Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma and the others who have spoken on this side so eloquently. I think we have had an excellent debate. Because we have had so many people debating on this measure, we have used up all of the time. I would now ask unanimous consent that there be 3 minutes for the proponent of the amendment and 3 minutes for me as an opponent of the amendment to wrap it up, and then that I be recognized for a tabling motion.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on these two amendments the time be equally divided, 30 minutes in the normal form on both sides with no second-degree amendments.

Mr. BOND. Is the Senator agreeable to a 30-minute time agreement equally divided in the usual form for that amendment as well?

Mr. BOND. And the second amendment?

Mr. BOND. May I ask which amendment he just sent forward?

Mr. BOND. I agree with the Senator's assertion.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator and agree that EPA's efforts to streamline its approval processes and move toward performance-based standards for analytical methods are a vital part of environmental compliance. Clearly, the completion of EPA's ongoing efforts in this regard is within the scope of funding provided in this bill for ETI.

Mr. BOND. That is correct. The committee would agree that allocating funds for completing efforts to encourage new performance-based analytical methods and other streamlining methods is entirely consistent with the stated purpose of targeting ETI funding for verification efforts.

Mr. BOND. I share the Senator from Arkansas' concerns about the impact of the refinery MACT rule on small business. This is one of the reasons the committee has directed the EPA to reexamine the refinery MACT rule. Placing a disproportionate burden on the Nation's small businesses is not sound regulatory policy. It is my hope that EPA will address this issue, as well as the many other problems inherent in its current refinery MACT rule, when it reassesses the rule as a whole.

Mr. BOND. The Senator from Arkansas is correct. In its report on the bill under consideration today, the Appropriations Committee expressed its dissatisfaction with the procedures EPA has employed in promulgating all MACT regulations, particularly the refinery MACT rule. The committee directed EPA to reevaluate the refinery MACT rule after applying principles of sound science.

Mr. BOND. I would be pleased to discuss an issue with the Senator from Arkansas, a member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. BOND. Thank you for raising these important issues. Considering the potential for well-meaning States to be punished unfairly, I am sure my colleagues will consider your comments and those of the Senator from North Carolina most carefully. refinery mact

Mr. BOND. My colleague from Oklahoma is correct in expressing misgivings over EPA's current implementation of the permit program. As the result of similar concerns, the Senate Appropriations Committee included language in the report accompanying this bill urging EPA to delay enforcement of the title V program for 1 year. This would give EPA the opportunity to resolve outstanding issues and reduce the likelihood that States and sources will adopt provisions that may ultimately conflict with EPA's final rule. The one-year delay would also give EPA and states sufficient time to develop more cost-effective approaches to permitting. Given the severity of the problems which have beset EPA's implementation of this program, I believe this provision is critical.

Mr. BOND. The subcommittee has heard of many of the NHMFL's accomplishments in its short 3-year history. New magnet development, at the cutting edge of technology, has created the finest array of the world's most powerful magnets. It has allowed the United States to reclaim world leadership in magnet science and technology.

Mr. BOND. I do not see any--does the Senator from Arizona wish to add to his remarks?

Mr. BOND. I commend my friend and colleague from Arizona on the very thoughtful amendment. I have had the opportunity to discuss this amendment with my ranking member. It moves the Veterans Administration in the direction which we feel it is vitally important for the VA to move. We have already addressed here on this floor many of the problems in the way the VA operates. We think it could be far more efficient, far more effective in the service it provides to the veterans. And I believe that my distinguished colleague from Arizona has outlined a plan for implementation of improvements that will be very good operating procedure for the Veterans Administration. I am ready to accept the amendment on this side, and I ask if there are any other speakers or if my ranking member----

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. I believe we are about finished with this amendment.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment be set aside.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, again I urge my colleagues not to support the Budget Act waiver. We have provided an increase. We are seeking to improve health care for the veterans. This measure simply is an attempt, on a very appealing case, to break the budget agreement. I trust that everybody in this country as well as in this body will understand what this means. Mr. President, the adoption of the pending amendment would cause the Appropriations Committee to breach its discretionary allocation as well as breach revenue amounts established in the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution. Pursuant to section 302(f) and 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, I raise a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. BOND. Will the Senator care to use his 17 seconds?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time on this side. The amendment by the Senator from West Virginia purports to deal with cuts in veterans' medical care. How many times do we have to say it? Veterans' medical care will go up over $200 million from last year and this year's bill. There are reforms needed in the Veterans Administration. I hope that by having brought some light to these, we may encourage the authorizing committee to look at ways in which we can work together to see the quality of that care is increased. But the amendment by the Senator from West Virginia is very simply a budget buster. There is not an offset. It is a clear-cut attempt to break the agreement, to get us back on the path of spending $200 billion a year in deficits. It is not designed to improve medical care for the veterans. It is designed to break the budget agreement. It cannot at this time amend the budget agreement. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues not to support the waiver of the Budget Act point of order. Mr. President, is all time used up on both sides?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the following amendments be the only remaining amendments in order to H.R. 2099, that they be offered in the first degree or second degree to an excepted committee amendment, and that those offered in the first degree be subject to relevant second-degree amendments: Baucus, EPA provision; Daschle, relevant; Bradley, budget process; Feingold, redlining; Feingold, CDBG; Simon-Moseley-Braun, strike transfer of HUD fair housing office to DOJ; Lautenberg, Superfund/CEQ increase; Chafee, Kalamazoo, MI; Bumpers, reactor sale; Harkin, EPA lead sinkers; Faircloth, occupancy standards; Faircloth, fair housing and free speech; Johnston, environmental technology; Feinstein, CDBG; Feinstein earthquake insurance; cleared managers amendments; and a Bingaman amendment dealing with colonias. I further ask, following disposition of the listed amendments, the managers be recognized to offer their cleared amendments to be followed by adoption of any remaining committee amendments, third reading of H.R. 2099, as amended.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Wyoming 4 minutes.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment and the motion to waive be set aside.

Mr. BOND. The adoption of the pending amendment would cause the Appropriations Committee to breach its discretionary allocation as well as breach revenue amounts established in the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution. Pursuant to section 302(f) and 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, I raise a point of order against the amendment.