Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, these amendments have been cleared on both sides. They are ready for adoption.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, let me express my appreciation to the Senator from Maryland, who has been absolutely invaluable in helping us move this forward. I must confess that until I had this pleasure, I did not understand all that went with it. I commend her for the great service she has provided this committee in the past and the help she gave me. I join with her in thanking Rusty Mathews, Kevin Kelly, Steve Crane, the people on her side. For my part, I thank Stephen Kohashi, Carrie Apostolou, Steve Isakowitz, and the members of my staff, Julie Dammann, John Kamarck, Tracy Henke, Keith Cole, Leanne Jerome, and the others who have helped a great deal. Let me say very briefly--we have already made the points--this bill is within the budget. It sets some priorities in a very tough time. I think with the help of committee members and the Members of this body we have fine-tuned it as best we can. It does allow the agencies to move forward with the vitally needed programs that are so important in this country in the many areas we fund. I hope that the President, the Office of Management and Budget will communicate with us as to what their objections are and how we might solve them. I know that all my colleagues have enjoyed these 2 days. I do not wish to go through this drill again. If the administration will let us know what their objections are, we have, I think, done as good a job as possible within the dollars available, and if we are going to balance the budget as not only this body has said but I believe the people of America demand, this is what we have to work with. Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed immediately to vote on the passage of the bill with no other intervening action or debate.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, the drill that we just went through took a little bit of time, but, frankly, I would like to commend the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Colorado, because many times I have found that things I did not support have crept into legislation in the past. I hope that by doing this, we put all our colleagues, or at least their staffs, on notice. We are beginning what I hope will be a useful process, and I thank the Senators for recommending it.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are still a number of amendments left on the list. We do not believe the Senators proposing them are planning to come down. Senator Daschle has reserved a relevant amendment, Senator Simpson has reserved an amendment to eliminate the EPA SEE program. We are preparing to move to the adoption of the final managers' amendment. I ask that, if there are any Senators who do wish to pursue these amendments, that they call the cloakroom immediately and let us know, because as soon as we do the managers' amendment we will be ready to proceed to third reading. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask for a recorded vote, the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I think both of those suggestions are acceptable and would be happy to work with Senators Mikulski and Feinstein to develop this language in the report of the conference with the House. nasa's implementation of the zero-base review and its aeronautics programs

Mr. BOND. That is indeed the sentiment of many members of the committee. I have heard from many of my colleagues, both on the Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committee--the Environment and Public Works Committee--on the refinery MACT issue. The Senator and his colleagues can be assured that if EPA does not heed the directive contained in the Committee report on this bill, the leadership of the committee will be prepared to take additional action in the future.

Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. Yes, sir, I do. In fact, the concerns of the Senator from Mississippi reflect the concerns of the Appropriations Committee. In the committee's report on this bill, we expressed our disapproval with the way in which EPA promulgated the refinery MACT rule. To quote from the committee report: ``The committee strongly encourages EPA to reevaluate the refinery MACT and other MACT standards which are not based on sound science''.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote. [[Page S 14364]]

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the vote ordered for amendment No. 2789 be vitiated and that the motion to table be withdrawn. We are prepared to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be put aside until such time as the leaders, by agreement, can establish the vote.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. President, I appreciate the good motives. I appreciate the concern of the Senator from Maryland, the leader of the authorizing committee on his side. I appreciate the thoughtful comments by the Senator from Illinois as well. But unfortunately, this is an effort to take money from one pocket and put it in another pocket. It does so in a way that I do not think is particularly productive. I think it may even be counterproductive. While I commend them for their motives, I do not think it accomplishes anything. This is in the arcane rule of scoring budgetary authority and outlays. I apologize in advance to my colleagues. But let me tell you what has happened. The amendment proposes a budgetary offset from the HUD appropriations. It takes it out of the renewal of section 8 rental subsidy contracts. It takes out $360 million. The amendment is predicated on the reduction of project reserves. These are reserves held by local housing authorities for section 8 certificates and vouchers in use for low-income families to cover potential increases in rent or reductions in resident income during the remaining contract term. In other words, this is taking money away from one group of very poor who need housing to another group of very poor who need housing. During the consideration of the recently enacted rescissions bill, we closely examined the funding needs of the existing section 8 contracts to remove any excess funds. Only 4 months ago, this body, along with the House and the President, after we carefully assessed the needs, determined that some $427 million could be rescinded from the section 8 reserves without, in our view, potentially jeopardizing the sound financing of these outstanding rental contracts. That rescission has already been enacted into law. We now find ourselves a few months later again attempting to raid these contract reserves to fund increased homeless activities. There are two things I could say about the amendment. If we fail to adequately maintain reserves for the cost of section 8 contracts, we will surely need additional homeless funding to assist the families that get evicted when their rental contracts run out of money. So we could be pushing another group out into the street. Mr. President, the pending amendment proposes to cut another $360 million from section 8 contract reserves. I should point out that more than half the current estimate of the total amount held in these reserves is by local housing authorities. New York City, for example, stands to lose as much as $90 million if this reduction is taken proportionately. Such a large reduction could jeopardize the financial viability of the contracts issued and administered by that large housing authority. I note that those who suggest this reduction in contract reserves claim that the section 8 amendment funding could be provided at a later point to make up any shortfalls. Unfortunately, this assumes there will be adequate funding within our budget allocation to accommodate such an appropriation request, in addition to meeting the growing renewal needs of these section 8 contracts, all in the face of further reductions in overall discretionary spending. Mr. President, that is the fallacy behind this offset. I described earlier the difficulties in finding offsets. There are no easy places to find offsets. In reality, this measure is no offset at all because the net effect of the amendment is to increase program funding levels. It simply proposes to borrow funds previously set aside for section 8 program costs to augment yet another activity, neither of which can be maintained in the future at the increased spending levels if we ever hope to balance the Federal budget. I should add that the sponsors of this amendment have acknowledged the real programmatic effect of this budgetary shell game by delaying the availability of the $360 million added for homeless programs until the last day of the year. I refer my colleagues who are interested to page 3 of the amendment. The last paragraph says ``Restriction.'' Notwithstanding section 504, or any other provision of this act, the funds made available under title II of this act under the subheading ``homeless assistance'' grants, $360 million shall not become available for obligation until September 30, 1996, and shall remain available until expended. In other words, to avoid the Budget Act point of order, they said they are appropriating it for the coming year, but you cannot spend it until the end of the next fiscal year, to avoid the Budget Act point of order for breaching the fiscal year 1996 allocation. Mr. President, I merely point out that if the sponsors of the amendment are concerned about increasing fiscal year 1997 homeless program spending, then it would be wise simply to wait until next year's appropriations bill and offer an amendment to take funds from the 1997 appropriations. Maybe we can work with the sponsors and the proponents of the amendment to find funding in that year. But it looks like a difficult year. This is an effort to fund in 1997 some programs from the budget authority in 1996. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. The best of motives but, unfortunately, will do nothing towards meeting the current need for homeless assistance activities. It does not even click in until September of next year. It undermines our budgetary and deficit control efforts, and it jeopardizes the viability of housing assistance contracts currently in use by thousands of families across the Nation. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9 a.m. on Wednesday, September 27, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate immediately proceed to a 10-minute period for morning business under the control of Senator Heflin; and that the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD appropriations bill.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the HUD-VA bill at approximately 9:15 a.m., that there be 4 minutes for debate on the Rockefeller amendment No. 2784, to be equally divided in the usual form, to be followed by a vote on a motion to waive the Budget Act.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the Rockefeller amendment, there then be 4 minutes for debate, to be equally divided in the usual form, on the second Rockefeller amendment, to be followed by a vote on the motion to waive the Budget Act for consideration of the Rockefeller amendment No. 2785.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the second Rockefeller amendment, there be 4 minutes for debate, to be equally divided in the usual form, on the Baucus amendment No. 2786, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Baucus amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the Baucus amendment, there be 10 minutes for debate, to be equally divided in the usual form, on the Sarbanes amendment No. 2782, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Sarbanes amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have seen the wisdom and I shall not offer a tabling motion. I shall ask my colleagues to vote against this measure. I could not agree more strongly with the goals and the views expressed by my ranking member about the American dream. But I do not believe it involves AmeriCorps or paid Federal Government volunteer service. I am very much concerned, and I think all my colleagues should be. I hope they would vote against this amendment, even if they support the concept of AmeriCorps, because it takes money from housing assistance, from the elderly, the disabled, those with AIDS, and it raises the FHA mortgage limit. I do not believe it is the time or the amendment on which we should move forward with AmeriCorps. I ask for the [[Page S 14271]] support of my colleagues in opposing this amendment. Now, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. President, we have heard I think some compelling arguments against the AmeriCorps Program. I think in this vote it is important for our colleagues to focus on the fact that everybody agrees this program is vitally in need of reform. This program has to be changed. There have been too many problems with it. Even if you accept the fact that paying for volunteers is a good idea, I think that taking the money from assisted housing or those who badly need assisted housing is unwarranted. I think that raising the FHA mortgage limits is an idea that should be left to the authorizing committees. Serving on the authorizing committee, I can tell you that there are many good arguments against doing that. I recognize the difficulty that the proponents have had in finding funding for it. This was my problem when I chose to fund CDBG rather than this program. I urge my colleagues to join with me to table this amendment. We will continue to discuss AmeriCorps in the conference and beyond. We are waiting for a response from the administration. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes. Mr. President, I was struck by the comment of my friend from Vermont that we do have the resources to fund AmeriCorps. I think this amendment, which I have now had an opportunity to study a bit more, reflects just how difficult these funding choices are. I said earlier that when I made my recommendations, I had to weigh AmeriCorps versus community development block grants. I was interested to see what the sponsors of this amendment show as their offsets because we have to keep this amendment budget neutral. Well, this amendment uses two accounts for offsets, both of them from Housing and Urban Development. The first cuts the annual contributions for assisted housing accounts by an additional $383 million by taking an unspecified reduction. This could affect section 202 housing for the elderly, or the section 8(11) program for the disabled, or even housing for AIDS victims. Other activities in this account include vouchers for displaced families. Incidentally, when we are looking at family vouchers, for each AmeriCorps volunteer, four low-income families could be given housing for a year. Is this truly our priority? Is it truly our priority to pay one young person what otherwise could go to providing assisted housing for four families needing housing? I do not think so. That is part of the problem I have with AmeriCorps in this budget. In addition, in the rescissions bill which was adopted by this body and signed by the President earlier this summer, there was already a $1.12 billion reduction in this housing account. And the Department of HUD is telling us of their difficulty in identifying those reductions. To impose a further $383 million cut could impact real programs and real housing assistance for low-income families, the elderly and the disabled. One of the great complaints I have heard about this bill, as it has been submitted by the committee, is that it cuts HUD too much. This amendment would cut HUD further. Frankly, I was not willing to do that. I do not think it is a good idea. The other offset proposed in this amendment is achieved by increasing the individual limit on mortgages for the FHA-guaranteed program. Now, this is a very controversial provision. Under this amendment, mortgages as large as $175,000 would be eligible for Government guarantees. That is raising from the current limit of about $152,000. These are not and should not be the sector of the housing market that the Government guarantees should cover. Moreover, private mortgage insurance is readily available in those mortgages. This proposal would expand the role and scope of Government. It is something that has been debated in the authorizing committees. I believe it is not wise because it would place the Government in greater competition with the private mortgage insurance market and likely increase FHA's market share in the area at a time when the private market is doing more and more. President Clinton has talked about reinventing Government and bringing it under control. The Republicans who were elected in 1994 talked about limiting the scope and the role of Government. This amendment goes in the opposite direction from both of those objectives. To make the argument that we should increase the maximum allowable loan amount because it generates more money is to say that the best reason for a Government program is that it makes money. That is not the right approach. I think the only valid justification for a program is a public purpose that can only be achieved by Government. There is no public purpose served by expanding Government's role into the already served private market. I believe this proposal is corporate welfare for lenders who currently receive servicing fees far higher than market levels for handling loans with no risk. Actually, it is a risk assumed by the taxpayers, not by the lenders. I think there is real reform needed in the AmeriCorps, National Service Corps. I am very pleased that the sponsors of the amendment-- and I congratulate the Senator from Maryland for putting in a proviso that none of the funds available shall be used to administer, reimburse, or support any national service programs run by Federal agencies. We were astounded earlier this year to learn, Mr. President, when we wanted to find out where the money was going at the national level, that AmeriCorps had been funding the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, EPA, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Well, according to the letters that we have received from OMB Director Rivlin and from Mr. Segal, they are not willing to talk about any reforms. I strongly support and commend the Senator from Maryland for agreeing to take out all of these Government agencies. AmeriCorps was funding these governmental agencies, and they were passing over Future Farmers of America, National 4-H Council, Girl Scouts of America, American Red Cross, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the Boys and Girls Clubs, National Audubon Society, United Negro College Fund, United Way of America, United Cerebral Palsy Association, Goodwill Industries International. These are the traditional volunteer agencies that most people think of in America when you talk about volunteers. Yet, they were passing over those. They were passing over those, in some instances, to go to Federal Government agencies. I am glad and I congratulate the sponsor of this amendment for knocking out those Federal agencies. But I also want to point out that there was strange scoring done. When you look at the independent assessment made by an outside agency who ranked these applicants, they had to reach way down in the rankings--from an impartial ranking group--to find some of the organizations that were funded. They overlooked Big Brothers/Big Sisters, National Urban League and Student Conservation to provide funding for an ACORN project. Well, as Senator Grassley has learned--and I believe he may have a statement later on--the ACORN project was involved directly in political activity. They were soliciting votes, actually involved directly in a campaign against a city councilman in Denver. I think it is time that we had a commitment from this administration for a thorough reform of AmeriCorps before we even consider putting funds that are badly needed in other agencies into that program. I received a letter from Peter Hoekstra on the House side, chairman of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee. He was an original supporter of the Corporation for National Service. He said, at the time, ``I believed that this would be an efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars. However, after conducting an independent evaluation of how money flows from the Corporation to AmeriCorps programs and how these funds are spent, I have grave concerns about the continuation of this program.'' He states that he has begun a dialog but he finds that it is safe to say that AmeriCorps has been and likely continues to be an avenue for partisanship. ``The recent move by the Corporation to defund ACORN and Cole Coalition only serves to highlight the seriousness of this problem. In the case of ACORN, AmeriCorps' IG has pointed out numerous cases of lobbying, fund raising, and even voter registration carried out by AmeriCorps members.'' Congressman Hoekstra goes on to say, ``Finally, our subcommittee is in the process of reviewing CNS' grant-making procedures. Our preliminary findings reveal a less than comprehensible procedure, whereby grant scoring often has little to do with who receives the final grants.'' I really believe that before we consider trying to take money away from HUD, from assisted housing for those who are in grave need, for the people who are elderly, who are disabled, or the people with AIDS, that the administration at least owes us a good-faith effort to make sure that the dollars that are spent in AmeriCorps are not being spent for political purposes, they are not being wasted on high-cost projects. I reiterate my point that in these very tight budget times, I do not think that paying money to volunteers in this program is a higher priority than taking care of the needs of those who depend upon HUD for federally assisted [[Page S 14266]] housing. I reserve the balance of my time. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield the Senator from Arizona 8 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?