Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I believe S. 1541, the underlying legislation, which is the subject of discussion in the cloture motions today, presents a very important opportunity for the Senate to move forward in a bipartisan way to shape policy in behalf of our Nation's farmers and consumers. This modified freedom-to-farm legislation offers reform, opportunity, flexibility and predictability in a fiscally responsible way and with the growing support of Members on both sides of the aisle and, I would say most important, growing support from the people in America who are looking to the Congress to tell them what the Federal farm policy will be. All of us, as Senators, should understand that farmers need to know what the Federal policy will be. For better or worse, the Federal Government has been a very large part of decisions made by farmers in deciding what to plant, where to plant, and how to plant. We know that a new, long-term plan is far better than an extension of the current law. We know that if we do not move this legislation, the alternative is delay, confusion, frustration, continuation of current law, or perhaps even the reinstitution of long-outdated policies still on the books. We also should know, based on the discussions that have gone on here, that there is only one vehicle that has been under the light, has been scrutinized, has met the test, and can bring a legislative bipartisan consensus. Simply put, I find no constituency for continuing the status quo. We cannot leave the Federal farm programs in the quandary in which they now find themselves. Farmers do not want it. Fiscal conservatives do not want it. Reformers do not want it. Urban Members who have been critical of the current farm programs, certainly they should not want it. This process is terribly difficult under normal circumstances, but it is especially difficult when working under balanced budget constraints. It is even more difficult when the comprehensive proposal which has survived this legislative marathon represents significant change because change produces political anxiety. There is no question that this will be a very difficult measure, but it has been through the process and it has reached a consensus that I believe is absolutely essential. I offer my thanks and congratulations, on behalf of farmers in my State and all those of us who want to put this country on a path towards a balanced budget, to the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, to Chairman Lugar, to Senator Grassley, particularly to Senator Leahy, the ranking member on the agriculture authorizing committee, and the others who have worked under difficult circumstances to find a bipartisan consensus for which the Senate now has an opportunity to move, to a post-cloture scenario that can get a bill to the President's desk. I know the majority leader and Chairman Lugar and their staffs have labored tirelessly to find a bipartisan solution and I applaud them for taking decisive action to answer the pressing need to produce a farm bill for the future. I regret that some remain opposed to this legislation. I believe that the stage was set during consideration of the budget resolution when Congress voted cuts--not disproportionate cuts--but real cuts nonetheless. At that time, I think some on the other side decided that the cuts were too great and that any program that carried these cuts would be opposed. I want to warn anyone listening, if you find yourself confused, there may be ample reason. You may hear from some that this legislation cuts farming too much and that it simultaneously pays farmers too much under the fixed market transition payments. We may also hear from some who have historically opposed existing law that this reform legislation should be defeated to preserve existing law. Mr. President, I am hearing from my farmers that they want modified freedom to farm, and they do not want an extension of current law. Let me address this notion that we are cutting agriculture too much and paying farmers too much. In my State, farm prices may be better than they were last year, but to them, there is no way these prices are high. These prices are the same as they were 13 years ago while the cost of a pickup truck has doubled over that same period. ``High prices'' is a relative term. If you ask a rancher feeding steers corn-- corn is high. If you ask a corn farmer, prices are not high--hardly enough to cover the costs of production. I read a wire story where Secretary Glickman observed from China that he was concerned that farmers will get a tremendous windfall. I know the Secretary is doing marvelous work promoting trade and he should be applauded for that, but he would not want to sit down with farmers in my State and explain to them how this slimmed down program, combined with moderate prices is going to give them a windfall. Additionally, prices may be higher than they were several years ago, but after this past year's flood, drought, and frost, many farmers had nothing or significantly less to sell. The existing program does not address that problem and this is a critically important point. You cannot tell my farmers who have little to sell while facing a refund of their advanced deficiency payments that the current program is a safety net and the modified freedom to farm is not. I might also suggest to Members who are worried that farmers might get a payment when prices are higher than normal that farmers can allocate the money to prepare for the bad years--they do not need the Government to do it for them. I believe farmers can manage a predictable 7-year income stream to mitigate economic risk just as well or better than Washington can do it on their behalf. They can sock it away for the bad year, they can buy down their debt, they might buy a new used 15-year-old tractor to improve their efficiency. Mr. President, I urge Members to take a look at this bill and recognize that it is an exciting new approach to the challenge of maintaining a healthy food-producing sector, promoting important environment practices, and doing so within the budget constraints that we are imposing on ourselves on behalf of future farmers who want our Nation to afford farm programs. The first feature of this package is that it is responsible. As the other side has testified again and again, farmers were not exempt from the difficult choices necessary to balance a budget. Farmers have always been supportive of a balanced Federal budget and have proven their willingness to share in the sacrifice necessary to get there. Farmers are highly sensitive to the cost of capital and, according to FAPRI at the University of Missouri, stand to save over $15 billion over the next 7 years if we achieve a balanced budget. This package provides predictability. Farmers, bankers, and the taxpayers know how much this program will cost over the next 7 years. It locks in spending to protect agriculture from the next round of budget cuts while simultaneously preventing the fluctuations that have shocked budgets in the past. This package dramatically reduces burdensome paperwork and the perverse antimarket incentives that frustrate farmers who are aggressively competing for and securing growing international markets. Farmers would rather compete to feed Asia than protect their crop base necessary to maximize deficiency payments. Simplicity, flexibility, predictability, and budgetary soundness are features--any one of which is a step forward in this debate--but together, they mark an historic effort to make the transition to the future. Mr. President, I do not blame Members for being hesitant to embrace changes to a program that has lasted my lifetime. It was only after multiple meetings with farmers in my State that I was prepared to make this change. In this town, if one is in doubt, she or he is expected to stick with the status quo. But there are two things that have changed. There is a recognition that the deficit must be addressed and farmers are ready to free themselves from the regulations of the current program. There is one other observation I wish to share from my experience traveling in Missouri. As Senators know, the number of farmers is decreasing and the age of the average farmer is increasing. Most talented young rural people are moving to town. Of the young people who are endeavoring to be our next generation of farmers, there is a great optimism despite the difficulties in agriculture. These young farmers will tell you they want to farm for the market. They think the current system is old, outdated, complicated, frustrating, inflexible, bureaucratic, and costly. Our next generation of farmers tell me they want to turn the corner as we move into the next century and I think we owe these young farmers that opportunity. Mr. President, this legislation has been out there since last summer and it was included in the Balanced Budget Act passed by Congress in November and vetoed by the President on December 6, 1996. It was carefully crafted after months of negotiations between House and Senate conferees. As all Members know, this was a difficult process and many delicate regional issues were addressed. Since the veto, I know there have been bipartisan negotiations led by the distinguished majority leader, Chairman Lugar, and Members on the other side. I must tell Senators, until the most recent bipartisan negotiations with Senator Leahy, one of the more difficult press inquiries I have fielded is, ``Who are the Republicans negotiating with?'' I know that the distinguished minority leader introduced a bill on marketing loans and the House has a blue dog plan. The administration once hinted at 21 percent unpaid flex but I see in a report off the wire that they now support a 2-year freedom to farm experiment and, here is the kicker, with dramatically reduced transition payments. I raise this point because there is simply no consensus alternative. There is, however, consensus in the agricultural community on this legislation and I believe it is time for us to join together to reflect that consensus. Mr. President, we all share the goal of continuing to provide the safest, most abundant, and the most affordable supply of food and fiber in the world. I know there are some who may call this welfare. As farm State Senators know, we have argued until we are blue in the face that the current system is not welfare but people are not listening. Farmers know it is not welfare and most Senators do not consider the existing program welfare, but try to pass that off on an editorial board or local chamber of commerce. You cannot argue that the reform program will be accused of welfare when the existing system is accused of welfare. In my State, farmers are supportive. Over time, more and more of the commodity groups representing farmers have weighed in. Missouri's corngrowers were in this week to request that freedom to farm be adopted and a continuation of current law be rejected. Farm Bureau is asking us to move this legislation. The underlying bill represents serious reform, it moves us in the right direction and is fiscally responsible. This is why it has been endorsed by: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Citizens Against Government Waste; representatives of the Heritage Foundation; Citizens for a Sound Economy; National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Tax Reform, Consumer Alert; the Cato Institute; and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. I understand that change is not easy and I congratulate again the efforts of the majority leader, Chairman Lugar, and the bipartisan negotiators who have been searching for a way to move this legislation forward and get farmers a program that moves them into the next century. I think the President will see that farmers and citizens will be best served if he adopts this legislation and I am hopeful that Congress can continue to work on sensible regulatory reform, capital gains and estate tax relief and other measures that will help our farmers compete in the next century. I urge adoption of the bipartisan compromise. I urge my colleagues to invoke cloture. The farmers of America deserve better than to be filibustered into uncertainty for the rest of the spring. We need to move forward on this bill.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I understand we are technically out of time on the farm bill, but I see no other Senators seeking the floor. I ask unanimous consent that I be allotted the remaining time before the recess in order to make remarks about S. 1541, the farm legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to the Faith House. It is a great pleasure to recognize this organization for its 4 years of superior service to the under- privileged children of the St. Louis community. The Faith House was established in 1992 to meet the ever-increasing demand for the care of infants and children exposed to drugs. This residential facility has already succeeded in serving over 250 infants and children in its stable, home-like environment through the dedication of numerous volunteers and professional medical staff. The 24-hour comfort and security provided by the caring individuals comprising the Faith House is essential to the long-term physical, emotional, and intellectual development of our children. As a father and long-term advocate for children and families, I believe the welfare and security of our Nation's children are of paramount importance to the future of our society. The Faith House aspires to continue it's tireless dedication to improving the quality of life for those children who have been some of the least fortunate in our society. The Faith House is endeavoring to meet the increasing demand for growth and expansion of its quality care through construction of a new 50-bed home. Efforts are currently underway to realize this project, and on February 23, 1996, a dinner-dance and auction will be held in St. Louis to recognize this outstanding facility. It is an honor to congratulate the people of the Faith House on all of their successes and to wish them the best of luck in their future pursuits.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I urge support for the Housing Opportunity Program Extenders Act of 1995. This legislation is designed to provide HUD and Farmers Home with authority to continue certain housing programs which are strongly supported by the American public. Most importantly, similar to the VA/HUD fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, this bill would require HUD to renew expiring section 8 project-based contracts for fiscal year 1996 for 1 year at current rents. There are some 900,000 FHA-insured units with section 8 project-based assistance expiring over the next 10 years. Many of these section 8 contracts are oversubsidized under existing contracts and fiscal responsibility requires that Congress contain the spiraling costs associated with this inventory. Moreover, under a recent HUD legal opinion, HUD may renew these expiring section 8 project-based contracts at the market rent with some exceptions for contract rents up to 120 percent of the market rents; this means that these section 8 projects will begin to default and face foreclosure by HUD during fiscal year 1996. I believe it is critical that Congress reform and adjust the costs, including section 8 costs, of this assisted housing to the existing market rents. However, in doing so, we must balance the cost of the expiring section 8 contracts with the cost of foreclosure of these projects to the FHA insurance fund, as well as the significant social policy of the possible displacement of low-income housing residents and the disinvestment by project owners in these projects which could result in significant deterioration of this valuable housing stock. Like the VA/HUD fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, renewing these section 8 contracts for 1 year will provide the Banking Committee with an opportunity to develop a dialog and resulting meaningful policy that will preserve this valuable housing resource as low-income housing at a reasonable cost to the Federal Government. Second, the legislation would extend the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program through fiscal year 1996, increasing the maximum number of units eligible for insurance from 25,000 to 30,000. This program is designed to allow the elderly to tap the accumulated equity in their homes for needed expenses without the risk of losing the housing as a principal residence. This is a successful program that is growing in popularity among the elderly population as an option to assist in providing continuing independence, both financially and through the continuing use of their homes as a principal resident. Third, the legislation would extend the home ownership program under the CDBG Program as a continuing eligible activity through fiscal year 1996. This program is widely supported by a number of communities throughout the Nation which use the program as an additional resource to expand homeownership opportunities. Finally, the bill would extend the FmHA's section 515 rural multifamily program for fiscal year 1996. Currently, the fiscal year 1996 Agriculture appropriations has limited the section 515 funding for fiscal year 1996 to rehabilitation. However, there is a significant number of section 515 projects in the development pipeline. Section 515 projects are, in many cases, the only available and affordable low- income housing in rural areas. While there has been substantial criticism leveled at abuses in the section 515 program, FmHA has addressed a number of the failings in the program and the Banking Committee has pledged to review closely the section 515 program and address any concerns as part of a major housing and community development overhaul and reform bill. In addition, a manager's amendment to this bill legislation would incorporate Habitat for Humanity as an eligible organization under the National Community Development Initiative [NCDI]. Habitat for Humanity is one of the best models in this country for the development of affordable low-income housing. The foundation of this program is sweat equity, where a potential homeowner must contribute their own labor and hard work to the construction of their home and the homes of others. In this way, participating families develop a tangible bond with their homes combined with a strong interest in maintaining them. Since 1976, Habitat has constructed over 40,000 homes worldwide, in every U.S. State and in 45 other countries. As a consequence, some 250,000 people are living in decent, safe and affordable housing. Under this program, Habitat for Humanity would receive a $25 million authorization to assist in the acquisition of land or infrastructure improvements, and only in the United States. I urge HUD to develop flexible requirements for Habitat for Humanity's participation in NCDI with deference to the underlying vision of homeowner contribution to the construction of their home. This manager's amendment also would provide clear statutory guidance to empower PHAs and assisted property owners with the tools to screen out and evict from public and assisted housing persons who illegally use drugs or whose abuse of alcohol is a risk to other tenants. I cannot emphasize enough the need to take the bull by the horns and provide real solutions to the problems created by alcohol abuse and illegal drug use in federally assisted housing. Mr. President, this legislation is bipartisan, simple, straightforward and necessary. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Amendment No. 3118 (Purpose: To make a series of amendments)

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there are many ways in which we can reform this program. We can do so in a bipartisan way. We can do so in a way that cuts redtape and offers new incentives for wetlands protection. We can do so in a way that includes more respect for those who currently protect wetlands--private property owners. We can bring rationality to the program and turn an important program into a more effective and maybe--maybe--even a more popular program. In the process, we might even give the States a greater role. In my State, I know we have officials who understand and care just as much about wetlands as the folks who work here in Washington. I am hopeful that these issues can be addressed. In the meantime, this legislative provision is an important start toward removing duplicative redtape and an important test for the President to see if he is so wed to the regulatory status quo, that he would reject this commonsense reform.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for years, I have tried to reform the way our Federal Government protects wetlands. The current system is bureaucratic and cumbersome; it is full of delay, waste, and uncertainty. I believe that wetlands should be protected. I believe that the Federal Government should continue to have an important role. But clearly, whatever is done to address the outstanding questions surrounding the Federal regulation of wetlands, the system must be streamlined. This is not radical or extreme. It is not even partisan. If one is not an employee of the Environmental Protection Agency or if one is not a K-Street concrete environmentalist, streamlining makes sense. Streamlining is a bipartisan issue. Depending on which day one decides to listen to the President, he believes in streamlining. Senators may remember the National Performance Review to re-invent Government making Government work better and cost less. We have been told that the administration wants to make the Government user friendly, that it wants to streamline and reduce duplication and waste. Our goal is to make the entire Federal Government both less expensive and more efficient, and to change the culture of our national bureaucracy away from complacency and entitlement toward initiative and empowerment. We intend to redesign, to reinvent, to reinvigorate the entire national government. This is President Clinton on March 3, 1993. He also said: It is time the Federal Government follow the example set by the most innovative State and local leaders and by the many huge private sector companies that have had to go through the same sort of searching reexamination over the last decade, companies that have downsized and streamlined and become more customer-friendly and, as a result, have had much, much more success. Apparently, Vice President Gore also believes in streamlining and reinventing Government. On that same day, Vice President Gore said: It's time we cut the red tape and trimmed the bureaucracy, and it's time we took out of our vocabulary the words, `Well, we've always done it that way. The Vice President also requested action from citizens and policymakers. Help us get rid of the waste and inefficiency. Help us get rid of unnecessary bureaucracy. Let us know when you spot a problem and tell us when you've got an idea. I have spotted a problem and I have an idea. Outside of Washington, this is common sense. The problem is that we have multiple agencies doing the same thing with regard to wetlands. My idea was to eliminate just a fraction of the existing redundancy in wetlands regulation. The Clinton administration already has employees at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who have had the lead in making permitting decisions on wetlands for 20 years. The Clinton administration also has employees at the Environmental Protection Agency which oversee the same permitting decisions. My idea is that one team of professionals should be enough. If it is not enough, then we have more management problems than a National Performance Review could remedy. I included a provision in the VA-HUD appropriations bill which removes EPA's duplicative authority to veto corps-issued permits. According to the corps, there is no other Federal regulatory program that gives two Federal agencies decisional authority over the same Federal permit of action. The corps has been the lead agency in wetlands protection for almost 20 years and it simply cannot be demonstrated that we need to hire one set of bureaucrats to second- guess what the first set of bureaucrats is hired to do in the first place. We are here today to balance a budget. To balance a budget, tough choices must be made. Eliminating redundant activities is an easy choice. It is common sense. Leave it to the environmental lobbyists to argue that we need two or more different Federal agencies conducting the same task--looking over each other's shoulder--adding expense, confusion, delay and frustration for our Nation's citizens. There have been many changes recommended to improve the administration of this important program. This change is the easiest one. In that sense, I thought the provision should be non- controversial. In fact, no Senator offered an amendment on the floor to address this provision. It was not challenged in the House. Hearings have been held in both the House and the Senate. The House-passed reauthorization of the Clean Water Act removes this duplicative authority. The bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate to reform the wetlands regulatory program removes this authority. Knowing of the Clinton's administration's efforts to streamline Government, I was surprised to learn in the President's veto message that this provision is one of the reasons for the President vetoing the bill that funds Federal employees at EPA, the Veteran's Administration, Housing and Urban Development, and others. Not even rank and file people at the EPA could think this is a very good reason for the President to prevent their funding bill from becoming law. This is truly an astonishing notion put forth by the President. He is saying, in effect, I don't trust the people who I hired and the people who work for me at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect wetlands and to obey the law so I want to make sure I have another agency of people who I hired and who work for me to keep an eye on them. Mr. President, for me, this issue is a flashback to another streamlining provision I proposed in the 102d and 103rd Congress. Several years ago, a farmer in St. Louis County came to my office with a real problem. He had some wet places of ground on his land and he had four different agencies coming out to that land telling him different things. I sent representatives out. The four agencies could not agree. They had swampbuster, they had section 404 regulations in hand. We got two different opinions on the particular wetlands problems and the agencies could not agree. I had a modest suggestion and introduced legislation to make the Soil Conservation Service the lead agency responsible for technical determinations about wetlands on agricultural lands. After several years passed, I offered this proposal as an amendment on May 4, 1993, to S. 171, the Department of the Environment bill to elevate the EPA to Cabinet level. The administration opposed that idea also--at least initially. The opposition dug out all the same bogeymen, ghosts, and goblins. I was actually told that this amendment would make things more complicated--not less--if SCS was the lead agency. I was told this was the wrong vehicle and that the amendment would make wetlands regulation more expensive. The bipartisan amendment failed 40-54. Eight months later, the administration adopted this idea administratively and said they were glad they thought of it. In the interagency press release, they noted: The agreement eliminates this duplication of effort and gives the farmer one wetland determination from the Federal Government. Farmers can now rely on a single wetland determination by the Soil Conservation Services. Interior Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks George T. Frampton, Jr., said: This agreement represents a common sense approach to administering wetlands programs affecting our Nation's farmers. We are minimizing duplication of effort. For this administration, it is a fine line between extremism and common sense. I would hope that another change of heart could be in order but I fear that the pressure from environmental lobbyists may be too great. During Senate hearings, EPA argued repeatedly that they never use the authority so we shouldn't care about them having it. I will argue that if they never use it, then why have it? I would like to know why the administration desperately needs an authority that has only been used 11 times in the last 20 years as tens of thousands of permit decisions were made. Is the President trying to say, well, yes, we agree that the EPA has not officially objected to corps decisions 99.9978 percent of the time, but we can never be too careful. We have so much extra money and so many people looking for work at EPA, that we better have them ready for that eventuality that occurs .0022 percent of the time. The other argument that is used is that we would have the corps permitting themselves for their own activities. As Senators know, the corps does not actually issue itself section 404 permits but does follow all of the steps involved in the permitting process. Every other existing internal and external decision safeguard is affected by my legislative provision. The corps must meet the public interest review which requires the careful weighing of all public interest factors. Mr. President, listen to the list of criteria to be considered under the public interest review: All factors which may be relevant to the proposal must be considered including the cumulative effects thereof: among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use shore erosion, etc. Additional criteria the corps are bound to follow are found in the section 404(b)(1) guidelines developed by the EPA. EPA retains its 404(q) authority, known as elevation authority, which allows the EPA and the Department of Commerce and the Interior to request higher level review within the Department of the Army. Individual State permitting and water quality certification requirements provide an additional form of objective safeguard to the corps regulatory program. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires State certification or waiver of certification prior to issuance of a section 404 permit--effectively giving States veto authority. In addition to these requirements, the corps' implementing regulations require that district engineers conduct additional evaluations on applications with potential for having an effect on a variety of special interests such as Indian reservation lands, historic properties, endangered species, and wild and scenic rivers. The corps must satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act requirements during the permit process and permit decisions are subject to legal challenges. EPA also has lead enforcement authority. One final safeguard is provided by my fellow Senators. The great majority of corps projects are authorized by Congress. I believe this Congress has the understanding and concern to put the brakes on bad projects-- environmental lobbyists and EPA wetlands experts are not the only people who understand and are willing to protect valuable wetlands. As anyone can see, the cries from the environmental lobby are a red herring. There remains lots of bureaucracy and lots of redundancy for those who cherish it. In this case, they are crying wolf. My provision will do nothing to harm wetlands. Under my provision, if a wetland is or is not permitted, it will be because of an official decision made by an official of the Clinton administration. What is this about? It is a plain old-fashioned bureaucratic turf fight. EPA bureaucrats have power and they don't want to surrender any of it. They have good working relationships with environmental lobbyists who don't want to see their access reduced. I have no doubt that EPA employees work very hard and have expertise in wetlands issues, but I am simply saying that the corps does, too, and one agency is enough. I expect bureaucrats to fight to protect power and to protect turf. What I do not expect, however, is their political leadership to provide them cover for doing so. Is the President here to create a government that works better and costs less or is he here to protect bureaucratic turf and the regulatory status quo. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats whose turf the President is protecting are currently at home because the President vetoed their funding bill--in part, and astonishingly, over this common-sense issue. Mr. President, there was a New York Times article printed in the Record on December 14 [S18650] that discusses this issue. I ask unammious consent that my response to that letter be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece entitled ``Death of a Family Farm,'' detailing an abuse of wetlands regulations.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as I was saying, how long do you want to keep Medicare healthy? Personally, I would like to see Medicare kept healthy, not only for those who are on Medicare right now, but those who will be coming on, people my age and people younger. We are going to have to make changes to slow the rate of growth. One proposal to save $70 to $80 billion was estimated only to save it for maybe 2 more years. I do not think, Mr. President, we ought to go through all this battle and all this heartache and say that Medicare will not go bankrupt in 2002, it will go bankrupt in 2005. We can do better than that. We have to implement real reforms which will assure the financial solvency of this critical program well into the foreseeable future. I hope we would stop the posturing and stop the ads and stop the claims that Medicare is being savaged. It begins to appear to me, Mr. President, that there is something else at work here. The President of the United States told the American people in the campaign and told us in the State of the Union Message in 1993 he wanted a balanced budget. Then just a month and a half or so ago, before Congress sent him a continuing resolution, he agreed that he would sit down and develop with the Congress a balanced budget reaching balance in the year 2002 on the basis of Congressional Budget Office scoring. If he is willing to do that, and if he is willing to take a hard look and a responsible look at how we keep entitlement programs from going bankrupt, and how we keep it from destroying us, then there is plenty of room to negotiate as far as I am concerned. If I were a negotiator, I would say, we put it all on the table. I would not put more taxes on the table because we tried the taxes and that did not work. Jacking up taxes in 1993 got only about a third of what we expected out of it. It is time that we cut. If the President would come forward and deal in good faith, we could reach that agreement in a very short time. But what I am hearing from the press, some of my colleagues who have friends in the White House, the political advisers are saying, ``Great, don't move. Don't move, Mr. President. You've got it just where you want it. You have talked about a balanced budget, but then you can come out and be against all the cuts. You don't have to agree to any of the cuts, just say you're for a balanced budget and then trash anybody who tries to put the details of a balanced budget together. And so long as you don't have to present one, then you're not going to be caught.'' As one of my friends, a Member of this body on the other side of the aisle, has said--and obviously I will not identify him--he said it makes for great campaign rhetoric. It is great political fanfare, but it is a darn poor way to govern. Mr. President, I suggest that if the President wants to have a balanced budget, if he wants to carry through on his promise, then it is time, as we say in Missouri, to show me, come forward and say where you are going to make these necessary cuts. The White House is not doing that. I mentioned earlier that with respect to the small little appropriations bill I handled, veterans, HUD, independent agencies, they originally requested $2 billion, about $1.9 billion-plus. We have just received their latest request. Guess what? That latest request goes up to $2.5 billion. This is not negotiation. This is moving in the opposite direction. Mr. President, if anybody is negotiating with somebody who keeps taking steps farther and farther away from agreement, you will find out that is not negotiation, that is political game playing. Unfortunately, until we see any movement in the other direction, I have to say that this President apparently does not want a balanced budget. Dismiss all the rhetoric. His requests are for more spending in domestic areas. His requests are for less cuts in entitlement programs. Frankly, every time that the Congressional Budget Office has scored his proposal--and the Congressional Budget Office is the one who he said must judge those proposals --it shows that he misses in the neighborhood of two to three hundred billions of dollars. Mr. President, there is some talk about adding a few billion dollars more to domestic discretionary. Unfortunately, under the congressional budget resolution that will achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002, have to cut nondefense discretionary from $270 billion in 1996 to $258 billion in 1997. That is a 4.4-percent decrease--a $12 billion expenditure reduction. If you are going to be putting more money in this year, you are going to make it a bigger cliff to fall off of next year. I would caution our negotiators not to go down that path of building in more spending now when we are going to have to have greater cuts next year and more program disruption. We could come to an agreement. I think there are lots of areas where we could agree. I will tell you that I am beginning to think that the only place that we can make an agreement is working with our colleagues in Congress. I have had the pleasure of working with the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. We have some policy differences, but those policy differences can be accommodated. I know that there are groups working together on a bipartisan basis, Senators Breaux and Chafee and others, Senator Nunn and many others, who are working to come up with a balanced budget, because I believe there are people in this body on both sides of the aisle who believe it is in the best interest of this country to get the Government back to work, to get the employees of the Federal Government doing what they are supposed to do, and put forward a responsible bipartisan plan to move this country toward a balanced budget in the year 2002. The Kerrey-Danforth commission, headed by Senator Kerrey from Nebraska and my former colleague, Senator Danforth from Missouri, pointed out how difficult the entitlement problems are. Unless we start dealing with those entitlement problems, we are not going to reach that result. So, Mr. President, it has been with only a slight degree of hope and a great deal of concern that I have watched the proceedings today. We have to find some areas of compromise. Unless we see the President willing to come forward and tell us where cuts are going to be made-- real cuts; not phony cuts, real cuts--then we are going to have to work within this body, and I hope we can find bipartisan cooperation in the House, to come to agreements on how to get spending under control, how to provide the vital services that are necessary, that must be provided, but to do so in a responsible way that does not cost our children and our grandchildren another $1 or $2 trillion worth of debt. Mr. President, this is a vitally important issue. The issue of the budget is going to define not only what our children face in the future, but our economy in the short term. I look forward to working with Members of this body and ultimately Members of the other House in seeing if we cannot fashion what the President has been unwilling to come forth and produce, and that is a balanced budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I wish to say that I think we have had some very useful discussions today, although obviously the substantive discussions and negotiations are, we hope, going on elsewhere. But I wish to begin by reemphasizing what my distinguished colleague from Ohio has just said in the past few minutes about the importance of changing the system. I had the privilege of serving as chief executive of the State of Missouri for 8 years, and I was convinced, as were almost all of my other colleagues who were Governors at the time, Republicans and Democrats, that we could do a far better job in handling many of the programs partially funded by the Federal Government if we did not have all of the strings and restrictions and red tape put upon us. That is why we have moved in this session of Congress to change the programs themselves, to make them more effective and efficient, not just to save money. Obviously, we cannot continue to spend, particularly on entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, at the ever-increasing rates of growth, without destroying these very programs, bankrupting the Government, and destroying our economy. But it is not enough, as has been pointed out by my colleague from Ohio, merely to cut the amount of money that we are turning over to the States. If we tell them, ``You have to keep spending the money the way we tell you but we are not going to give you as much as you have been getting, or not as much as an increase as you have been getting,'' then we risk disaster. We need fundamental changes--allowing the States to develop responsive and responsible, effective and caring programs to meet the needs of those who are recipients of the programs, within these budgetary constraints. Mr. President, in my second term as Governor, we fought and fought and fought to get waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services, now HCFA, so we could start a managed-care program for Medicaid, so we could give the providers selected by the Medicaid recipient the opportunity to do the best job they could of keeping that recipient healthy. It made a tremendous amount of difference. More emphasis was placed on keeping people healthy, on preventive health care, on regular checkups, on routine well-baby care that kept the recipients well, kept them out of the hospital, kept them from lost time. The result was that we saved some money but people on Medicaid in my State were a lot happier, and healthier, with the program. And those examples, those experiments are being carried out in every State in the Nation. If we only could change the program so that State legislators and Governors who are just as concerned as the Members of this body about taking care of those in need could make those innovations, I am convinced we can do it. Now, we have had, as I have said, much discussion about differences in policy, differences in policy that lie at the base of this balanced budget debate, but part of the problem is, I think, some of the facts are being misstated. We have heard earlier today about how Federal employees are being held hostage; that it is an unheard of shutdown of the Federal Government. It seems to me, Mr. President, in the time I have been here when there was a Democratically controlled Congress and a Republican President, there were shutdowns in the Federal Government when Congress and the President did not agree. To say that it is unheard of is not true. I believe even during the period of the Carter administration, when there was a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, there were a number of periods of time when there was no budget or continuing resolution in place. As a matter of fact, some of my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, today were talking about how the Democratic majority in Congress in 1990 toughened up the Anti-Deficiency Act to make it more painful, more painful for the executive branch to try to continue to operate in the absence of a continuing resolution, and, yes, it appears that some of those chickens have come home to roost now. But let us make clear one thing. Part of this responsibility, the responsibility that some of the agencies of Government are shut down, is on the back of the President. I can speak from personal experience, having managed the bill that funds veterans, housing, environment, space, emergency management, and other areas--the VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill. We passed the bill. We passed the bill that made over 12 percent cuts from last year's original appropriations. Now, during the summer of last year, in a rescission bill, the Congress, with the President's signature, rescinded some of those funds from the previous year because that bill, VA-HUD, was making too many promises that could not be kept in out-years. When you make a promise in housing, for example, to provide housing over a number of years, you have to appropriate the budget authority up front, but then each year as you carry out that commitment, the expenditure of that authority-- the outlays--are scored against the aggregate budgetary limitations for that year. So we have had to cut back significantly, and the President agreed when he signed the rescission bill that we would cut back on the commitments in VA-HUD. So it was with surprise that when we tried to negotiate with the White House to find out how we could change the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill to accommodate their needs and their desires, the only thing we got from Mr. Panetta, who was up here on the Hill, was a statement that, well, we just need to spend $2 billion more, just give us $2 billion more. I explained to him, as every Member of this body who is familiar with the appropriations process knows, we cannot give $2 billion more. We have to stay within the budget. But I suggested that if they were willing to work with us, we could make adjustments within the dollars available and send the President the bill, he could sign that bill, and then to the extent he is able to reach a later agreement which might put more money into the various appropriated accounts, we could come back by a supplemental appropriation or a continuing resolution to add money to the Veterans' Administration, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and all of those agencies. What happened? Well, frankly, the President vetoed the bill. The President vetoed the bill because we did not spend as much money as he wanted. That is understandable. Everybody who likes government likes to spend more money. But if you don't want to cut spending in domestic appropriated accounts, you have to find someplace else to take it. You could, for example, cut back on the money going into entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Actually, we have a very good example of that. The President and Mrs. Clinton back in 1993 and 1994, as my colleagues will recall, came before the Congress--you probably have seen film clips of them recently--and said we really must slow the rate of growth of Medicare to 6 to 7 percent a year. Mr. President, they were correct because as the Clinton trustees of Medicare and Social Security have said, if we do not reform part A of Medicare, it is going to go broke, it is going to run out of money in the year 2002. The President was right when he said we have to slow the rate of growth. But not only do we have to slow the rate of growth, just as my friend from Ohio said, we have to change the structure of Medicare; we have to change the structure of Medicare because a top-down Government price-fixing program in health care has not worked. It is important that we give senior citizens choices, choices so they can choose from among private plans which will have to manage the costs effectively and give the recipients, the Medicare recipients, the kinds of services they need if they are to compete. The President and Mrs. Clinton were very clear when they came before the Congress and said it is not a cut when you say we are going to slow the rate of growth to a reasonable amount of 6 to 7 percent. How interesting it is to hear now representatives of the President, the ads run by their supporters, saying Medicare is going to be slashed because the Republican Congress proposes to let it grow by 7.2 or even 7.4 percent. Mr. President, we have to save Medicare. If you are talking about just cutting a little bit of money out of Medicare, you are not going to really save it; you are just going to squeeze it down and make it more difficult for Medicare recipients to get doctors and hospitals and other health care providers to give them the kind of services they need. You need to change the program and you need to slow the rate of growth in the program. You tell me how much you want to slow the rate of growth of the Medicare Program, and we can probably tell you how long past 2002 you will keep the program healthy, how long before it will go bankrupt. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be granted another 5 minutes.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. In addition to being able to make benefits payments, the legislation ensures that the VA's 173 hospitals will be able to pay their vendors and continue to provide high quality medical care. This will prevent costly violations of the Federal Prompt Payment Act, and avoid potential disruptions in the delivery of contracted services, pharmaceuticals, or other necessary medical supplies in veterans hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient clinics. Mr. President, none of us finds any merit or advantage in this second lapse of funding authority to continue the operations of the Government. I agree with the Republican Leader that this budget impasse does none of us any credit . . . indeed, it is time for some adult supervision to end this squabbling and finger-pointing. I can only hope we soon will hear clearly the American people express their growing disgust and contempt for all of this political posturing, and get on with the business of running the Government. I have been very critical of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown. He and I have very different views of the responsibilities of the Secretary in charge of managing one of the largest Departments in the Federal Government. He clearly sees his role as an extension of his previous advocacy for more funding of veterans programs. By contrast, I believe he should be alarmed by the Federal deficit and aggressively looking within his Department to improve operations as a means of better serving our Nation's veterans, a task made all the more critical by the budgetary constraints necessary to bring the budget back into balance. But despite our differences, we do share a commitment to those served by this Department. Although he didn't even bother to pick up the phone to express his concern over the necessity of enacting this bill, there can be no doubt that he also supports this measure to prevent any disruption in the payment of veterans benefits. Mr. President, as we look for means of resolving the budgetary gridlock which has caused this latest shutdown of the Government, I hope that we can draw upon these points of agreement. The growing frustration and polarization still can be reversed if we build upon these shared concerns. Agreement on a framework for a mutually binding process to achieve a balanced budget must be achieved without further delay. The appropriations bill vetoed by the President earlier this week would have provided a $400 million increase for veterans medical care. Despite that veto, I am hopeful that this funding increase soon will be enacted into law. At that point, the full $37.7 billion proposed by the Congress for veteran services and benefits will be available to be administered by the Department. This is an enormous responsibility. I hope to be able to work with Secretary Brown to assure that this large commitment to our veterans will serve their needs in the most effective and beneficial manner possible. At some point he must turn his attention from politics to management. That massive task will provide ample opportunity for a moving beyond our current differences. Mr. President, we now have the responsibility for taking an important first step toward restoring a necessary governmental function. Let us not hold America's veterans hostage to this budget impasse. For veterans January benefits checks to be on time, this legislation must be enacted today. I strongly urge the adoption of this joint resolution. Exhibit 1 Disabled American Veterans, 807 Maine Ave., SW., Washington, DC, December 19, 1995. Hon. Christopher (Kit) Bond, Chairman, VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Bond: As National Commander of the more than one million members of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), I request your support for S. 1414, introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. This measure would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to pay compensation or pension awards, notwithstanding the fact that an appropriations bill or continuing resolution has not been enacted. As you know Mr. Chairman, VA benefits payments will be delayed if the impasse on the budget is not resolved by December 21, 1995. Expeditious handling of S. 1414, which has currently been referred to the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, is necessary if veterans' benefits are to be paid in a timely manner. Many veterans rely on their VA disability compensation payments for the necessities of life and, any delay, no matter how short, can have a devastating effect upon them and their families. It is extremely important that the men and women who served their country with honor in its time of need are not forgotten in their time of need. Accordingly, I call upon you, Mr. Chairman, in your position of leadership in the Senate, to take all action necessary to expedite S. 1414. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and I look forward to your reply at your earliest possible convenience. Sincerely, Thomas A. McMasters III, National Commander.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 134. This legislation will enable the Department of Veterans Affairs to make disability and pension payments to approximately 3.3 million veterans in the event a continuing resolution is not enacted soon. It ensures that any time this fiscal year in which there is no appropriation authority, VA will be able to make benefit payments to veterans, including compensation and pensions, education and training, and also pay vendors in the Veterans Health Administration. The House should be commended for their prompt action initially on this necessary legislation and I urge expeditious consideration and enactment of this measure in the House. This legislation is based on S. 1414, a bill introduced by Senators Simpson and Hutchison in November. Their concern over this vital matter and initiative in seeking prompt action has facilitated this legislation. In a recent letter to me, the Disabled American Veterans National Commander, Thomas McMasters III, said ``Many veterans rely on their VA disability compensation payments for the necessities of life and any delay, no matter how short, can have a devastating effect upon them and their families.'' This is precisely why House Joint Resolution 134 is so important, and I thank the DAV and other veterans service organizations for their advocacy of this critical legislation. I ask that the full text of this letter from the DAV be inserted into the Record at the conclusion of my statement.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think it is very important to note that there is a lot of credit due to the managers, the whips, Senator Lott, Senator Ford for the passage of Hourse Joint Resolution 134. This legislation enables the Department of Veterans Affairs to make disability and pension payments to approximately 3.3 million veterans in the event a continuing resolution is not enacted. It ensures that any time this fiscal year in which there is no appropriations authority VA will be able to make benefits payments to veterans including compensation, pensions, education and training, and also to pay vendors in the veterans health administration. This measure was made necessary, let us be quite frank about it, because the President vetoed the VA-HUD bill. Last week, when we considered that bill, I pointed out that if the President vetoed it, we put all of these programs at risk. The reason given was that there was not enough money in the bill. Mr. President, the money in the bill we passed was all of the money that was allocated to us in the appropriations process under the budget. I suggested at that time that they sign the bill so they could continue these vital programs and if and when an agreement is reached more money could be added. Unfortunately, they did not choose that path. I commend Members on both sides for enabling us to go forward. I urge the House to move promptly. It is vitally important. We need to get on with the process, and I hope that we can continue to make progress in other areas. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am introducing with Senators D'Amato and Mack the Housing Opportunity Program Extenders Act of 1995. This legislation is designed to provide HUD and the Rural Housing and Community Development Service--commonly known as FmHA--with authority to continue certain housing programs which are strongly supported by the American public and which will generally be suspended if the administration continues to ignore responsible dialogue on housing issues and vetoes S. 2099, the VA/HUD fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill. I emphasize the importance of this bill and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Most importantly, similar to the VA/HUD fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, this bill would require HUD to renew expiring section 8 project-based contracts for fiscal year 1996 for 1 year at current rents. There are some 900,000 FHA-insured units with section 8 project-based assistance contracts that are expiring over the next 10 years. Many of these section 8 contracts are currently subsidized at above market rents and fiscal responsibility requires that Congress contain the spiraling costs associated with this inventory. Moreover, under a recent HUD legal opinion, HUD may renew these expiring section 8 project-based contracts at no more than 120 percent of fair market rents; this means that these section 8 projects could begin to default and face foreclosure by HUD during fiscal year 1996. I believe it is critical that Congress reform and adjust the costs, including section 8 costs, of these assisted housing programs. However, in doing so, we must balance the cost of the expiring section 8 contracts with the cost of foreclosure of these projects to the HUD insurance fund, as well as the significant social policy of the possible displacement of low-income housing residents and the disinvestment by project owners in these projects which could result in significant deterioration of this housing stock. Like the VA/HUD fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, renewing these section 8 contracts for 1 year will provide the Banking Committee with an opportunity to address these concerns through comprehensive legislation that will preserve this valuable housing resource as low-income housing at a reasonable cost to the Federal Government. Second, the legislation would extend the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program through fiscal year 1996, increasing the maximum number of units eligible for insurance from 25,000 to 30,000. This program is designed to allow the elderly to tap the accumulated equity in their homes for needed expenses without the risk of losing the housing as a principal residence. This is a successful program that is growing in popularity among the elderly population as an option to assist in providing continuing independence, both financially and through the continuing use of their homes as a principal resident. Third, the legislation would extend the homeownership program under the CDBG program as a continuing eligible activity through fiscal year 1996. This program is widely supported by a number of communities throughout the Nation which use the program as an additional resource to expand homeownership opportunities. Fourth, the bill would extend the FHA multifamily risk-sharing programs for fiscal year 1996. These programs authorize HUD to enter into mortgage insurance agreements and partnerships with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and with State housing finance agencies for the creation of affordable multifamily housing. These are important programs which help to guarantee the availability of affordable rental housing in the Nation. Finally, the bill would extend the Rural Housing and Community Development Service's section 515 rural multifamily housing program for fiscal year 1996. Currently, fiscal year 1996 appropriations generally have limited the available funding for fiscal year 1996 to rehabilitation. However, there is a significant need for additional rural housing which is affordable. Moreover, section 515 projects are, in many cases, the only available and affordable low-income housing in rural areas. While there has been substantial criticism leveled at abuses in the section 515 program, the Rural Housing and Community Development Service has addressed a number of the failings in the program and the Banking Committee has pledged to review closely the section 515 program and address any concerns as part of a major housing and community development overhaul and reform bill. Mr. President, this legislation is bipartisan, simple, straightforward and necessary. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am introducing with Senators D'Amato and Mack the Housing Opportunity Program Extenders Act of 1995. This legislation is designed to provide HUD and the Rural Housing and Community Development Service--commonly known as FmHA--with authority to continue certain housing programs which are strongly supported by the American public and which will generally be suspended if the administration continues to ignore responsible dialogue on housing issues and vetoes S. 2099, the VA/HUD fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill. I emphasize the importance of this bill and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Most importantly, similar to the VA/HUD fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, this bill would require HUD to renew expiring section 8 project-based contracts for fiscal year 1996 for 1 year at current rents. There are some 900,000 FHA-insured units with section 8 project-based assistance contracts that are expiring over the next 10 years. Many of these section 8 contracts are currently subsidized at above market rents and fiscal responsibility requires that Congress contain the spiraling costs associated with this inventory. Moreover, under a recent HUD legal opinion, HUD may renew these expiring section 8 project-based contracts at no more than 120 percent of fair market rents; this means that these section 8 projects could begin to default and face foreclosure by HUD during fiscal year 1996. I believe it is critical that Congress reform and adjust the costs, including section 8 costs, of these assisted housing programs. However, in doing so, we must balance the cost of the expiring section 8 contracts with the cost of foreclosure of these projects to the HUD insurance fund, as well as the significant social policy of the possible displacement of low-income housing residents and the disinvestment by project owners in these projects which could result in significant deterioration of this housing stock. Like the VA/HUD fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, renewing these section 8 contracts for 1 year will provide the Banking Committee with an opportunity to address these concerns through comprehensive legislation that will preserve this valuable housing resource as low-income housing at a reasonable cost to the Federal Government. Second, the legislation would extend the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program through fiscal year 1996, increasing the maximum number of units eligible for insurance from 25,000 to 30,000. This program is designed to allow the elderly to tap the accumulated equity in their homes for needed expenses without the risk of losing the housing as a principal residence. This is a successful program that is growing in popularity among the elderly population as an option to assist in providing continuing independence, both financially and through the continuing use of their homes as a principal resident. Third, the legislation would extend the homeownership program under the CDBG program as a continuing eligible activity through fiscal year 1996. This program is widely supported by a number of communities throughout the Nation which use the program as an additional resource to expand homeownership opportunities. Fourth, the bill would extend the FHA multifamily risk-sharing programs for fiscal year 1996. These programs authorize HUD to enter into mortgage insurance agreements and partnerships with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and with State housing finance agencies for the creation of affordable multifamily housing. These are important programs which help to guarantee the availability of affordable rental housing in the Nation. Finally, the bill would extend the Rural Housing and Community Development Service's section 515 rural multifamily housing program for fiscal year 1996. Currently, fiscal year 1996 appropriations generally have limited the available funding for fiscal year 1996 to rehabilitation. However, there is a significant need for additional rural housing which is affordable. Moreover, section 515 projects are, in many cases, the only available and affordable low-income housing in rural areas. While there has been substantial criticism leveled at abuses in the section 515 program, the Rural Housing and Community Development Service has addressed a number of the failings in the program and the Banking Committee has pledged to review closely the section 515 program and address any concerns as part of a major housing and community development overhaul and reform bill. Mr. President, this legislation is bipartisan, simple, straightforward and necessary. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I also commend our distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, of the special Whitewater committee, for the good work that he has done. Mr. President, we are here today because the Senate special Whitewater committee has finally reached the point where we have to say enough is enough. In our efforts over the past year to take testimony, gather documents, collect phone records, review handwritten notes, we found that, rather than cooperation and responsiveness, we have been met with a pattern of delay, obstruction and obfuscation. After spending months trying to get access to various documents and phone records the old-fashioned way--we requested them--we discovered that a wide variety of records were being withheld. So we were forced to threaten to issue subpoenas. This started a trickle of information. Usually the information arrived either late the evening before or the morning of the hearing. But then we realized we were not receiving the documents to which the committee was entitled, so the chairman moved to actually issue subpoenas for anything and everything. In fact, after subpoenas were issued, surprise, surprise, documents and phone records began coming in, records that previously could not be found or could not be accessed. On top of the resistance to releasing documents and the long delays in releasing phone records, we have also had some amazing instances of not only lapse of memory, but in one instance a witness, April Breslaw, said she was not able to identify her own voice on tape. To anybody who has not done so, if you want to witness a truly amazing discussion, you should read the transcript where Chairman D'Amato asked Ms. Breslaw if she was the one that was actually on the tape. Ms. Breslaw said that the quality of the tape was not great, she was not sure that she was the one on the tape, and she did not know what to think. Mr. President, we have seen some truly remarkable things. Months ago we had a witness who claimed that he lied to his diary, another witness who cannot remember his own notes. But the strategy, I think, of obfuscation and obstruction has been taken to an art form in the testimony of Susan Thomases, the First Lady's close friend and associate. Over and over we heard Mrs. Thomases tell the committee that she ``did not recall,'' had ``no specific recollection,'' she had ``no personal knowledge'' of various events and phone calls surrounding the search of Vince Foster's office, the removal of documents from his office, the transfer of documents to a closet in the White House residence, and the discovery of the so-called suicide note. Yet, after much digging and digging and a dribble and drabble, and a bit here and a bit there, phone records, we found that in fact she was omnipresent on the telephone lines of the White House during the critical times in question and she was calling the people who were directly involved. But obviously a minor matter like that a potential major investigation of the suicide of a White House aide, she could not remember what actually went on. I believe today's Washington Post noted--or yesterday's Washington Post noted--that ``Thomases failed to recall virtually all the events Republicans question her about, and for the first time since this round of hearings began in August, Democrats dropped their defense of an administration witness. . .'' Mr. President, that is what we have been facing throughout this investigation--fact by fact, record by record, note by note, and document by document, we have been dragging the truth out of the administration and its associates, little by little. If anybody had any question as to whether there may be something to hide, if you simply look at the pattern of delay, and refusal and dragging of feet, it should become obvious that there is a concerted effort by the White House not to give all the information they have. Everyone should understand this has been the underlying current of Whitewater since the beginning. The initial stories of this administration at nearly every step of the way have proven to be incomplete, inaccurate, or just plain untrue. It is only after pressure from Congress and the media that the truth, slowly, slowly, slowly trickles out. And we do not have it all yet. We come to the infamous Kennedy notes. This time they cannot claim that they do not remember or cannot recall. They cannot say the records cannot be found by the phone company. They cannot claim they are not sure if it is their voice on the tape. They cannot claim they cannot find the files or the billing records are missing. So what is left? They now claim that the notes made by a White House counsel, an official of the Government, of a meeting to discuss the Whitewater, Madison financial and legal activities, where there is significant allegations of wrongdoing which involve violations of Governmental laws and which involve the exposure of the Federal insurance trust funds, taxpayer trust funds, to private claims, they say meetings between a Government official, a White House counsel and a private attorney should not be released because they would violate the attorney-client privilege. The President has said he is standing on principle to defend his rights as a private citizen to have meetings with his lawyers. Well, there is no question the President has a right to have a private meeting with his private counsel. But if you read the Op-Ed article in today's Wall Street Journal by Joseph diGenova, he goes through instance after instance of congressional investigation where the various privileges were held by the other party when they were in power and in charge of the investigation not to be applicable to congressional investigations. Let us take a moment to talk about the principle which the President is defending. We have to remember that during 1993, the investigative wheels were in motion in three different Federal agencies, all pointing a finger at some activities that involved the top political elite, the political infrastructure of Arkansas. The RTC, the agency investigating the S&L failures, was looking into the activities of Madison Guaranty, specifically in the misappropriation of a $260,000 loan by now-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, the embezzlement and conspiracy by bank owner Jim McDougal, and a loan illegally diverted to the Clinton 1984 reelection campaign. The Small Business Administration was working putting together a criminal case against David Hale and Capital Management Services. In this case we find Mr. Hale accusing the President of pressuring him to make an illegal loan to Jim McDougal, which eventually leads to Mr. Hale's conviction and the indictment of the current Governor of Arkansas. The Little Rock U.S. attorneys' office was in possession of an earlier criminal referral on Madison Guaranty in which massive check kiting was alleged. Mr. President, while all the investigative work was going on, political appointees of the President at the Department of the Treasury were briefed in late September 1993 about the contents of the RTC's criminal referrals I just briefly described. Unfortunately, instead of holding this information close, handling it as responsible governmental officials should handle the very sensitive, nonpublic information relating to a potential criminal investigation and/or action to be pursued by the Federal Government, the political appointees, Jean Hanson and Roger Altman, made the decision to tell the White House about the investigations. Then on September 29, 1993, Jean Hanson briefed then-White House counsel Bernie Nussbaum. One of the key facts which we discovered during our earlier hearings was that while Mrs. Hanson clearly had the details of the referrals and discussed them with the White House, she had been told by the RTC, specifically Mr. Roelle, that while the Clintons were not targets of the investigation, ``* * * the language of that referral could lead to the conclusion that if additional work were done [that is, further investigative work] the President and Mrs. Clinton might possibly be more than just witnesses.'' That, Mr. President, is from the deposition of Jean Hanson, given to the inspector general of the RTC. And, of course, in October 1993, the possibility of further investigative work being done by the U.S. Attorney for the FBI was not a closed question. As we now know, the U.S. attorney in Little Rock, Paula Casey, is a Clinton appointee and while she declined to do any further investigative work on the first referral, had just received the second and had not at that time recused herself. Which brings us to the November 5, 1993 meeting between the Clintons' attorneys. Again, as we now know--and it has taken us a long time to get all of these details, even to find out about the November 5 meeting--when several Federal agencies were investigating the activities of Jim McDougal, Jim Guy Tucker and David Hale, the investigators have indicated that if more investigation was done, it is possible that the Clintons would become more than just witnesses. Mr. President, we ought to add here, also from what we have now learned, it is or should be an open question as to whether there is any complicity of the lawyers who were representing the participants in the shady transactions which resulted in losses to Federal insurance funds. As a general proposition, an attorney friend of mine who has worked on a number of these cases says that where there is wrongdoing of a consistent pattern by a federally insured institution, usually the law firm knows about it or may possibly be involved in it. There is a real question as to what involvement a law firm representing an illegal scam-ridden operation has in the criminal activity. In this instance, obviously, Jim McDougal used Madison Guaranty, the savings and loan, as his piggy bank and did many things with it. At the time he was doing that, the Rose law firm was representing Madison Guaranty, and the partner in charge was Mrs. Clinton. My colleague from Alaska has raised the question about what happened to the files. Mr. President, that is a very important matter to consider, because I have worked in law firms, and you cannot walk in and take the files out of a law firm. You cannot go in and clean out the files. How did the original files from the Rose law firm wind up in the hands of political allies of the Clintons here in Washington? It would seem to me that when the RTC took over Madison Guaranty, they became the client and had the right to the files at the law firm representing the taken-over institution. Did they give their approval to removing those files? That is a question that bears further investigation. But let us go back to the specific instance of November 5. According to David Kendall's memo which he sent to the committee, he said that we can assume, just for the purposes of this discussion, that every bit of information possessed by the participants was discussed at the meeting. He said, ``Go ahead and assume it, as you make this decision.'' He did not say it conclusively. We don't have the notes. But that means for the purposes of this question of whether we ought to compel the production of the notes, we can assume that not only was the Clintons' private lawyer told about the details of the case by Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Eggleston, he could also have been told that ``if further investigative work'' were done his client's status could possibly shift from witness to something else, to something more serious. This is a question that has bothered me throughout the investigation of what went on at Whitewater. Mr. President, I had a not-too-pleasant discussion with Mr. Nussbaum the first time he came before the committee because I did not feel he was representing the people of the United States as White House counsel should. I asked him if he had taken the time to advise and instruct the other people in the White House who had come in possession of this vital nonpublic information that could be used, if it were to get into the hands of those who were potential targets of the investigation, to prepare their defense, perhaps even to change or get rid of evidence to prepare themselves to prevent prosecution or active pursuit by the Government of its rights. Mr. Nussbaum told me that it was totally, totally unrealistic. He said: These people--I don't have to tell them that you shouldn't misuse inside information or nonpublic information you're getting--these people knew their responsibilities, knew their roles. I didn't have to go around telling these people not to do that and, indeed, Senator, with all respect--I realize you feel strongly about this, too--with all respect, Senator, there is not a single shred of evidence that anybody misused this information in any way. Not a single shred of evidence that documents were destroyed, people tipped off. Mr. President, obviously, when he said there is not a shred of evidence, I pointed out to him that was precisely what we were concerned about. We were concerned about the reports of the former nonlawyer, nonlegal intern, runner or clerk in the Rose law firm who talked about shredding documents. That is why we are concerned about the broader picture. But let me return to the President's statement that he was withholding the notes of the meeting on principle. Is he saying he believes it is his right for Government attorneys, who by virtue of their position, come into possession of confidential information, in this case information about an investigation into the Clintons' business partner in Whitewater development, an investigation about Mrs. Clinton's client, the law firm, the Rose law firm, about his Arkansas political allies and about his own 1984 campaign, to have this information transferred to his own attorney when it may directly involve himself, his wife, their legal liabilities and the legal liabilities of their political allies? Is he saying, as a President he has the right to know of these investigations into his associates and political allies, as well as his own campaign. Is he saying he has the right to know that if further work was done, he might become more than just a witness? Does the President seriously want to defend the principles that he should not only receive tipoffs, but he should also have the right to get the information to his private attorneys in order to prepare his and his wife's defense if needed? What other individual in America could get this special treatment? Who else would dare claim that meetings in which tipoffs of confidential information about an investigation into a business partner, political ally, to his own campaign, to his wife's law practice should be protected from investigation? I hope that he was not serious if this is the principle he wishes to defend. I think there are principles the President should be standing up for. No. 1, breach of the public trust is as serious an offense as committing a crime. No. 2, in exchange for the powers and responsibilities given the Government, the people expect fairness, evenhanded justice, impartiality, and they hold the basic belief that those in power can be trusted to be good stewards of their power. No. 3, They do not expect those in power to give themselves special treatment, tipoffs or the ability to hide documents. Congress must also believe that those in high positions of responsibility are telling us the truth. When we ask questions or make inquiries, we trust the administration will tell the truth, will be honest, and when we get an answer, it is a full and complete one. Unfortunately, throughout this Whitewater investigation, beginning with questions we asked in the Banking Committee in February of 1994, it appears that a guiding principle for some has been that the ends justify the means. The ends, as outlined in the memo from my good friend James Hamilton to the President, was you should not provide anything; make sure you do not give them too much information; keep your head down; do not let anything out. I am afraid that this tone is apparently set from the top; that somehow that the public's best interest is served if the private interests of the President and First Lady are served, whether that be their political interest, the interest of the Presidency or even their commercial activities prior to the time they became the President and First Lady. As I have said many times before, this ethical blurry, coupled with a set of standards that seem to imply if you are not indicted, you are fit to serve, has caused several administration officials to resign and continues to hound this administration still today. To my colleagues in the Senate, I urge that we move forward with the subpoena. We need to get the full details of what was given to the private attorneys by the Government attorneys and what I think may have been a gross violation of public trust, if not more. I commend the chairman for his dogged pursuit, his evenhanded manner in affording all sides an opportunity to be heard, and I urge my colleagues to support the committee on this request. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to express my support for the hard work of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I believe that the bill makes significant strides in correcting glaring shortfalls of the administration's defense policies. Many of my colleagues on the other side have attacked both the Defense appropriations bill, crafted by my friends and colleagues on the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations chaired by the senior Senator from Alaska, and this bill on the grounds that they include items not requested by the Nation's military leaders in the President's request. Well, they are correct. But, why didn't they request these items? He wouldn't let them, because he artificially constrained their request by cutting their budget dramatically and some say recklessly, at the same time that he has increased their mission requirements. Left with increased responsibilities and fewer dollars to accomplish them, the military leaders were forced to make deep procurement cuts. They won't complain lest they be viewed as disloyal. They salute and do the best they can. Well, I for one do not believe that those who put their lives on the line must be forced to just make do. We in the Senate, have done much to insure that or marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen will be provided the best equipment and in quantities which will provide them more than merely adequate protection. I fully agree with the senior Senator from Hawaii and take the liberty of paraphrasing him when I say, ``I never want our troops to be in a fair fight. They should always be overwhelmingly superior.'' I have reservations about some of the provisions in this bill, and I wish it more closely reflected the Fiscal Year 1996 appropriations bill, but I will support it, for it is in the right direction. One other concern I have with this bill is a section that was not fully considered by the Senate which makes significant changes in the way the Federal Government procures goods and services. I had the opportunity to work with my colleagues on conference committee, and this new section on Federal acquisition reform has been modified and improved in many areas. In spite of changes, I am concerned about the impact these new provisions will have on small businesses seeking to do business with Federal agencies. I am pleased the Senate prevailed in its consideration of the House provision to amend the Competition in Contracting Act requirement for ``full and open competition.'' This section was limited, at my urging, to a revision of the FAR to insure that competition is consistent with a need ``to efficiently fulfill the Government's requirements.'' The change in CICA was dropped. In addition, I supported a delay in the Cooperative Purchasing Program that was included in the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act [FASA] which we adopted last year. The Cooperative Purchasing Program would allow State and local governments and certain nonprofit groups to purchase items carried on the Federal supply schedule. At the same time we passed FASA, we did not analyze the impact this new provision would have on small businesses. I successfully sought a moratorium of 18 months on implementation of this program to allow GAO the opportunity to review the impact of the program. As this new law is being implemented, we cannot lose sight of the positive impact that full and open competition has had on our Federal procurement system. I am the first to agree with the premise that the current system is flawed and can be improved. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business I intend to monitor closely the impact this new law will have on the small business community, and make suggestions as to how their interests can be protected in the future.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and my distinguished ranking member. We have before us the VA-HUD appropriations conference report. As I understand it, there is to be 30 minutes equally divided between the two managers, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Bumpers, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Boxer, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Hutchison, 10 minutes under the control of Senator Lautenberg, and 10 minutes under the control of Senator McCain.

Mr. BOND. Yes, I agree with the Senator from Massachusetts' interpretation--particularly as it relates to eligibility for voucher assistance and moving expenses of residents who are involuntarily displaced. The appropriations bill is intended to restore the right of owners to prepay their mortgages. At the same time, I have argued throughout this process that it is important to retain a preservation program that preserves as much of the affordable housing as possible and protects the residents of the buildings from involuntary displacement. The appropriations language does not override the protections in section 223. I must add, however, that section 223 may provide benefits to residents that may be inconsistent with the decision by Congress to restore the owner's right to prepay and to the degree that the nature of the section 8 assistance has been modified by the appropriations language. It is my view that the authorizing committee should review all of LIHPRHA--including section 223--over the next year in light of the new funding levels and the changes in the appropriations bill. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for raising this concern.

Mr. BOND. I am indeed aware of the fine work performed at Spelman and am interested in their progress.

Mr. BOND. The committee certainly recognizes the vital role that colleges and universities can play in alleviating many of our problems in these areas, particularly with housing.

Mr. BOND. The committee recognizes the indelible role minority institutions can play in providing outreach and supportive services for residents of public housing. Therefore, of the funds provided, HUD should consider giving to support qualified minority institutions, like Spelman College, that have established outreach programs for public housing residents.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the adoption of the conference report occur at 6:45 p.m.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, in wrapping up discussions on this measure, I just have to say, for my colleagues, I will be submitting for the Record the information on how this bill does meet our environmental needs. As I predicted when I spoke earlier today, there has been a lot of vocal pollution about what this bill does. The Vice President and the Administrator of the EPA had a big news conference, and they cited these outlandish figures of a 27-percent cut in enforcement of environmental programs. Mr. President, that is 20 percent off of the pie-in-the-sky budget that the President proposed when he was asking for a $300 billion deficit. This is the biggest spending binge that the President could conceive of. And when we cut back to reach a balance, which the President now says he is willing to join us in reaching, there is no way that you can increase funding for everything as he wished. Let me make clear that the final amount in this bill for EPA is $5.7 billion, a reduction of just about 4 percent from the fiscal year 1995 postrescission funding level, just about $235 million. The reductions which came about came from two areas: Superfund, a program mired in litigation, and bureaucracy, which must be fixed. There is money to start cleanups where human health is involved, and we directed them to do that. Sewer treatment construction earmarks were reduced. That was the pork in last year's bill. This committee has followed the nonpartisan National Academy of Public Administration's directions to move more responsibility to the States, and 40 percent of the appropriation, $2.3 billion, goes directly to the States for grants to meet environmental mandates. The press release and the Senator from New Jersey say that this threatens the safety of water quality because it cuts by 45 percent State loan funds. That is just simply wrong, as were most of the other statements made about this bill. It provides $500 million for drinking water State revolving funds. Not a penny of the funds appropriated last year were spent. We stipulated that the remaining funds, $225 million from last year, in addition to the new funds, totaling $275 million go to the drinking water State revolving funds. If the fund is not authorized, the money will be used for waste water revolving funds. This is an insurance policy that the money appropriated will be utilized to ensure the health of our Nation's water bodies. There are tremendous misstatements about this measure. I will correct those in the material I submit for the Record. I point out that if this bill is vetoed, as some on the other side wish, it will be an 11.5 percent cut below this bill under the continuing resolution. Environment will be much worse off if this bill is vetoed. For that reason, I would urge my colleagues, all of my colleagues on this side, to support the bill. I hope that we can work together and have the support of some of our colleagues on the other side because, if additional funds are made available above our current 602(b) allocation, they may be added by a continuing resolution which I hope would be agreeable on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, I express my greatest thanks to my ranking member, the distinguished former chair of this committee, for her invaluable assistance. She and I wish that we had had more money available. But she has been extremely helpful and very capable and a great asset in moving this process forward. Mr. President, I have spoken once today on how well we have treated EPA in this year's appropriation, despite overall budget reductions, and I will not repeat my entire statement. But I will say once again that the conference agreement makes clear that Republicans support protecting and cleaning up the environment--but that we do not support duplicative, wasteful spending and micromanaging States' environmental efforts. Despite the fact that the House had reduced EPA by one-third in its original VA-HUD bill, in conference we were able to find an additional $49 million above the Senate-passed bill which had $770 million more than the House for EPA. The final amount for EPA is $5.7 billion, a reduction of just $235 million or 4 percent below the fiscal year 1995 post-rescission funding level. The largest reductions below last year come from two key areas-- Superfund--a program mired in litigation and bureaucracy which must be fixed, and sewer treatment construction earmarks, which were reduced by $500 million below last year's level. The committee's recommendation closely parallels recommendations made to this committee by the National Academy of Public Administration, and are intended to streamline the agency, eliminate duplication, ensure a flexible approach to working with industry, and full support to the States. More than 40 percent of the appropriation--$2.3 billion--goes directly to the States for grants to meet environmental mandates. This is an increase of approximately $300 million over last year. The largest programmatic reduction in the bill is from Superfund--a reduction of $170 million below fiscal year 1995. There is no need to throw money at a program which virtually everyone agrees does not work. However, despite serious concerns about the program, we found $160 million in conference above the House and Senate-passed spending levels for this program. This amount ensures that all projects in the pipeline receive funding and that risks to human health and the environment will be addressed. Mr. President, compared to the current continuing resolution, this conference agreement provides a 11.5-percent increase. So I cannot understand why the President wants to veto this bill. I imagine a full year CR would be even tighter than the current one. Unfortunately, the White House has indicated an unwillingness to negotiate a reasonable compromise on the VA-HUD bill. I made reference in this morning's floor statement about the press conference the Vice President and Ms. Browner would be holding later in the day. I have just received the press release from EPA and I am very troubled by the factual inaccuracies contained in it. Let me provide one example of how this administration is misrepresenting what this budget does. The press release says the Republican budget threatens the safety of water quality because it cuts by 45 percent State loan funds that would help communities protect their drinking water. Mr. President, this just is not true. This bill provides $500 million for drinking water State revolving funds--the President's full budget request. There were no dollars spent on this program last year because it was not authorized. Not a penny of the funds appropriated last year has been spent. We have stipulated in the bill that the amount remaining from last year's appropriation, $225 million, in addition to new funds totaling $275 million, go to drinking water State revolving funds if there is an authorization by June 1. And if not, those funds would be provided for wastewater State revolving funds. We've provided an insurance policy that if no authorization occurs, the States will still be able to spend these funds on water infrastructure to ensure the health of our Nation's water bodies. In the previous two appropriations for drinking water State revolving funds, those funds were not available unless a drinking water bill was enacted. Finally, let me mention the so-called riders. The conference agreement includes only six legislative riders for pertaining EPA, most of which are completely noncontroversial and several of which were included in previous VA-HUD bills authored by Democrats. In fact, the Senator from New Jersey was a supporter, I am told, of one of the so- called rider pertaining to radon in drinking water in previous years. I think it is time we start talking straight and fairly about what this bill does and does not do to the environment. I urge those on the other side of the aisle once again to quit the grandstanding and factual inaccuracies. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I express my sincere thanks to the Senator from Texas. She has been a very articulate, very forceful spokesperson for space exploration. Mr. President, I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I feel that it should be pointed out that the appropriation for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA] represents a $352 million reduction from the level provided in fiscal year 1995. This is an overall cut of 2.5 percent. The conference agreement, however, provides the full amount of the budget request to continue development of the space station: $2.1 billion. Despite the overall reduction in the NASA budget, and full funding of the space station, the committee was able to restore funding for a number of important space science programs, fully fund the space shuttle program, maintain the X-33 next generation launch vehicle development, and continue the Earth Observing System Program to study global climate change. In addition, the conference agreement removed the fence on space station obligations which assures that there will be no funding disruptions during developmental activities during the balance of this fiscal year. The space station program is on track, on budget, and on time. Fabrication of large components of actual flight equipment have been completed. Each week more equipment is being produced, and is undergoing final engineering testing in preparation for launch and deployment beginning in November 1997. No one should be confused on this point: We can and will proceed with development, and operation of this international space station. Through careful management, intense budgetary review, and hard-nosed priority setting, we will do it without impairing other vital science missions of NASA and other Federal agencies. And we will succeed in this bold initiative, despite our commitment and efforts to bring the Federal budget into balance. This conference agreement is a clear and unequivocal demonstration that each of these important goals can and will be accomplished. Despite all the naysayers and doubters, the international space station program is succeeding, and shows that the United States is committed to maintaining its leadership in space. I am pleased to yield the Senator from Alaska 2 minutes.