Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, when I raised the question of deductibility of health insurance, I said we were looking for another offset. I have been able to work with the managers and the majority leader. They have enabled us to eliminate the offsets which would have taken out the long-term care insurance, and we are able to raise the deductibility for self-employed individuals and small business people from 30 to 55 percent. I believe that this is something we can work with in conference.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement when I offered the amendment, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I cannot disagree with a thing my distinguished colleague from New Mexico has said. I had the pleasure of meeting with business men and women in his State. Both of these are important in his State, my State, and the rest of the country. I do want to make sure this bill has the deductibility phased in, full deductibility for the self-employed and small businesses. We are most anxious to work cooperatively with colleagues on both sides to accomplish this.

Mr. BOND. There are minds far brighter than mine and people with far greater access to the intricacies of this measure who are embarking on a good-faith effort to find offsets to get them scored by the Joint Tax Committee. I sincerely hope we can find a way to accommodate both the long-term insurance and the health care. I believe very strongly that the health care deductibility for self-employed must be done. I would like to be able to work with my colleagues who support the long-term insurance program so that can be accomplished. At this point we do not have an offset. I want to make sure this measure is before us.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if I could respond.

Mr. BOND. Now, Mr. President, I know there are a number of my colleagues who feel very strongly about the long-term care insurance program. We have had discussions about finding other offsets to this amendment so that we may be able to start on that long-term care prospect. I will be most anxious to work with my colleagues because I think everybody here at one time or another has expressed his or her strong support for the full deductibility of health care. With that, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to modify the amendment prior to a vote on it.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this past August, Indonesia, a longtime Asian friend and ally of the United States marked 50 years of independence. Over those 50 years, the United States has been able to count on this strong ally for support in a wide range of areas, including its anti-Communist commitment, its support during the Vietnam war, its backing for United States and United Nations operations in countries such as Somalia and Cambodia, and its role in advancing trade liberalization in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC]. Over the past 25 years, under the direction of President Soeharto, this nation of 13,000 islands and 198 million people has achieved some of the most impressive economic growth the world has seen. Let me give you some numbers to emphasize this point: a 7-percent average annual growth in the GDP since 1967, an increase in the per capita GNP from less than $70 in 1967 to almost $900 today, a life expectancy rate that has risen from 41 in 1967 to 61 in 1992, and a dramatic decrease in both the infant mortality rate and illiteracy rate. The Government of Indonesia is continuing to move ahead with aggressive and impressive projects to develop further the nation's quality of life, its infrastructure, and its capabilities and competitiveness for the next millennium. Over the next 5 years, these projects include: increasing the telephone penetration in the country by 8 million lines; increasing power generation by 11,000 megawatts; implementing a $13 billion basic transportation infrastructure program that will touch almost every sector, including, ports, airports, railways, roadways and a rail system through the city of Jakarta; and a water and sanitation plan to bring clean water to a larger portion of the population. In all, the country is looking at approximately $53 billion in new works and heavy maintenance, engineering and support systems development over the next 5 years. I think my colleagues would agree with me that this is an impressive program of development. As these projects move forward, the Government of Indonesia is also working to make the country an easier place to do business by streamlining investment regulations and removing import license requirements; thus making it easier for foreign firms to participate in this booming market's economy. And for anyone who questions whether the changes and opportunities created in this environment have benefited U.S. business, the answer is yes. In fact U.S. firms have reacted emphatically with exports from the U.S. rising 113 percent--from $2.3 billion in 1989 to $4.9 billion in 1994. For the U.S. economy that means that more than 95,000 jobs are supported by exports to Indonesia. And the United States Government has participated in supporting United States industries' interest in Indonesia by naming this emerging Asian tiger one of the 10 big emerging markets [BEM] for economic growth and by opening one of the first overseas U.S. Export Assistance Centers in Jakarta. As Indonesia has gained a growing presence in the economic arena, President Soeharto has also brought the country into a more active role in the international community. As chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement [NAM], Mr. Soeharto has been a moderating voice in the developing world on the benefits of an active dialog between developed and lesser developed countries. Indonesia has also taken a leading role in promoting peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region. From its role in helping to settle the Cambodian conflict, where Indonesians made up one of the largest U.N. peacekeeping contingencies, to its efforts to establish an Asia dialog to settle the Spratly Islands territorial dispute, President Soeharto's efforts have been instrumental in helping promote harmony in a rapidly evolving region. In recognition of his tireless efforts to bring economic prosperity to Indonesia while also engaging the country in a prominent international political role, President and Mrs. Soeharto are being honored later this week in Washington at a dinner hosted by CARE. It is an honor they richly deserve. The strong relationship between the United States and Indonesia is indeed a benefit for both our countries. We both have prospered and continue to prosper from our close ties and common interests. I think I also speak for many of my colleagues when I say that the achievements and growth of Indonesia over the past 25 years are truly impressive by any standards. I congratulate President Soeharto and the people of Indonesia on the many achievements they have made since independence and wish them continued success for the next 50 years. I am confident that the strong relationship between our two great nations will continue not only for the next 50 years but well beyond.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Senate Committee on Small Business will held a joint hearing with the House Committee on Small Business on ``the report of SBA's Chief Counsel of Advocacy on the Cost of Regulations on Small Business'' on Tuesday, October 24, 1995, at 10 a.m., in room G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Keith Cole at 224-5175. special committee on aging

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to address the vote for cloture on the Dole-Helms amendment to the Sanctions Act. I will be voting for cloture because I wish to see this process move along. This bill has been pending all year, and it is time we addressed it and moved on. In voting for cloture, however, I want to make clear that I do not support this legislation. I think it is a mistake, and I do not believe it will achieve the intended results. First, this bill will impose trade sanctions on many of our closest allies and trading partners throughout the world. That is not going to help the people of Cuba in any way, but it is going to hurt American companies doing business around the world. Second, the bill creates an unprecedented right of action for legal claims of former property owners in Cuba. Not only will that impose a severe burden on our court system, it will do so without, in anyway helping the people who need it most--families and small property owners who lost their homes and businesses to the Castro regime. This new right of action will also put us into conflict with some companies headquartered in some of our closest allies who are now operating plants in Cuba. As a result of both of these problems, the United States will find itself under immediate attack in the World Trade Organization. This legislation will only add to the already overwhelming misery of the [[Page S 15205]] Cuban people. I do not want to do that, and I know none of my colleagues do either. Certainly, we all want to see an end to the Castro regime--a cold war relic whose time has passed. I believe, however, that Castro's days are numbered. Communism has fallen around the world, and it will fall in Cuba as well. We should let it fall of its own weight, and then be there to assist the Cuban people in developing and nurturing a new democratic successor. This bill will not achieve that goal--in fact, it will move in the other direction. I urge Senators to oppose it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to address the vote for cloture on the Dole-Helms amendment to the Sanctions Act. I will be voting for cloture because I wish to see this process move along. This bill has been pending all year, and it is time we addressed it and moved on. In voting for cloture, however, I want to make clear that I do not support this legislation. I think it is a mistake, and I do not believe it will achieve the intended results. First, this bill will impose trade sanctions on many of our closest allies and trading partners throughout the world. That is not going to help the people of Cuba in any way, but it is going to hurt American companies doing business around the world. Second, the bill creates an unprecedented right of action for legal claims of former property owners in Cuba. Not only will that impose a severe burden on our court system, it will do so without, in anyway helping the people who need it most--families and small property owners who lost their homes and businesses to the Castro regime. This new right of action will also put us into conflict with some companies headquartered in some of our closest allies who are now operating plants in Cuba. As a result of both of these problems, the United States will find itself under immediate attack in the World Trade Organization. This legislation will only add to the already overwhelming misery of the Cuban people. I don't want to do that, and I know none of my colleagues do either. Certainly, we all want to see an end to the Castro regime--a cold war relic whose time has passed. I believe, however, that Castro's days are numbered. Communism has fallen around the world, and it will fall in Cuba as well. We should let it fall of its own weight, and then be there to assist the Cuban people in developing and nurturing a new democratic successor. This bill will not achieve that goal--in fact, it will move in the other direction. I urge Senators to oppose it.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Texas, Senator Phil Gramm, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee. My distinguished colleague from Texas can well understand the ferocity of natural disasters. I know he remembers well the historic ``Great Midwest Flood of 1993'' that devastated thousands of people's homes, businesses, and lives throughout the Midwest, including my home State of Missouri. Missourians are fighters and survivors and don't accept defeat. After the floods subsided, Missourians picked up the pieces and began rebuilding their lives, only to be hit again this year with near-record flooding. It is devastating that my fellow Missourians have had to fight and survive natural disasters. But what is even worse and more devastating is that my fellow Missourians are having to fight man-made disasters created by White House policy. The White House policy that I am referring to was the choosing, by the Administration, of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to handle [[Page S 14687]] part of the levee reconstruction program. I believe a lot of mistakes were made by bureaucrats during our flood recovery, but one of the biggest blunders was choosing the Economic Development Administration to handle part of the levee reconstruction program. As proof of how ill-equipped the agency was to administer this levee program--only one of the twelve levee projects awarded nationally was complete two years after the ``Great Flood.'' Out of the eleven incomplete levee projects, most not even begun, six are in my own state of Missouri. Thanks to the delay of repairing the levees, when the latest flooding occurred, people were evacuated, thousands of acres of farmland flooded, and highways were inundated. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent trying to preserve water supplies, and countless hours of backbreaking work literally washed downstream. The State of Missouri, local residents and cooperative federal agencies have pushed and prodded the EDA into awarding contracts and have even gotten the EDA to start work on our flood control projects. But the EDA is still being difficult. EDA is trying to claim it cannot modify the scope of projects to include damage from this past spring's flooding, even though this Congress has been careful to preserve unobligated funding for contingencies just such as my State is experiencing. When we did the rescission bill earlier this year we left $2,000,000 in unobligated balances related to emergency supplementals available for projects currently in the funding pipeline such as the flood control projects you have mentioned. I do not understand why the EDA claims it cannot modify the scope of a project, if the project was in the funding pipeline and the reason that it needs to be modified is because of delay of action by the EDA. I ask the assistance of my good friend in assuring that the EDA will honor its obligations to Missouri by making available quickly the funding necessary to complete projects awarded from the Flood of 1993. I want to emphasize that this assistance would not be necessary if the agency had accomplished this mission before the flooding hit earlier this year. If the matter is not revolved quickly, we risk still more avoidable flooding and the passing of a third construction season. These consequences would be unconscionable.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator, and I appreciate the work of the Chairman in recognizing the importance of small business and entrepreneurship in our country, while responding to the wishes of many Americans, including small business owners, that we make the tough decisions required to balance the budget. amendment no. 2815

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I would like to confirm our understanding that the additional funding made available to SBA is intended to reduce the impact of SBA's cost of funding staff reductions and terminations contemplated under the Committee amendment. A sufficient amount of the additional funding under the Hatfield amendment should be used by SBA to pay these termination costs so the agency can get to a level of FTE's likely to be sustainable next year and thereafter with the further appropriations reductions expected as we move towards a balanced budget. I do not object to the SBA having reasonable managerial discretion on certain items and programs, including those mentioned by my colleagues. But it is our clear intention, is it not, Senator Hatfield, that funding of these first year termination costs should be taken care of as a priority item for SBA, along with assuring adequate loan administration funding for the volume of the loan programs?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, voting rights cases.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I also appreciate my colleague from Maryland's helpful comments on this issue. Given her support, and in view of the unique circumstances that exist in the Pacific, I would be pleased to consider seriously the Senator from Hawaii's request to raise this issue in conference. The Senator from Hawaii should, however, bear in mind that any efforts we make, if any, must be made in the context of FEMA's overall budget.

Mr. BOND. What is the Senator from Hawaii's specific request?

Mr. BOND. I would be happy to yield to the junior Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. BOND. So the Senator from Hawaii requests assistance in securing conference report language directing FEMA to assign 12 FTEE to the Pacific Area Office?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am not going to take up a great deal of time. There are a number of things to work out on this amendment. I could not pass up this opportunity to come and tell this body that the concept of a drug court has been in place in Kansas City, MO, for about 2 years, and it is too early to say that this is the real solution. But the results, to date, are very spectacular. In Kansas City, drug offenses were clogging up the court system. We did not have the court resources available to provide full trials. We were getting citations. We did not have the prison space for the minor offenders. The drug court has been used with, apparently, a great deal of success for the nonviolent minor drug offenders in Kansas City. As the Senator from Delaware has already described, this is a program in which they go before a judge--and I [[Page S 14528]] talked at length with a judge--Judge Mason--whom I had the pleasure of appointing when I was Governor of Missouri, and the county prosecuting attorney, Clara McCaskle, who said this was one of the best ideas they had seen for trying to get people early on in their careers, after they started taking drugs, off of drugs and off of a life of crime. There have been about 200 people in the program in 2 years, only 10 have been rearrested. Some of them failed. The nice thing about a drug court is that if you fail the program, that is it, you go into jail. There is no question about it. But 60 people have completed the program. Only one has been rearrested. That is a significantly higher success rate than most of the other programs I have seen for dealing with the minor drug-related offenders. This, obviously, applies only to nonviolent offenders, who have not used a weapon in their crime. We think this kind of tough supervision by a concerned judge--and it requires a judge who is willing to devote his or her time to these cases, to give the drug offender the attention and discipline needed to get them off of the drug habit and get them out of a life of crime, offers a great degree of promise. I had asked that the drug court at least be made a permissible use under the block grant program. Frankly, I think making it a permissible use is not enough. Based on what we have seen, I would like to see the drug court procedure in the law in some form. I look forward to working with my colleague from Delaware and my colleague from New Hampshire to see if we cannot include provisions for drug courts. I can tell you, from the heartland where we have a drug problem, the drug courts seem to be one of the most promising ways of dealing with the problem. Anything in this area that holds out a chance of working I think should be given a chance. At the very least, the drug court program should be made an option used under the block grant program. I would like to see us go further. I would like to see us say that drug grant programs should be entitled to a certain percentage of the block grants. I look forward to working with the managers on both sides. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, unfortunately, this does not solve the problem. It takes money from those who depend upon section 8 vouchers or certificates. It is saying to all those on section 8--elderly, disabled, people with AIDS--that we are taking $360 million away from the pool for renewing these contracts, and there will be people who are now dependent upon section 8 housing who could be thrown out when their contracts expire. The Secretary, Secretary Cisneros, said after he revised it, we need $4.8 billion. We were only able in this tight budget time to give him $4.3 billion. I do not believe him when he says that he can make this work with less than $4 billion. I think that is an accommodation. We all would like to accommodate everything. There is no money there. Unfortunately, this is a smoke and mirrors game. The amendment specifically says that notwithstanding certain provisions of this act, the $360 million `` * * * shall not become available for obligation until September 30, 1996, [[Page S 14345]] and shall remain available until expended.'' What they are saying is, we are taking money away from reserves in 1996 to throw it into spending in 1997, in hopes that it will look better in 1996. We are in danger of taking away the section 8 assistance for people who need it, to make them homeless, to increase the need for the homeless assistance. I share the concern of the Senator from Maryland and the others for the homeless. We have worked what I believe is a reasonable compromise. We need to stay with this plan to provide section 8 assistance for those who are now depending upon the Federal Government for their housing. This is a smoke and mirrors effort that unfortunately does not improve and might endanger the people that we are trying to help. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes and ask to be advised when that 2 minutes runs. Mr. President, this amendment proposes to increase funding for homeless activities by $360 million, certainly a noble objective. But the budgetary offset comes from the appropriations for renewal of section 8 rental subsidy contracts. There is no dispute that more homeless assistance funding could be used. The committee looked everywhere it could to find this money, to balance the needs of the homeless with those who are now getting existing low-income housing assistance. Despite severe budgetary constraints, the committee increased House-passed homeless funding by $84 million. When combined with amounts released by HUD, homeless activities in fiscal year 1996 should be maintained at current rates. We provided in the report, because of the tightness of funds, HUD is ``expected to work through negotiated rulemaking and include recommendations made by States and localities as well as homeless assistance providers.'' I find it startling that the Secretary of HUD is now saying he can do without this $360 million. They originally requested $5.8 billion for section 8 renewals. At my request, they reviewed it and came down to $4.8 billion for their request. We were only able to provide them $4.3 billion. And the very persuasive Senator from Maryland is able to convince the Secretary he can take less than $4 billion? Make no mistake, these section 8 renewals are renewals that can be used for the elderly, the disabled, people with AIDS and others needing homeless assistance. Unfortunately, this is a shell game. It may make ``letters to the editor'' writers feel better, but it is a phony effort to get money where we cannot take it--from those who are without funds for their housing. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, last night I said that this amendment was breathtaking. First, I extend my sincere thanks to the kind words that the Senator from Montana has made about the measures we put in our bill. He addressed his arguments against the so-called legislative riders in the House bill. Regardless of how good or bad they are, how good or bad ours are, his solution is to give the EPA administrator unfettered authority to disregard a law passed by the Congress and signed by the President. He claims that the Justice Department advised him it is not unconstitutional. I say look at the Chadha decision, and it is clearly unconstitutional. That is not the question here. The courts would have to decide it. But I do not want to see this body going on record as giving an unelected bureaucrat the authority to disregard a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. This is truly outstanding. So many people in Washington talk about Congress' solutions being ``neat, simple and wrong.'' Well, this goes one step further; it is neat, simple, and unconstitutional. Let me, for the benefit of my colleagues, read this to you: Any prohibition or limitation in this Act on the implementation or enforcement of any law administered by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall not apply if the Administrator determines that application of the prohibition or limitation would diminish the protection of human health or the environment otherwise provided by law. That, to me, gives the EPA Administrator the power to veto, ignore, or totally disregard a law. I am not going to move to table this. I want my colleagues to have the pleasure of voting up or down on the simple proposition.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was rejected.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, only inside the Beltway would a $285 million increase in veterans medical care be attacked as a cut. In a very difficult time we allocated $285 million more for veterans medical care to assure that they can provide the care that is needed for veterans. To say that this is being offset by a tax cut is more phony baloney. It is an effort to break the budget agreement. We had to make choices. If the proponents were serious about increasing money even more than we have for veterans medical care, they would have come up with a real offset. Be clear about it: A vote to waive the Budget Act does not improve veterans health care; it merely busts the budget agreement and puts a greater deficit on the American economy and a greater burden on our children and our grandchildren who will have to bear the expense. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the Veterans' Committee, the Senator from Wyoming.