and then they will come back to this floor when we are debating the bill itself and say, ``Why can't we put more money in the environment?'' Mr. President, a vote for the Harkin amendment is a vote to take money out of the environment. It is a vote to take money out of VA medical care. These are the critical priorities that would be hit if this measure is to be adopted. I strongly urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. It reflects some serious changes from the judgment made by the Budget Committee and it will take down funding, approximately $430 million cut for HUD-VA would be just about equal to the increase planned for VA medical care, or it would equal about one-half of the planned Superfund reserve fund increase. These are vital priorities that have been debated on this floor in the past. We spent many months working to find additional offsets to put money into the environment. And if any of my colleagues are interested in the environment and are concerned about assuring that we have adequate funds to protect the environment, to clean it up, to leave the kind of environment we want to leave for our children, I urge them not to support this amendment to take money out of the environment. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of the time, and I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Go ahead.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I introduce the Small Business Investment Company Improvement Act of 1996. Since 1958, firms licensed under the Small Business Investment Company Program have made venture capital investment funds available to small businesses when traditional lending sources, such as banks and Wall Street investment firms, would not meet their funding needs. The Small Business Investment Company Improvement Act of 1996 would take some significant strides to enhance the safety and soundness of the SBIC program. For the past year, the Committee on Small Business has conducted a series of hearings on the SBIC program. Government and private sector witnesses have testified on ways to improve the program and build on the legislation passed by the Congress in 1992 that created the Participating Security Program. This bill incorporates portions of the recommendations from the SBIC Reinvention Council, operating SBIC's and Specialized SBIC's, and the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request. The bill would reduce the risk of SBIC defaults by putting in place statutory standards governing the licensing and leveraging of SBIC's. In addition, it imposes important safeguards governing the operating practices of SBIC's by requiring frequent and meaningful examinations of SBIC licensees and their investments. This bill would also require that all SBIC's invest in smaller enterprises, which are small businesses at the lower end of the eligible size standards. Lastly, the bill would increase fees paid by SBIC's to help lower the cost of the program to the Federal Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I introduce the Small Business Investment Company Improvement Act of 1996. Since 1958, firms licensed under the Small Business Investment Company Program have made venture capital investment funds available to small businesses when traditional lending sources, such as banks and Wall Street investment firms, would not meet their funding needs. The Small Business Investment Company Improvement Act of 1996 would take some significant strides to enhance the safety and soundness of the SBIC program. For the past year, the Committee on Small Business has conducted a series of hearings on the SBIC program. Government and private sector witnesses have testified on ways to improve the program and build on the legislation passed by the Congress in 1992 that created the Participating Security Program. This bill incorporates portions of the recommendations from the SBIC Reinvention Council, operating SBIC's and Specialized SBIC's, and the President's fiscal year 1997 budget request. The bill would reduce the risk of SBIC defaults by putting in place statutory standards governing the licensing and leveraging of SBIC's. In addition, it imposes important safeguards governing the operating practices of SBIC's by requiring frequent and meaningful examinations of SBIC licensees and their investments. This bill would also require that all SBIC's invest in smaller enterprises, which are small businesses at the lower end of the eligible size standards. Lastly, the bill would increase fees paid by SBIC's to help lower the cost of the program to the Federal Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. This is correct.

Mr. BOND. That is correct, the cuts in veterans are absolutely devastating and would result in closing at least one-quarter of all veterans facilities. To me that is totally unacceptable.

Mr. BOND. That is correct.

Mr. BOND. If this has been on our time, I need to reserve the time. I will be happy to respond, if there are further discussions, on time on the other side. But I wish to yield the floor. I will be happy to listen to my colleagues.

Mr. BOND. First, I was going to ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, my colleagues, this is a simple amendment. It increases function 700 for veterans by $13 billion over the period of 1997 to 2002, and to pay for that it increases the reconciliation instructions for welfare reform by $13 billion which raises the total number under the President's plan from $39 to $52 billion. I think it is time that we get back to talking about the budget which is the subject in front of us today. We have just had a very clear-cut indication in this body that people want to talk about a real budget that does not make drastic cuts in the last year. They said it was a bad idea. This is the first good opportunity to vote on the President's proposal to achieve the balanced budget by taking a tremendous whack out of discretionary programs including those items which he cited as his high priorities in the last 2 years. I am very pleased that our colleagues unanimously on both sides of the aisle said that did not make any sense, and that we should not go at it in a meat ax way. I think we ought to start taking a look at responsible adjustments to try to bring this proposal back into the realm of reality. The amendment that I have just offered has a series of numbers. Those numbers ensure VA medical care will not be one of the victims of the President's drastic outyear cuts, and it also restores the cuts proposed for the years 1998, 1999, and 2000 before the trigger--before the cap--hits. My amendment would bring the VA medical care up to what is included in the Senate Republican budget proposal, an almost $13 billion add-on. As I said, it offsets this by asking for greater savings in welfare. Let me address the second part of that first. After 30 years of ever more expensive and less effective approaches to poverty, last year Congress came up with a plan that we sent to the President which he vetoed which would have reformed welfare in a meaningful way. I think our approach struck a fair balance between the role of the Federal Government in providing a safety net and giving States increased responsibilities. You would have saved $64 billion over 7 years in the process. Since the creation of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, public aid has been regarded as an entitlement. If you meet the requirements for eligibility, you receive the cash with no strings attached. The current system has been rightly maligned by persons from all walks of life, including researchers, advocates, politicians, and even the recipients themselves. They know the system does not work. The system is impersonal. It is inefficient. It encourages continued dependency. I am concerned that, if we do not require recipients of public assistance to work, or at least behave responsibly, or take steps to wean themselves from public assistance, our efforts at reform are just going to be another word for more of the same. Our welfare bill which passed the Senate overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis had a real work requirement. In that bill, we also permitted States to implement reform ideas without undertaking a lengthy and cumbersome waiver process. States who wanted to require welfare recipients to obtain preventive health care for their children, or to ensure their children stay in school and wish to allow recipients to keep more of their earnings from a part time job--all of them a good idea--now have to go through a waiver process from HHS. It is costly, time consuming, and silly. I have addressed before a silly problem that came up in Sedalia, MO. You have heard me talk about this on previous occasions. But this is the example of what the Federal law, as it now stands, does not permit States to do. The State of Missouri working through their local family services office and the employers in the area decided in Sedalia, MO, to try a pilot program to get people jobs in an expanding new industry in town. People seeking food stamp assistance were sent, if they were able bodied, to the employer for job interviews. If they were offered a job then they got off the need for food stamps. If they refused to show up, or if they were offered a job and refused it, then the State could sanction them, and did not have to give them food stamps. There was a real incentive for these people to make an effort to get work. A lot of them did get work. Some of them did not like the work that was offered. They went out and took another job. That is fine. A lot of people in that community who had been depending upon public assistance went back on the work rolls. Two of the people, however, who were sent to the employer they failed the employer's mandatory drug test. When they went back to the State the State could not cut them off of welfare, or food stamps in this instance, because they had failed a drug test. And the State wants a waiver. The State said this is crazy. And they are right. If we want to get people off of welfare and to work, and we prohibit States from saying, ``If you cannot get a job because you failed the drug test, then we will pull you off the welfare rolls. We will not give you assistance.'' That means, if somebody wants to stay on public assistance and get food stamps, or welfare, all they have to do is take drugs. What a perverse incentive. The State has been battling to get a waiver. My view is the States should not have to get a waiver. The States ought to be permitted to make those commonsense determinations and see what works. The current system that President Clinton is defending by his vetoes keeps those nonsensical requirements in place. Where States, despite the best efforts of the Clinton administration to keep control, have been able to implement significant reforms the results have been astounding. Welfare caseloads have dropped to 25 percent from 30 percent in some States including Massachusetts, Indiana, and Michigan. That is why we are here. More families are able to obtain self-sufficiency which has the added benefit of saving the Federal Government money. As I pointed out, the welfare reform plan that we sent to the President which he vetoed would have saved $64.1 billion over 7 years. In this amendment before us I am proposing that we save $53 billion in welfare programs so that we can keep a promise we made to our Nation's veterans who risked their lives for us that they would always have health care. This, I would think, is not an unrealistic number. The Senate Budget Committee plan calls for $54 billion in welfare savings. Some of the savings would be achieved in the Supplemental Security Income Program, which, as the fastest growing entitlement, desperately needs reform. We can make these savings by reforming the programs and returning them to the States for them to administer, thereby eliminating huge Federal bureaucracies. I think the people of America want to see us get serious about welfare reform. If you believe what the President says--he says we want to change welfare as we know it--I think it is time we did what the people want and the President says rather than rely on the President's veto to keep the status quo. Now, what this will do on the other side, for the Veterans' Administration patients, is to ensure that when they need health care they are not going to be denied. The people who are served in Veterans' Administration facilities around the country are the ones who have been injured in combat overseas and/or those who are medically indigent. This is where they are cared for--in all of these locations. These are 170 Veterans' Administration facilities across the Nation. Last year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that we could not have a flatline of spending in veterans affairs because it would result in closure of four of those hospitals. Frankly, there are savings that can be made in the Veterans' Administration, and I think that those savings are being pursued in the health care area by Dr. Ken Kizer and others. But there is no way that an almost 25-percent cut, $12.9 billion, can do anything but devastate the program. Millions of veterans will not be served. At least a quarter of these hospitals and veterans facilities will have to be shut. Pick a State, any State. As I mentioned earlier, some of the major States like California would probably have to have three or four closures. My home State of Missouri would have to have at least one closure. All of the States with veterans facilities would be faced with losing some of those facilities, as well as service to many of their most needy people. Massachusetts would lose at least one; Washington, at least one; Texas, two; Pennsylvania, two, probably three; Illinois, with six facilities, one or two; and Florida, the same position, at least one or two. I do not think that is acceptable. When we asked the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, who came before our committee, to comment on these proposals, he said he could not live with that scenario. He did not like our scenario, which was a flatline, but I believe they can live with that. But he sure cannot live with a scenario that takes a tremendous whack out of the budget and, beginning after 1997, takes funding for the Veterans' Administration in a precipitous decline. That is why I think we need to have a realistic budget. It is time that we started talking honestly about what our needs are going to be in the future. We are joined in this concern by a number of organizations which have expressed their grave concern over this. The Independent Budget, a group comprised of Amvets, Disabled Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, wrote to Secretary Jesse Brown on May 14, 1996, which I will submit. I received a copy. My colleagues, chairs, and ranking members of the VA-HUD Appropriations Committee, received it. I will cite to you just the middle paragraph of the letter. It says: Our Nation's sick and disabled veterans deserve a viable health care system devoted to them and their special health care needs. Many of us have opposed budget plans brought up in Congress because we believe they call into question the continued existence of such a health care system. President Clinton's 7-year balanced budget proposal does not provide the funding necessary to meet these needs. This is true in view of the fact that we have yet to witness true VA health care eligibility reform. I send that letter to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think we have kicked this one along and around far enough. I am very happy that we have reached an accommodation where we will finish debate on this and then we will set it aside to go to Senator Exon's amendment. To set the record straight, I was called out of a hearing that I was chairing because it was envisioned that I would offer an amendment at 3 o'clock. I came to the floor. There was a quorum call, and then the Senator from California was speaking. When she concluded, there was no one else around, and I offered an amendment. I figured that we might get on to the business of the Budget Act. I apologize for preempting the Senator from Nebraska, but I trust that everyone is happy now, that his vote will be ahead of ours, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Yes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I also had the privilege, just several months ago, to be traveling with Admiral Boorda, and a couple weeks ago visited with him in my office again. He was truly an outstanding person, had great ability and great dedication to this country, and was more than willing to make any kind of contributions he could. All we can say is that our thoughts and our prayers are with his family and loved ones. And it is with deep, deep sorrow and shock that we receive this news.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. How much time do I have?