Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I want to thank those Members who supported us in this very difficult measure. I have already mentioned the absolutely vital assistance and support of the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski. She has been most helpful. I would say also that I am most appreciative of her staff, Rusty Mathews and Steve Crane, who have been of great assistance to us in this measure. On my side, Stephen Kohashi, who is the lead clerk, Carrie Apostolou. We had the help of Steve Isakowitz on NASA matters, and of course Lashawnda Leftwich has worked with us. This was not a bill. This seemed to be more like a multiyear protect. I express my sincere thanks to all of the people, the staff, who worked so hard on it. I express particular thanks to the people in the administration, particularly Dan Golden, James Lee Witt, and Henry Cisneros, who worked very cooperatively with us to help implement the very difficult decisions we had to make. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a tremendous amount of misinformation and disinformation put out about this bill. I will be preparing a full explanation of some of the misstatements that were issued in the news conference held earlier today. It is regrettable that we cannot have an honest debate, using figures that are actual figures from last year and actual figures in this bill, but that, unfortunately, does not seem to be the rule. Mr. President, I believe there is a remaining amendment which we need to dispose of?

Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is with some pride, some relief, and some frustration, I now present to the Senate the conference report on the appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, and Housing and Urban Development, and independent agencies for fiscal year 1996. Consideration of this bill has been a long, difficult process. While we should have been able to complete our work long before now, I do believe we have wasted little of this time in producing the best possible measure for consideration by the Senate. Work on this measure began over a year ago, beginning with analyses of budgetary trends and programmatic needs for activities under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. It was obvious at that time, that our Federal low-income housing programs were out of budgetary control. Concerted policy reform was critical to avoid a disaster of unprecedented magnitude. In January of this year, as the newly selected chairman of this subcommittee, I convened a series of special hearings on the budgetary and management crisis at HUD. We detailed the magnitude of our budgetary shortfall to maintain the existing multifamily subsidized housing inventory of the Department. We explored urgently needed reforms in the housing preservation program to reduce cost, avoid windfall payments, and reduce long- term rental subsidies. We also delineated policy changes in public housing to reduce bureaucratic overregulation and micromanagement, to increase local flexibility, decisionmaking, and efficiencies. From these hearings we developed a strategy to begin these comprehensive changes in Federal housing programs. First, in the Disaster Supplemental and Rescission Act we initiated the first round of deregulation, and rescinded $6.5 billion of previously appropriated HUD funds to turn-off the spigot of unsustainable housing subsidy commitments. At that time we noted the urgency of comprehensive housing authorization legislation to complete this reform effort during fiscal year 1996. Unfortunately, this legislation has been delayed, although we remain hopeful that early next year the measures reported by both the House and Senate authorizing committees will pass the Congress. In the absence of such legislation, however, we have used the appropriations process to establish a strong foundation in beginning the major reform and overhaul of HUD. The measure before us today reflects almost all of the reform proposals which passed the Senate in September. They include public housing and assisted housing rent reforms, including a minimum rent, repeal for onerous Federal resident selection criteria, free- market decontrol of section 8 lease terms, and flexibility in resident income mix and funds utilization. This measure maintains the Senate-passed public housing demonstration initiative which will allow up to 30 public housing authorities to combine public housing and section 8 subsidies into a locally determined low-income housing assistance block grant. In addition, the bill also includes the Senate proposed multifamily mark-to-market demonstration, which is discretionary authority for the Department, and willing apartment development owners, the opportunity to explore work- out strategies which reduce dependence on rental subsidies while preserving affordable housing. Coupled with the one-time, 1-year extension of expiring project-based subsidy contracts, the multifamily housing demonstration authority sets the stage for consideration and enactment of needed comprehensive reform legislation next year. Mr. President, the measure before us also maintains the effort recommended by the Senate to fund a reformed housing preservation program. As I noted earlier, the committee identified a number of very troubling defects and problems in the previously enacted Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act [LIHPRHA]. In fact, the HUD inspector general labeled this program as a ``rip-off'' and urged reform or termination. But with as many as 150,000 affordable housing units at risk, the committee chose the more difficult task of identifying less costly and more efficient means of preserving this valuable housing resource. Working with residents, owners, nonprofit organizations, and the Department, a strategy to prioritize sales to non-profits and tenant-sponsored organizations utilizing capital grants was developed and is provided for in this conference agreement. This provides the best means of assuring long-term preservation of this housing without encumbering the government with expensive and continuing rental subsidy obligations. It was our intent that the Department cut off any further use of section 8 assistance to finance these preservation arrangements. The Department has already initiated the use of capital grants to finance sales of these developments, and we expect that similar authority will be identified or enacted to utilize similar capital loans for refinancing preservation agreements when such projects become eligible for funding in July. Because of technical budgetary rules, the committee was not able to delineate fully these program changes within the conference agreement. Moreover, in connection with the larger issue of maintaining the inventory of the newer-assisted section 8 new construction-substantial rehabilitation multifamily projects, Congress will be required to address these complex and difficult housing finance issues in a comprehensive authorization measure next year. At that time, we hope to enact a carefully targeted and efficient housing preservation program. Pending that action, the conference agreement provides the Department the authority and resources to minimize potential displacement of low- income families. Mr. President, the housing preservation program included in this conference agreement also recognizes that the severe budgetary constraints on these housing activities will not permit preservation of all units under all circumstances. This measure will permit owners to prepay their existing mortgages, as was provided for in their original subsidy contracts, because we cannot afford to compensate every owner to maintain these developments as low-income housing. In those cases, however, existing law, and the conference agreement does provide for section 8 assistance to avoid involuntary displacement of families due to increased rent burdens, and moving expenses if these developments are converted to other uses. Mr. President, the conference agreement affords the highest priority to veterans programs. The largest increase in the conference agreement--$400 million--goes to veterans medical care, for a total of $16.564 billion. The amount provided ensures that all veterans currently receiving care in VA medical facilities will continue to receive high-quality medical care. The conference agreement makes no reductions to patient care at the VA. It requires administrative improvements--which have been recommended by VA's own inspector general and the General Accounting Office--to make budgetary savings so that VA's medical dollars are spent on veterans, not on bureaucracy and administrative waste. The conference agreement provides the full budget request for VA's research program, a program critical to ensuring VA recruits and retains top quality medical personnel. In addition the bill also provides full funding for the staff needed to process compensation and pensions claims, so that VA's claims backlog can be eliminated and veterans won't have to wait 6 months or longer to receive an answer on their claim. It provides funding for a study of VA's claims processing system by the National Academy of Public Administration, which we expect will provide specific recommendations for improving and expediting VA's antiquated system. The conference agreement provides $136,155,000 for VA major construction, an increase of approximately $100 million over the Senate-passed level. The agreement provides funding for authorized construction projects only. No new hospital construction is funded, following the recommendations of the General Accounting Office, and in view of the need to curtail future budgetary commitments. Mr. President, the conference agreement provides $9 million for the Court of Veterans Appeals, the same amount recommended by both the House and Senate for fiscal year 1996. As with all agencies and activities under this subcommittee's jurisdiction, the court is being required to absorb a reduction in funding in fiscal year 1996 in an effort to reach a balanced budget. While less than the amount requested, the amount provided should be adequate for the court's operations in fiscal year 1996. Despite the fact that the court's budget has been reduced, I believe that the pro bono representation program should receive full funding in fiscal year 1996. This program has proven very successful in helping the court to address adequately the very large number of pro se cases. I am troubled by reports that the chief judge does not intend to provide any funds for the pro bono program this year in view of budgetary reductions. I wish to remind the court of the Congress' support for this program, and the fact that the Senate committee report accompanying H.R. 2099 indicated that the program was to receive the full budget request. Any changes will be made only upon the notification and approval of the Committees on Appropriations. While I certainly do not oppose private sector funding for this program, to my knowledge such funding sources have not been identified, and until there is adequate private sector funding, I do not believe it is prudent to withdraw Federal support. Mr. President, for the Environmental Protection Agency, the conference agreement provides $5.7 billion, an increase of $48 million over the Senate-passed level and a reduction of just $235 million--4 percent--below the fiscal year 1995 post rescission level. The largest reductions below fiscal year 1995 come from earmarked water and sewer projects--a reduction of $500 million below last year, and from Superfund, a program which everyone agrees simply is not working as it should, and one which desperately needs reforms before we provide significant additional funding. Despite substantial reservations about funding a program which is as flawed as Superfund, the conferees found an additional $160 million for Superfund above the House- and Senate-passed levels, for a total of $1.163 billion. This is a reduction of $172 million below current spending, most of which is taken from management and support costs and lower priority activities. All Superfund sites posing an immediate risk to human health and the environment will be funded under the conference agreement. The conferees funded EPA's drinking water State revolving fund program, which is not yet authorized, at the President's request of $500 million, of which $225 million is from previous year's appropriations. The Senate recently passed the legislation authorizing this important program, and I hope the House will pass similar legislation shortly so that the States may spend these funds in fiscal year 1996. For clean water State revolving funds, the conferees provided $1.125 billion. In addition, if drinking water legislation is not enacted by June 1, 1996, the conference report stipulates that the $500 million in drinking water State revolving funds will become immediately available for clean water State revolving funds, for a total of $1.625 billion. This ensures that the States will be able to spend these funds in fiscal year 1996, regardless of whether drinking water legislation is enacted. EPA's science and technology account is funded at $525 million, the same level of funding as fiscal year 1995. The conferees recognized the importance of ensuring adequate funding for the research activities which support EPA policy and decisionmaking. Additional funds are provided for research into the health effects of arsenic, so that we have the best science for a new standard for arsenic in drinking water. EPA's environmental programs and management are funded at $1.55 billion, a reduction of approximately 7 percent below current levels. Reductions are taken from lower priority activities such as the environmental technology initiative, which has received substantial funding to date with very little to show for it. As to the so-called EPA riders, the conference agreement does not include any of the 17 House riders. Instead, the conference agreement includes only six legislative provisions for EPA--most of which are completely non-controversial and several of which were included in previous VA-HUD bills. Mr. President, while the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report includes some language on legislative issues which had been included as riders in the House bill, in no case does the statement of the managers limit spending or direct that a specific rulemaking or activity be discontinued. The conferees simply urge EPA to consider reviewing these issues. It should be noted, that this conference agreement will provide the Environmental Protection Agency an 11\1/2\ percent increase over the funding levels currently stipulated by the continuing resolution. Anyone who is concerned about potential cutbacks in EPA enforcement activities should understand, in clear and unmistakable terms, that failure to enact this conference agreement means deeper and more devastating cut-backs in that Agency's activities. Mr. President, the House, 2 weeks ago, recommitted our conference agreement on this bill. The second conference on the VA-HUD Appropriations Bill adopted a package of technical amendments and corrections. In addition it included an amendment to the National Service appropriation to reflect the Congressional Budget Office estimate of close-out costs. Finally, conferees amended the previous agreement to freeze administrative fees of the HUD section 8 program and thereby address concerns over the unintended consequences of attempting to institute a two-tiered reimbursement system. As noted earlier, further increases for VA Medical Care would only mean much deeper cuts in the other agencies funded in this bill. No conferee advocated such an adjustment. Furthermore, I believe we must insist that the VA implement improvements and reforms before providing further funding increases. We all support the best possible medical care for those who have been injured or wounded in defense of our Nation. Unfortunately, even with all the money in the world, there is no assurance that VA's existing bureaucratic structure could deliver such services, and we must demand these corrections. Mr. President, this is a good conference agreement which, within our very severe budgetary and legislative constraints, goes a long way toward needed reforms in HUD, VA, and EPA. It addresses the highest priority needs served by agencies within the subcommittee's jurisdiction, and it is fully in compliance with our fundamental goal of bringing the Government's budget into balance. I hope that this bill will be enacted. It needs to be enacted soon, if only to begin the process of reforming HUD housing programs which will permit future year cost savings and efficiencies, to improve the quality of EPA regulatory decisionmaking so that it is based on sound science, and to infuse modern medical practices into the archaic and bureaucratic veterans health care system. Mr. President, unfortunately I must report that despite our best efforts and repeated attempts, we have been unsuccessful in gaining the attention of the White House to negotiate a reasonable compromise on their demands for more spending, far more than what any balanced budget plan can accommodate. That is the source of my very deep frustration over this bill. I have stated repeatedly that while some White House priorities are very different from my own and that of a majority of the Congress, we are prepared to sit down and seek a reasonable compromise on these issues. Matters such as the national service program, one of this administration's highest priorities, is an activity which I believe is very flawed in its approach and rife with misuse in its current management. I don't disagree with the fundamental goal of this program, but I cannot recommend more funding for the current program. Termination of this program is proposed in this conference agreement, but we have offered to consider additional funding if necessary reforms could be negotiated. Unfortunately, these offers have fallen on deaf ears in the White House, and only further threats of a veto have been communicated back to us. Mr. President, this is no way to run a government. It certainly is no way to consider and enact legislation to assure the taxpayers that the sums we propose to spend are being devoted only to the most critical needs and in the most efficient manner possible. Unfortunately, unless the White House changes its tune, we have no alternative but to proceed with the agreement before us, despite the veto threats. We can only hope that by the end of this session some agreement with the administration can be struck, and the many critically needed reforms included in this bill will be enacted into law. I think we were very successful in the conference. With the very able assistance of our ranking member, we prevailed on many of the issues. This measure is not an easy one because we took a 12-percent cut this year from the appropriated level last year. Nevertheless, we have tried to accommodate the various needs of the many agencies under the control of this subcommittee. I think this is a good measure. We have been advised by the President's representative that he does plan on vetoing it. Earlier today, I made a very strong plea that the administration reconsider that decision. There has been a great deal of objection from the administration to the very low level of funding available for certain vital EPA functions, particularly in the enforcement area. Under the continuing resolution, there is only $320 million available for EPA enforcement in the current year, if the continuing resolution is in effect. Under this measure, we have raised that amount to $449 million. I have also previously stated that we tried on numerous occasions to enlist the representatives of the administration in constructive negotiations with us as to how we might reallocate the funds within the budget allocation. The response has been solely that they want $2 billion more. It is beyond the ability of this committee to grant them that money. I would suggest very strongly that if the administration does not like the CR funding level for EPA and the other agencies, they can sign this bill and get about an 11.5 percent increase in funding for EPA. If at a later date in the process of negotiations between the congressional leadership and the White House a decision is made at that level to make available more dollars for the functions in this bill, then they could at that time add it in a continuing resolution. There are certain measures that I know are very important to the administration. The ranking member has argued very strongly to continue funding of the national service. We were unable to find that money in the very narrow allocation that we had, although had the administration been willing to negotiate with us and support the bill, I am confident we could have. We would have not been able, however, to pass the measure with majority party support if we had put in a large amount for national service. I remain hopeful that this measure can be signed, and at such appropriate time as the administration, the congressional leadership reach agreement on additional funding which may be available to these functions, they would include it in a continuing resolution. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the setting of a time certain was necessary to accommodate Members who had other commitments. While it may not be efficient, I think it may be easier to schedule other activities than to have to go on at this time of the evening. That is why I would suggest we stay with the 6:45 time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Texas has been waiting to be recognized. She has 10 minutes under her control.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, there seems to be no further comments from my ranking member.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, let me take a minute and thank the Senator from Arizona. Basically, as he indicated, the debt forgiveness was designed to clear the books. There is no prospect of recovery. We will provide a fuller answer for the Record. The two provisions relating to Texas were included in the House. The one with respect to West Virginia was added in the conference. We will provide the full information on that.

Mr. BOND. I yield to the Senator from Arizona 10 minutes.

Mr. BOND. I yield myself just 1 minute, and then I would like to yield. But first, let me point out that occasionally we do get some humor in these proceedings, these very serious matters we are dealing with. I got this statement of administration policy. At the end of it, it said, ``The administration would like to work with the Congress to address the issues discussed above.'' Well, they have done a pretty good job of preventing working with us after spending 3 frustrating weeks trying to hear from them. I find out now in their written statement that they want to work with me. I have a telephone number. It is listed. I can be reached. Nobody called. Let me just say that all of the items you can make an argument we need more money for. Nobody is willing to come forward and say where the cuts are made. We cut low-priority EPA items, useless funds in Superfund, earmarked or pork projects in waste-water treatment. I think we have done as good a job as we can under the circumstances. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina. I know that the Senator from Arizona is here. He has the longer statement. The Senator from North Carolina had asked for 3 minutes. I yield 3 minutes to him.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 1747, just received from the House.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2336, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar, Nos. 404, 405, 406, and nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, and Navy. I further ask unanimous consent the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, it is the intention of the majority leader to begin consideration of the House Message on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill during Friday's session. It is also possible that the Senate will consider the D.C. appropriations conference report, as well as a continuing resolution during tomorrow's session. Therefore, rollcall votes are possible on Friday.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 243, S. 1332.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill be considered read a third time and passed as amended, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Friday, December 15; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved their use later in the day; there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak up to 5 minutes each, with the following exception: Senator Nunn, 25 minutes; Senator Coats, 45 minutes; Senator Graham, 25 minutes.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the reason I asked for morning business at this time was to bring my colleagues up to date and those who are very much interested in the appropriations process, particularly as it regards the Environmental Protection Agency, VA, and HUD, and what is happening here. We have had a bill that has been passed by the Senate, passed by the House, and a conference report passed by the House that is waiting here. We have not passed it because the administration has promised clearly and unequivocally to veto it. There are several things that are going to happen today. First, the majority leader has scheduled the measure to be passed later on after this bill, perhaps in wrapup tonight, and second, there is a major media effort to mischaracterize, I believe, what is going on with respect to the environment. Some of my colleagues may have seen an article in today's Washington Post: ``Temporary Reductions Halt `Environmental Cop.' '' It relates to concerns expressed by EPA Administrator Carol Browner. I am getting a little tired of the press conferences, press statements, and grandstanding from the White House regarding how the majority in the Congress is rolling back environmental protection and making deep cuts in the environment. Ms. Browner is reported in the Post as saying, ``The environmental cop is not on the beat.'' She decries the fact that the temporary budget reductions resulting from the current continuing resolution are causing a reduction in inspections. I agree with her. I would like to see a bill passed and signed into law. Let me set the record straight. The EPA appropriations bill which passed the Senate earlier this year funded EPA's operating programs at the fiscal year 1995 level, and the conference report on VA-HUD and independent agencies provides a total funding level for EPA which is $48 million more than the Senate-passed bill, a reduction of only 4 percent below the postrescissions fiscal year 1995 funding level. We have managed in a very, very tight budget to provide close to full funding for EPA at a time when constraints on discretionary spending are extraordinarily tight. This subcommittee received an allocation which was 12 percent below last year's level, yet we managed to hold EPA at close to current funding levels. Despite the rhetoric from downtown, this demonstrates, I believe, a Republican commitment to continue to improve the environment. Now, I am the first to admit that the EPA has received some targeted budget cuts in the appropriations process but the reductions came from areas which the National Academy of Public Administration and others identified as being unnecessary, wasteful or duplicative. NAPA is a nonpartisan organization which was commissioned by my Democratic colleague and predecessor, Senator Mikulski, then chair of the committee, to undertake a report on reforming EPA 2 years ago. In this bill and the conference report, we followed the NAPA recommendations presented to Congress almost a year ago to turn more responsibility over to the States that have developed an enormous capacity over the past 25 years to manage environmental programs, including inspections of facilities. According to NAPA, ``EPA should revise its approach to oversight, providing high performing States with grant flexibility, reduced oversight and greater autonomy.'' That is what we have tried to do for this appropriations bill, and we have included authority for EPA to begin issuing block grants for maximum flexibility. We have tried to focus on the areas of highest risk to human health and the environment and reduce those programs which do not get the most bang for the buck in terms of environmental protection. But the administration and EPA, rather than spending time organizing press conferences and news events, should be following the recommendations of NAPA to get its own house in order. Despite EPA's claim to support NAPA's recommendations, we have seen little in terms of real change. And regarding today's article in the Post, let me point out to my colleagues that indeed EPA is operating under a constrained budget because of the continuing resolution, and I am fully prepared to send a bill to the President so they will not have to operate under a continuing resolution. The conference report on the EPA bill, that is, VA-HUD and independent agencies, would provide an increase of 11.5 percent over the current continuing resolution, yet the President wants to veto the bill. His agents have stated unequivocally that he will. I have suggested to administration officials that I as chairman, the ranking member, Senator Mikulski, and our colleagues in similar positions in the House, are more than willing to sit down to find accommodations within the 602(b) allocation to negotiate a reasonable compromise. Rather than negotiating with us, today I am told later on the Vice President will hold a press conference with Administrator Browner at a suburban Maryland wastewater treatment plant where they will continue to attack Republican reductions in environmental improvements. Rather than pointing to the successes achieved over the past years to improve our water quality, they will talk about how the budget will impair future water quality improvements. Let me set the record straight, Mr. President. Funding for EPA wastewater treatment construction in this year's bill is $1.125 billion. In addition, the conference report stipulates that if legislation enacting a new drinking water State revolving fund is not authorized by June 1, 1996, an additional $500 million will be available for wastewater State revolving funds for a total of $1.625 billion. Mr. President, this would represent an increase of about $400 million over last year's level. Now, in the last 2 weeks or more, I have repeatedly requested of top administration officials that they tell us how they wish to reallocate spending within the 602(b) allocations. I have made that request among others to Administrator Browner, to CEQ director, Ms. McGinty, to OMB director Dr. Rivlin, to the Vice President himself. I put in a call to the President. Obviously, he has other things on his mind. But none of these people has responded. As a result, it appears that when this bill goes down, if the President carries through on his threat to veto it, it will be vetoed and EPA will fall back to the level of the continuing resolution. The only word we have heard from the administration is they want to spend about $2 billion more. The White House talks the language of reducing spending to balance the budget, but they do not have the music yet. They think the only way they can live is to spend more money. We have done the very best we can to establish priorities within the context of achieving a balanced budget in the year 2002. I wish to say for the record that my ranking member, Senator Mikulski, has gone out of her way to be helpful, to work with us, to make as many accommodations and improvements in the bill as possible. She too has sought the involvement of the administration. And even though Senator Mikulski's top priority, national service, is not funded in this bill, other than for close-down, it cannot be funded unless and until the administration is willing to sit down with us and tell us where they wish to make cuts to generate the support to pass this bill in both Houses. Senator Mikulski has been thoroughly cooperative throughout. I could not ask for anyone who has been more willing to put the needs of the environment, of veterans, of housing, of space, and other important agencies ahead of partisan bickering. It is with great regret that I tell my colleagues that we are likely to see the measure, which is scheduled for passage later on tonight, vetoed by the President because simply he wants to spend more money. I make the point again for those interested in the environment that if the President were to sign this bill, or if the President were even to send his people to discuss with us how to make improvements to protect their priorities, we would be more than willing to negotiate with them. Absent any response--and there has been no response--this bill will be scheduled later on for passage this evening. I regret that we will not receive the funding for environmental actions that are included in this conference report if the President chooses to veto it. But make no mistake. If there is a reduction in funding for environmental efforts, it will be the President's decision. It will be the President's veto. He is going to get a bill that is very close to last year's funding, and it protects the top priority programs in EPA. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, one provision in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill that I oppose is the language that prohibits the Department of State from spending any funds to expand our diplomatic relations with Vietnam until the President certifies that Vietnam is fully cooperating with the United States in four areas relating to POW/MIA's: First, resolving discrepancy cases, live sightings and field activities; second, recovering and repatriating American remains; third, accelerating efforts to provide documents that will help lead to the fullest possible accounting of POW/MIA's; and fourth, providing further assistance in implementing trilateral investigations with Laos. I must say that I am somewhat dumbfounded as to why we would include this provision. In fact, the President certified these four criteria this past summer, when he made the decision to move forward on full diplomatic relations with Vietnam. I certainly understand that there are many who disagree with that move, but the fact is that as President, he has the authority to conduct foreign affairs, and it is not appropriate for us to try to undercut him. Shortly after the President moved forward with full diplomatic relations, a vote was taken in the Senate on whether additional sanctions should be imposed against Vietnam. By an almost 2-to-1 margin, the Senate voted that no, we should not implement any more sanctions on Vietnam. Let me repeat that. By nearly 2-to-1, we in the Senate said ``no more sanctions on Vietnam.'' The President made the right decision in moving forward with full diplomatic relations. This provision would threaten those new relations without in any way helping to meet its goal of resolving MIA cases. Moving forward with relations and increasing bilateral contacts is the best way of achieving that goal. It appears almost certain that this bill is headed for a veto, which means we will have another opportunity to address this topic. I urge conferees to reconsider this provision and to eliminate this unnecessary and unhelpful encroachment on the President's power to conduct foreign policy.