Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. The Senator from Montana has valid concerns. Other members of the subcommittee have also questioned the basis for this rule. I will work with him and other members in the conference committee regarding the regulation. This rule will serve as an important precedent for subsequent MACT regulations for other industries.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my colleague is correct. Today, the VA is unable to provide a strategic vision of VA health care for the next century that squares with facility investment decisions. The VA's fiscal year 1996 request continues to emphasize costly and inefficient health care delivery systems that are out of step with the overall national trends in health care. Given the fact that private-sector health care providers have moved in the direction of outpatient care, coupled with plummeting Federal budgets and the demographic trends related to veterans, it would not be prudent to build additional hospitals. Similarly, other investment decisions such as building new ambulatory and long-term care facilities cannot be made rationally without an overall plan that reconciles facilities to health care goals and populations. I am also concerned about the budgetary requirements of building new facilities. Not only is construction costly but operating costs will put additional pressures on a declining budget.

Mr. BOND. I would be pleased to yield to my colleague from Delaware.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the majority leader is correct. The committee is well aware of the need for the Brevard County and Leavenworth facilities. We understand that the Department of Veterans Affairs will be in a position to begin construction of the Brevard facility during fiscal year 1996 and the Leavenworth facility in fiscal year 1997. Like my colleagues, I expect the Department to consider including these projects in its fiscal year 1997 budget submission. However, if they do not, we will carefully consider both projects. toxic substances registry

Mr. BOND. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the Senators from Ohio and Wisconsin about this ATSDR study and I have a better understanding of the significance of continued funding for the research on chemically contaminated fish. I will give close consideration in Conference to securing adequate funding for the ATSDR study on the human health effects of contaminated fish consumption. Savannah sewers

Mr. BOND. That matter will, of course, be up to NASA and the administration. But, given that CIESIN is already meeting standards that this committee has set out for other components of EODIS, we would expect that CIESIN would be given full and fair consideration in the development of NASA's fiscal 1997 budget request.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator for his comments and request. I am aware of the serious flooding and wastewater/sewer problems confronted by the city of Savannah. Like the Senator from Georgia, I have firsthand knowledge of the devastation that such repetitive flooding can have on families, homes and small businesses. I am impressed by the level of resources already committed by the City of Savannah to resolve this problem in a more efficient, cost-effective manner. The Senator from Georgia and the city of Savannah are to be commended for his new private-public partnership concept. [[Page S 14372]] Accordingly, it would be my intention that this project receive priority consideration in conference for funding through the fiscal year 1996 allocations made under this bill for water infrastructure needs. ciesin funding

Mr. BOND. The Senator from Michigan is correct. While we do not identify specific 1996 funds for CIESIN within this bill, nothing interferes with the rights and options that either party has under the existing contract.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, yes, the Senator from Delaware is correct. This bill provides no money for the Tenant Opportunity Program--and the Department is not to use any funds to continue the program. What we are trying to do in this bill is to make better use of limited HUD dollars--and to make sure that those dollars benefit the residents of public housing. I agree with the Senator that TOP appears to have a lot of problems in the way it is administered, and it is clearly not providing the benefits to residents that it should. I should note, however, that within the broad parameters of the new supportive services block grant under the community development block grant appropriations, localities are encouraged to provide services and technical assistance to public and assisted housing residents to encourage and promote employment. To this end, activities with goals similar to the TOP program are permitted, but I would certainly concur that the excessive consultant payments would constitute an abuse which we will not tolerate.

Mr. BOND. I am interested to discuss this important matter with the Senator.

Mr. BOND. Would the Senator from California be amenable to requesting that NASA submit their cost justifications for this consolidation to the subcommittee before they proceed with consolidation?

Mr. BOND. The concerns of the Senator from Mississippi are valid and very timely. During the debate on S.343, the Senate voted to retain provisions to reform the toxic release inventory's listing and delisting criteria along the lines sketched out by the Senator. The central feature of those reforms is a greater focus on the risk posed by these chemicals. As the Senator correctly notes, risk is a function of hazard and exposure. For this reason, I too am very troubled by EPA's proposal to require reporting of the mere use of materials. It is inconsistent with a risk-based approach, and I believe there is no statutory authority for expanding the TRI to include use reporting. I also share the Senator's concerns with the expansion of the TRI to additional types of facilities. Just last year, the EPA nearly doubled the number of chemicals subject to TRI reporting. The current reporting cycle will be the first cycle to incorporate this expansion. No further expansion should be considered until the scope of the current expansion is fully apparent and it is clear the EPA has the resources to manage the increased amount of data. I believe we should work with the House to craft mutually acceptable language redirecting EPA's efforts toward higher priority activities in fiscal year 1996, and to encourage EPA to work with Congress in the interim to develop risk-based legislative reforms to TRI.

Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct. The committee report makes particular reference to the MACT standard for refineries, as an illustrative example of the overall problem. The committee based its conclusion on input it received regarding a number of proposed and final MACT standards under consideration, including the proposed MACT standard for on-site incinerators and boilers and industrial furnace operators. Therefore, it is my belief that the provision is applicable to all MACT proposals that may be inconsistent [[Page S 14375]] with past precedent, the proper administrative process or the text of the Clean Air Act. One of the most important requirements of the Clean Air Act is the proper establishment of the so called MACT floor. The act states that the MACT floor is ``the average emission limitation achieved in practice by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources'' that qualify for the given category or subcategory. The EPA must establish that the limitations on emissions that constitute the MACT floor are achieved, or exceeded, in practice by 12 percent of the qualifying facilities. In addition, we are also concerned that in determining the MACT floor for a given source category, EPA may divide the source category into smaller parts and calculate the MACT floor separately for each part or pollutant. The results of this impermissible approach is that typically no single major source in a source category can meet the MACT standard without installing additional controls. Congress clearly contemplated that if MACT is set at the MACT floor, the top 12 percent of major sources in a source category should not need to install additional controls to meet MACT. Of course, EPA may then go beyond the MACT floor by determining that the additional emissions limitations are justified in light of their cost, non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements. The report language is not intended in any way to stop the MACT program, but to limit the program to those efforts previously authorized by Congress.

Mr. BOND. The EPA has stated that its use of the so called omnibus permitting authority under RCRA must be accompanied by site-specific findings in the administrative record supporting a permit that any conditions are necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment. I expect EPA to comply fully with its own procedural requirements for omnibus permitting authority under RCRA, for MACT standards under the Clean Air Act and all other authorizing statutes. The committee would oppose any attempts by EPA to ignore its legal obligations. I will carefully consider the views of the Senator from Mississippi on these issues, who I understand speaks for many other Senators with similar concerns, and work to ensure that EPA implements its statutory authority consistent with the intent of Congress and its own rules and regulations. Transferring Fair Housing Enforcement Authority

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The rule does contain two options.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to get the rule out soon, but I will work with other Senators to ensure that there is time for a reasonable transition.

Mr. BOND. The Senator would be happy to yield.

Mr. BOND. The Senator is correct, it was not the intent of the subcommittee to expand the authority of Indian tribes in this provision.

Mr. BOND. I would be happy to work with the Senator to address this issue during conference. amendment no. 2781

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for the question. It is my intention and my expectation that the National Science Foundation would continue the current practice of recommending support levels for that Directorate and for the programs represented by the Human Capital Initiative, within the overall funding recommendations of the committee in its operating plan. As you know, we generally accord the recommendations of the Foundation considerable deference given the technical nature of many of these allocation decisions, and it is my intention to continue this practice.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and the two Senators from Michigan for working to make sure that this amendment does precisely what it was intended to. I believe the refinements in the amendment have been worked out to the satisfaction of all parties. We think the objective is a good objective. We are prepared to accept the measure on this side.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I know that this amendment is supported by Senators on this side, the Senator from New Mexico and the junior Senator from Texas. We are making inquiry to determine whether they wish to speak on this amendment. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the call for the quorum be dispensed with.