Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I yield the distinguished Senator from Wyoming 2 minutes.

Mr. BOND. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. Mr. President, this is an effort again to deal with some very, very tight funding problems. We recommended, and the committee accepted, that the incompetent veterans provision included in the House stay in the Senate bill. It limits the provision, as we said earlier, in order to save $172 million in budget authority and $157 million in outlays. As a result of this provision, the subcommittee was able to provide an increase for VA medical care. It does say that where a mentally incompetent veteran has neither dependent children, dependent spouse, nor dependent parents, when the value of the veteran's estate exceeds $25,000, until the estate is reduced to $10,000, there will be no payments. These are for veterans whose needs are being fully cared for by the Veterans Administration. This is a veteran who has no dependents. This is the ultimate estate builder plan. These are veterans who are in very difficult circumstances. The people who will benefit from the payments made by the VA are heirs, not dependent heirs. Frankly, the offset provision which purports to deal with tax cuts is thin air. It is absolute vapor. It proposes some budget gimmickry, but, frankly, what this amendment does by raising spending by the amount of $172 million in budget authority and $157 million in outlays is to say to our children ``We've got you. We are going to put this estate builder program on your credit card.'' This is a violation of the budget that is proposed and been adopted by Congress. If this provision were to succeed, it would have the impact of busting the agreement to achieve a zero deficit by the year 2002. Imagine how difficult it would be to tell your children or your grandchildren, ``I just decided that we don't need to stop spending on your credit card. We're going to provide an estate builder plan for incompetent veterans, people who served the country well but who are being fully cared for by the Veterans Administration so their nondependent heir, not their wife, not the dependent child, not the dependent parent, but some farther away heir will receive the bonus that has been built up by these payments.'' In September 1980, the Comptroller General, as written by the former chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, said, ``Congress intended distant relatives should not be enshrined to receive benefits of veterans or their immediate families. However, large estates consisting of VA benefits are evidently still enriching distant relatives who may have had very little to do with the veteran and were not affected by his service to the United States.'' The VA inspector general conducted an audit of the VA's fiduciary program and recommended legislation to limit compensation payments. The IG found numerous instances of substantial estates being inherited by distant relatives. An incompetent veteran of World War I emigrated from Lithuania in 1907 and died in 1978, leaving an estate of $87,900, of which $77,800 came from VA benefits. The estate went to six nieces and nephews living in the Soviet Union. There are many other examples like that. But the basic argument is we have a very tight budget, and it was our decision in recommending to the subcommittee, which the subcommittee recommended to the full committee, which the committee recommended to this floor, we could better spend the $172 million in ensuring that current veterans receive medical care that they need. This was a very important part of the increase that we were able to give in veterans medical affairs. When the time comes, I will raise a Budget Act point of order to this measure. [[Page S 14288]] I yield the floor. Mr. President, how many minutes would the Senator from Wyoming like?

Mr. BOND. We are prepared to accept the amendment, and we appreciate the support of our colleagues for the program.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, these programs are programs that I think are vitally in need of restructuring and reoriented and bringing in to the modern day. No question that Green Lights may have done some good for some big companies. This is really a distinguished group of companies. You can see Martin Marietta, General Dynamics, Warner Lambert, Phillips Petroleum, Whirlpool, Xerox, U.S. West, TransAmerica, all these companies have saved millions of dollars through the Green Lights Program. Great. What I think is that it is time to say enough corporate welfare. Start getting these people who are benefiting to pay for it. I have agreed with the sponsors of this amendment to accept their permissive language and to make some changes. No. 1, we say that there ought to be a priority for small businesses. During fiscal year 1996, the Administrator of the EPA shall give priority to providing assistance in its energy efficiency [[Page S 14283]] and energy supply programs to organizations that are recognized as small business concerns under section 3(A) of the Small Business Act. Get out of the business of providing very scarce taxpayer resources to help very large companies save money on energy. They ought to be saving it. We have started the program. We have shown how they can save money. Let them pay for it. No. 2, we will include a study. The Administrator must determine the feasibility of establishing fees to recover all reasonable costs incurred by EPA for assistance rendered businesses in the energy efficiency and energy supply program. The study should include making the program self-sustaining, the value of the assistance rendered to businesses, providing exemptions for small businesses, making the fees payable directly to a fund that would be available for use by EPA as needed for this program. Nobody here is challenging the need for energy efficiency. It is vitally important from the environment standpoint, from a cost standpoint. It makes good sense. I do not believe that we ought to continue to have the Federal Government paying out this high-class corporate welfare. This is a significant step toward weaning those large companies away from that endeavor. Now, let me address the Montreal Protocol, and let me state to my colleagues that both of these are permissive. EPA is going to have to eat into its own budget to the extent it wants to use up to $100 million to support the climate change program in the Green Lights program or the Montreal Protocol facilitation funds. I hope they will be careful in utilizing those funds because we need those funds to be used on cleaning up the environment here in this country, not providing foreign aid to other countries under the Montreal Protocol and not using up dollars in helping the largest corporations save money by instituting energy-efficiency programs. Let me tell you briefly about the Montreal Protocol funds. The fund received $116 million from the U.S. Government over the past few years. It is an international fund, managed through the State Department, to support developing countries in their efforts to phase out ozone- depleting chemicals. It is a worthwhile goal, but I do not see why the EPA, which is strapped for funds, is going to want to spend much of its money on that. I think, if we really want to provide foreign aid for other countries to improve their environment, we ought to be looking at the State Department. I understand the Senator from Vermont had expressed concern about cuts in the foreign operations appropriations bill, the account which provides funding for the Montreal Protocol funds. That, I believe, is where it should be funded in the future. This subcommittee is not able to make up for shortfalls in other appropriations bills. We will allow the EPA, as a transition, to utilize those funds to the extent necessary. But I really believe the funds are better spent on environmental protection activities at home. We have provided the funds as available for these activities. We provided the Montreal Protocol funds some $116 million. I think the EPA can determine how to utilize its scarce resources and phase out the funding of these programs. The companies that have benefited from the Green Lights programs, we congratulate them and urge the EPA to move on to self-funding. With that, Mr. President----

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

Mr. BOND. I yield myself 2 minutes. Let me just conclude this discussion by saying that under the system that has been suggested by my colleague from Maryland, which is an effort to solve the homeless problem, we are still in a budgetary quandary. We have not solved the budgetary problem. The Budget Committee will score the outlays during the year in which they occur no matter when they have been allocated. If, when the budget authority has been granted, if we move the funds to fiscal year 1997, as the amendment by my friend from Maryland would do, we will have that many fewer dollars to spend, that many fewer dollars in outlays to spend during fiscal year 1997. That is why I say that we have asked HUD to enter into negotiated rulemaking to try to get these funds out to deal with not only the funds we have appropriated in this bill but the funds, $297 million, made available in the rescission bill for the coming year, and utilize those funds to deal with the homeless problem. That is why again I regretfully say that moving money from one pocket to another does not overcome the appropriations and budgetary problems, and does not move us any further towards the goal of serving the homeless and those who need section 8 public housing assistance. Mr. President, is all time expired?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my previous tabling motion be withdrawn.

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. This measure does not do anything except what I think is a shell game to make it look better when, in fact, there is not a dollar that can be allocated during the coming fiscal year because of the restriction put on saying it should be restricted until September 30, 1996. While we both share the objective of taking care of the homeless, this amendment is less than it appears. It does not accomplish anything. I, therefore, move to table it. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I go back to the fact we have asked HUD to engage in negotiated rulemaking because HUD is unlikely to be able to put together a block grant during fiscal year 1996. Negotiated rulemaking will provide the homeless advocates with the ability to fashion a block grant to utilize these [[Page S 14279]] moneys, and, frankly, this amendment, although it looks good to have it in an appropriations bill in 1995 that I hope gets signed this year for 1996, will not make a single dollar available, cannot be allocated or obligated during fiscal year 1996.

Mr. BOND. I will say, first, we are asking HUD to promulgate rules through negotiated rulemaking and include recommendations by State and localities, as well as homeless assistance providers. This task is going to go forward in any event. A budget gimmick of making funds available on the last day of the fiscal year does not improve the situation. We are going to be facing a very tight budgetary situation in 1997. To attempt to move funds now and make them available September 30 next year, unfortunately, is not a realistic way of dealing with the problem of homelessness. I share the concern of the Senator from Maryland to make sure we get a new program. Frankly, this does not do anything for it. I point out that when we rescinded slightly more than this in the rescissions bill, that rescission was more than three-quarters of the way through the fiscal year when we knew what was going to happen in the fiscal year. This is starting out the fiscal year by taking away from that reserve fund. I do not think that makes any sense, particularly when it is not going to be needed until the end of the fiscal year. I ask this amendment be set aside for a vote to occur--I will, when the time arrives, ask that it be set aside. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. All right. Would the proponent of the amendment wish to pursue that? Does he wish to, on his time, state anything further? Because I am prepared to yield back all of the time as soon as I make some closing comments.

Mr. BOND. Well, Mr. President----

Mr. BOND. Yes.

Mr. BOND. If the Senator wishes to make an argument, he has 4 minutes left. To respond to the question, I would say that argument holds no water when he does not make any of the funds available--what is it-- until September 30, 1996. This is a shell game.

Mr. BOND. Yes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am about ready to yield back my time. I have some very brief comments. I yield myself 3 minutes, and if the proponent of the amendment wishes to conclude, then I will respond briefly, and we can move on to the next amendment. While this is a very important amendment, we do not seem to have a great number of colleagues wishing to debate it. So, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. President, I have already made the point that we are dealing with some very, very sensitive issues, and, unfortunately, I do not see this amendment as being any solution whatsoever because it takes money from an account designed to prevent homelessness in order to add money to those who are currently homeless.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the [[Page S 14222]] Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of VA-HUD operations appropriations bill tomorrow morning at 9:30. Under the previous order, there will be a rollcall vote at approximately 2:20 on or in relation to the Bumpers space station amendment. Additional rollcall votes can be expected throughout Tuesday's session, day and night, in order to finish action on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. As a reminder, the majority leader has announced once all the necessary appropriations items are completed the Senate would then stand in recess until Tuesday, October 10.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to the Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association. I am very pleased to recognize this organization for its 15 years of superior service to the Missouri business community. The Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association was formed in 1980. With hard work and untiring commitment, the MMMA has grown into a strong, well respected voice in the legislative process representing over 5,000 small and mid-sized businesses across the State of Missouri. It is actively involved in educating MMMA members and serving as an advocate on State legislative issues impacting businesses. While Governor of Missouri, I found that the MMMA's active involvement in State legislative issues provided a vital resource. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I highly value the insights they have shared on numerous issues of great importance to America's business. The quality individuals that comprise the MMMA epitomize the kind of dedication, work ethic and ideals necessary to meet the ongoing challenges and demands of the business community. Their leadership has influenced passage of important legislation and provided dependable resources in many court cases to benefit employers. The Missouri Merchants and Manufacturers Association will commemorate its 15th anniversary at an annual fall dinner on September 30, 1995. It is my great pleasure to congratulate the MMMA for this significant accomplishment.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in just a few minutes, I will be proposing a unanimous-consent request setting forth the time for debate on this tomorrow. We will have an opportunity to go through some of these debates and expand upon them. I am not going to take much time tonight other than to say the proponent of this amendment is very eloquent. He has raised quite a few concerns that he has. I believe there are good answers for all of them. I was reminded, as he spoke, about all the things that could potentially go wrong, of a cartoon character many years ago who used to walk around with a metal shield over his head so he would not be hit by a meteorite if one came from space. Some of the arguments presented against the space station seem to have about as much likelihood of occurring as being struck by a meteorite. I do want to point out that in this bill we do not, as the proponents suggest, cut back on regulation to endanger the drinking water of this country. In fact, we believe that with restructuring and refocusing the activities of the Environmental Protection Agency, we can continue to make the progress that we have made in these fields. But to address the particular terms of this amendment, the argument has been made that we do not really need to go to a space shuttle, because everything we can do on a space shuttle can be accomplished much more effectively on Earth. But I say the facts are that the science proposed for the station cannot be accomplished on Earth at any price. The space station science requires sustained access to very low levels of gravitational force. It is not technically feasible to create a low-gravity environment for research without going into orbit, and I believe the speakers opposing the amendment have made that point very well. The space shuttle program has produced a number of very important findings and helped scientists to explore the possibilities of orbital research, but the space shuttle can only stay in orbit for 16 days at a time. Dr. Michael DeBakey, chancellor and chairman of the department of surgery at Baylor College of Medicine has said: Present technology of the shuttle allows for stays in space of only about 2 weeks. We do not limit medical researchers to only a few hours in the laboratory and expect cures for cancer. We need much longer missions in space, in months to years to obtain research results that may lead to the development of new knowledge and breakthroughs. I might also add that the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences just released a report on microresearch opportunities for 1990 which states: The need for an extended duration orbiting platform has been identified as critical in many microgravity research experiments because of the time required for experimentation, the wide parametric ranges and the need to demonstrate the reproductability of results. Another quote: The duration of experiments, the regime of parameters available to experimenters and the ability to demonstrate reproductability of results in microgravity experiments create the need for extended duration orbiting platforms. There are many other authorities that we could cite for this proposition, but as my colleague from Maryland has said, this is a question of setting priorities. We have a tight budget, certainly, but we ought to be in the position where we make investments that are important for the future. I believe it would be a tragedy, a tremendous tragedy, were we tomorrow to vote to kill the space station. The space station is the most ambitious and exciting space program since the Apollo program of over 25 years ago. I think it is time that we called an end to the incessant attempts to kill the space station. Over the last 4 years, there have been 13 attempts in the House and Senate to kill the program. And fortunately, because of the knowledge and what the space station can and will do, these amendments have failed. Last year, a resounding 64 Senators voted against this amendment. I was proud to be among them. The arguments used by station opponents this year are the same ones. We have seen the same charts. We have gone through the drill. These tired arguments have been used in the past. The claims were not true then; they are not true now. Let me tick off a very few. The space station is no longer a dream. It is a reality. It is working. It is providing results. Second, the space station is perfectly on schedule and on budget. As a matter of fact, through the leadership of the administration, the White House and NASA, we are going through the entire space budget and we have made significant savings. We can spend our scarce dollars on high-priority programs and that includes the space station. Third, a streamlined management team is in place. NASA has reduced its in-house work force by 1,000, almost one half, and the program is being better managed than ever before. They made rescissions and reforms in having a prime contractor. The system is working. Fourth, cooperation with Russia is working as planned. We are working with our former adversary and developing some very usable scientific information, and breaking new ground working with Russia. Fifth, the program is not a budget buster. It has been included in the budget resolution that has been adopted because it is an investment. Finally, the space station will not undermine the balance among NASA programs in human space flight, science, technology, and aeronautics. This is a program which deserves to stand on its own. I think the amendment to terminate the space station threatens the existence of the U.S. human space flight program, and I urge my colleagues not support the amendment when it comes up for a vote tomorrow.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, as usual, my colleague from Maryland is extremely eloquent as she states the case for the space station. She has done it very well. She and the Senators from Texas and Ohio have made the case. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record some explanations and corrections for the committee report on this bill. Because of the time pressure, we did not have the chance to make all the corrections on the report. I ask they be printed in the Record for the information of those who may have questions about this report. It does not amend the report, but it will be in further explanation of the report.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.