Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. President, it is not hard to see how this Congress has gotten into the habit in the past of spending more money than we take in, of running deficits of $200 billion or more, putting burdens on our economy and terrible burdens on the backs of our children and grandchildren. When we talk about cuts, as my friend from West Virginia has--about draconian cuts in Medicare, when under the budget resolution Medicare will rise per recipient faster than the rate of inflation in coming years, only in Washington, DC, is that a cut. My colleague from West Virginia is complaining about the draconian cuts in veterans medical care. Our increase in medical care for the VA is the largest in this bill. It will be an increase of $285 million above fiscal year 1995--that at a time when every other aspect of this budget is being cut. Now, we have a clear choice. We have a clear choice on these two amendments. Neither one of them are offset. There is language in the amendment which purports to change the congressional budget resolution that has been adopted months ago. We cannot do that. This is simply a budget buster. It feels good. If you do not care about the fiscal impact of your irresponsibility, then you can move to waive the Budget Act so that we can go on spending like money is going out of style, because it will go out of style and this second amendment is just another in the same direction. We have tried to work with the Veterans Administration for the past several months on ways to trim VA's budget, so that the budget of VA will be used to serve the veterans. Unfortunately, the secretary has completely stonewalled and refused to cooperate with it. The secretary of the VA has done everything in his power to torpedo efforts of the Congress to reform the VA medical system, to bring it into the 21st century, to get rid of fraud, waste, and abuse, and to make sure that we use modern techniques to serve our veterans with the high quality of care that this country is capable of providing, but I fear in too many instances does not provide through the VA. The secretary has sent computer e-mail messages to every one of VA's 220,000 employees decrying the congressional budget resolution and its devastating impact on veterans health care. He has sent messages out to each employee on their pay stubs saying: ``The administration's plan is much better for veterans and their families.'' He has made speeches across the country, talking about bed closures and patients being denied air care. He has impugned the motives of Congress and the congressional budget resolution. I think it is very, very disappointing that the secretary has chosen to use his efforts on politics rather than on finding ways to serve the veterans better. He has cited statistics that are overstated, as the GAO has found, or need to be put into context. For example, the secretary said that this measure will result in hundreds of beds being closed. But what the secretary has not acknowledged is that the VA has been, and plans to continue absent any budgetary constraints, to close hospital beds because of the demand for care on an outpatient basis--rather than hospitalization. Since 1989, VA has closed almost 20,000 hospital beds--and the budget has increased each of the years since 1989. In a September 12 letter to the House Veterans, Affairs Committee Chairman Stump, GAO found serious flaws in VA's analysis of the possible impacts of the House budget resolution. VA overstated the funds it would need to maintain its current level of services because, according to GAO, it based its projected funding needs on assumptions that there will be an increase in VA workload in fiscal year 1996, and that it will be maintained for the outyears; it limited savings from increases in the efficiency with which services will be delivered, and steadily increasing costs, workload and staffing due to facility activations. Frankly, the Veterans Administration stands for the status quo. Despite medical practices changing dramatically across this country, despite the declining veteran population, despite mismanagement, the secretary does not want the VA to change. Mr. President, I am tired of the rhetoric. It is not serving anyone-- particularly not our Nation's veterans. There are few experts on VA who believe that the current quality of management of VA hospitals is adequate. GAO, the Congressional Budget Office, the VA Inspector General, and the veteran service organizations have advocated major changes to the way VA operates. They have pointed out scores of opportunities for management improvements, which would result in hundreds of millions of dollars of savings--which would improve, rather than hinder quality of patient care. You can save by shifting from inpatient to outpatient care. The veterans, in their independent budget, recommend shifting inpatient care to an outpatient basis for savings of up to $2 billion. VA estimates it could save $761 million. The inspector general testified that ``VA does not always receive the best price for pharmaceuticals, for which VA spent close to $1 billion in fiscal year 1994, and millions of dollars in annual cost savings are not realized.'' VA is overpaying in its fee-basis program for outpatient care. Again, the IG audits say the VA could save $25 million. All of these reforms, like not spending too much on affiliations with medical schools, not providing surgical services at every VA facility, when it is far safer for the veterans to be served in areas where surgical services are performed on a regular basis--all of these are savings that could go to the bottom line of better care for veterans. Let us be clear. This bill provides an increase for VA medical care. It is an increase. It is $16.45 billion to care for fewer than 3 million veterans--about $5,500 per veteran. The bill seeks only to reduce the rate of increase in VA medical spending by forcing the VA to adopt modern health care delivery methods, reduce bureaucracy and improve management. There is adequate money in this budget--without busting the budget, without destroying the congressional agreement to achieve a zero deficit in 2002--to provide the quality of care that our veterans are entitled to. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Arizona is ready to present an amendment I believe will be found acceptable on both sides. Amendment No. 2787 (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a plan for the allocation of health care resources of the Department of Veterans Affairs) Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that that be laid aside.

Mr. BOND. I would agree with the Senator's stipulations.

Mr. BOND. Yes, this funding will be available to public housing and privately owned, federally assisted housing.

Mr. BOND. I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. I understand my colleague's concerns regarding the Mission to Planet Earth program, but I wish to assure him the deletion recommendation is not targeted against CIESIN as an institution, but instead towards ensuring the function of CIESIN is integrated within NASA's Earth Observing System program to bring it in line with the structure of the other DAACs. That is why the full Appropriations Committee changed the Subcommittee recommendation on integrating this program into the EOS plan from 1997 to 1996; with that provision, the socioeconomic data function can continue uninterrupted if so desired by NASA.

Mr. BOND. I believe that the Senator from----

Mr. BOND. All right. I know of no other Senators who wish to speak on this side. I say once again, I very much appreciate the kind words of the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Montana about our efforts to work on the riders. I assure them we will continue to work with them. We cannot control what the House will do. I do not think that even if we were to adopt this Baucus amendment, the House would accept it. I just believe, while I can appreciate the concern, it is unconstitutional, and I will urge my colleagues not to support it. I want to speak briefly about the language in the committee report which calls for a report by the Environmental Protection Agency on the need for a second rule to establish emissions limits on small nonroad engines like lawnmowers and chainsaws. In response to questions by the Environmental Protection Agency as to the scope of the report, I want to ensure that it not become an undue burden on EPA, particularly in the event that the regulatory negotiation rule reaches consensus on the rule. EPA has already issued one rule applicable to this industry pursuant to a schedule dictated by a consent degree, not the Clean Air Act. That schedule also applies to the second rule which is under development, through a negotiation process. The committee supports the continuation of efforts for a negotiated second rule that would achieve a cost effective consensus acceptable to the industry, EPA, and the other participants. If that consensus is reached later this year, we would expect the report to be merely a statement of the agreement, an explanation of the actions to carry out the agreement, and assurances that the rule as proposed will conform to the agreement in all detail. If, however, the parties to the regulatory negotiation are unable to reach consensus, then the report should explain in reasonable detail the air quality need in ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas for a second rule. The report should also explain what additional air quality benefits would be achieved, and in what time frame, by a nonconsensus second rule regulating these small engines beyond the requirements of the first rule. [[Page S 14299]] Most importantly, we would expect that EPA would work with us and our staff over the next few months in fashioning a report, probably in letter form, that would not be a burden on the EPA staff, but would fully address the oversight needs of the committee. We do not wish to divert EPA from its efforts to reach the consensus or form implementing any consensus agreement. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time on my side on this issue. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues on the other side. I very much appreciate that. I hope we can get all of these amendments together. I believe after we have several of these on which we will have votes--they are very important votes--I believe and hope that we can work out many of these so that they will not require rollcall votes. Let me address this amendment. Mr. President, maybe I have been on the floor too long today. But this one really amazed me. I listened to a description of the riders, and I soon realized that the riders that my friend from Montana was referring to were riders in the House bill. And we have heard lots of discussion about those riders. We are talking about the Senate version. The Senate does not have those measures in it. We are not proposing to put those measures in it. But to remedy those measures, the power that my colleague from Montana would give to the administrator of EPA is totally awesome. The Administrator of EPA under his amendment would be able to have a super veto, would be able to make her own judgment as to whether she wanted to follow a law passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the President. That is truly breathtaking. I do not know when we have ever set up a super-veto power to give the regulator a power to veto what Congress does and the President signs. I have been around here working on regulatory reform. We have been very careful on regulatory reform to suggest procedures that an agency must go through to make sure they use common sense, to make sure that they have the cost and the benefits considered. If they cannot determine those with exactitude, they need to let us know what they do know. We ask that they use good, sound science. But we were very careful in drafting our regulatory reform bill not to have a supermandate, not to allow the Congress or anyone challenging regulations to go back wholesale and open up a whole series of regulations and overturn regulations. Here in front of us is a provision giving a supermandate to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to say, ``In my judgment, that particular statute might diminish the protection of human health or the environment. Therefore, it does not apply.'' I am absolutely overwhelmed at the breathtaking simplicity, straightforwardness and unconstitutionality of the provision. And I am not going to bother to go into any great length discussing the riders. I would just ask my colleagues when they come in tomorrow to take a look at it and see if we want to set the Administrator up somewhere above the Supreme Court. I appreciate the kind things the Senator from Montana has said about what we tried to craft in this bill. We do want to work with them. Certainly we have been very careful to try to keep the EPA legislative provisions to what we think are reasonable. We look forward to working with them. But I urge my colleagues not to give the EPA, the Administrator, power to veto laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, before I begin, I need to ask unanimous consent to add to the list of amendments that we just adopted the following five amendments due to miscommunication on our side. These were left off. They are, No. 1, Senator McCain, VA medical care; No. 2, Senator Warner, EPA contractors; No. 3, Senator Simpson, EPA Senior Employment Program; No. 4, Senator Chafee, EPA brown fields; No. 5, Senator Thurmond, VA programs.

Mr. BOND. Now, Mr. President, in light of this agreement, the leader has authorized me to announce that there will be no further votes tonight. However, votes will be stacked to occur at approximately 9 a.m., Wednesday. Senators who have amendments are urged and begged to remain tonight to debate their amendments. I now ask unanimous consent it be in order to proceed to the consideration of an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, regarding EPA provisions, under time limit of 40 minutes equally divided in the usual form and that no second-degree amendments be in order to this amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. We are dealing with the same population. Frankly, we are trying to make sure that the money available for section 8 grants does not run out next year. Let me explain. There are a couple things that can happen. Not only if the rents go up, but if the income of the persons receiving the section 8 certificate or voucher goes down, more [[Page S 14278]] money is needed. And we are digging into the same pot and potentially causing the greater problem.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as I indicated, we do share the grave concern both Senators from Hawaii have for veterans care in the State of Hawaii. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment. I believe the junior Senator from Hawaii wishes to speak, after which, if there are no further discussions on it, I think we can proceed to a vote without a rollcall. Mr. AKAKA addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in behalf of myself, and Senators Mikulski, Inouye, and Akaka. We will leave it open for others to join as cosponsors, as well.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily set aside the pending committee amendments to offer an amendment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 1995, at 2 p.m.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for an executive session, during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 1995, at 9 a.m.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on S. 895. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 895) entitled ``An Act to amend the Small Business Act to reduce the level of participation by the Small Business Administration in certain loans guaranteed by the Administration, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert:

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe that the Senator from Rhode Island has another amendment that will be acceptable on both sides. I modify the unanimous-consent agreement and ask unanimous consent that he be given 5 minutes to present the amendment with respect to arsenic in drinking water.

Mr. BOND. I further ask unanimous consent that on the Mikulski amendment on national service and on the Sarbanes amendment on homelessness, that no second-degree amendments be in order.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.