[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3819-S3824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE DISASTER SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know there is discussion this morning, 
again, about a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee this 
afternoon, now scheduled for 2 o'clock, to deal with the disaster 
supplemental appropriations bill. I come to the floor only to urge, as 
I did yesterday, that the committee consider the disaster 
appropriations bill and the issues in that bill without adding 
additional extraneous amendments or matters that are unrelated to the 
bill.
  I do not want to or intend to debate other issues. There are people 
who have amendments, I am sure, that they feel strongly about--
amendments on various bills. But I encourage them very strongly to find 
other places to offer amendments if they feel they need to offer 
amendments.
  We have several amendments that I understand have been noticed that 
have nothing at all to do with the disaster supplemental bill. They are 
extraneous, unrelated issues that people want to put on this piece of 
legislation because, I suppose, they believe this kind of legislation 
will ultimately be signed by the President. But, to add extraneous or 
unrelated matters to this supplemental appropriations bill that is to 
be passed to respond to a disaster, only will increase the amount of 
time it takes to enact this bill. It will jeopardize the passage, I 
suspect, if they are very controversial amendments. And, in my 
judgment, that is not what we should do on this disaster bill.
  So, I encourage my colleagues today, as we go to a markup, to join 
all of us in working to pass a bill that is free of extraneous or 
unrelated amendments that would cause problems for the bill.
  I want, as I did yesterday, to commend Senator Stevens and Senator 
Byrd and all of the others on the committee who, in a bipartisan way, 
have worked very hard with us to respond to a disaster that occurred in 
our part of the country.
  In many ways, facing the kind of disaster that was faced in North and

[[Page S3820]]

South Dakota and Minnesota brings out the best in people. It was really 
heartwarming to have seen during this disaster the thousands and 
thousands of people, many of them young people--high school and college 
students--and folks in their senior years, show up at sandbag lines to 
stack sandbags to build dikes to fight the river.
  It is an extraordinary thing to see what people have done, the acts 
of heroism that have occurred so frequently, especially up in the Red 
River Valley, in this flood fight and the fight against the fire and 
the fight to overcome the effects of the massive blizzards.
  The victims of all of this are the tens of thousands of people who 
were displaced. The city of Grand Forks is a city of nearly 50,000 
people with no one living there, streets inundated with water. The only 
traffic in Grand Forks was by three or four Coast Guard boats taking 
people up and down and some law enforcement people on the outside of 
the city trying to make certain that there was order. But other than 
that, this was a city inundated and a city evacuated.
  Of all the wonderful things people have done--and there are so many--
I noticed last evening that an unidentified woman from California 
decided that she wanted to make a personal donation of $2,000 per 
household in Grand Forks, ND, to those men and women who have suffered 
damages to their homes. What a wonderful thing for someone to do. That 
will cost millions of dollars. An anonymous donor says, ``I want to 
step up here and help.'' What a wonderful thing to do.
  Part of what is needed to be done, as well, is the Federal Government 
to understand that that region cannot recover by itself. It needs a 
helping hand by the Government to say to our region, ``You're not 
alone. The rest of the people in this country want to help,'' as we 
have done so often in other parts of the country in floods, fires, 
tornadoes, and earthquakes.
  In order for the Federal Government to provide that assistance, we 
must pass a disaster supplemental appropriations bill. We should, in my 
judgment, do that without any extraneous amendments that are unrelated 
to the bill. I encourage all those who are inclined to want to add 
amendments to try to find a way to bring those issues to the floor at a 
different time. I am not here to suggest that the ideas that will be 
offered have no merit, that they are inappropriate ideas to be 
discussing or debating. I am not suggesting that at all. I just ask 
that we stick with what we should be doing; that is, understanding the 
people who have had such a heavy burden placed on them, in many cases 
losing everything they have, being evacuated from their homes, the 
people who I saw in shelters with tears in their eyes, worried about 
tomorrow, about whether there will be hope, whether there will be 
opportunity again, whether there will be help for them and their 
families, their children, and their parents. I just hope we can pass a 
piece of legislation that is without extraneous amendments that offers 
that kind of help.
  The Senator from Arizona is on the floor. I want to say to him that I 
don't judge ideas that others are attempting to offer anywhere. They 
may have merit. I just urge everyone to take a look at the importance 
of this bill and see if we can't find other places to debate these 
ideas. I think the men and women of the Senate are men and women of 
enormous good will. We always try to do the right thing.
  I said yesterday and want to say again, Senator Stevens, Senator 
Byrd, and others have done a remarkable job in working with us to try 
to develop a package of assistance to that region that will be 
enormously helpful and enormously beneficial. I hope at the end of the 
day, at the end of this week, we will have moved something through this 
committee to the floor of the Senate to be scheduled early next week 
that can then be accepted by the House and be signed by the President 
and will extend the helping hand of the Federal Government to a lot of 
folks who have been hit very, very hard.
  I do not intend to have a debate with anybody about the merits of 
this or that issue. I only come to say that this is very important, 
vitally important, to our region of the country, and I urge in the 
strongest possible terms that the Congress be allowed to pass this 
supplemental disaster appropriations bill without extraneous amendments 
attached to it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, like all of us here today, I want to 
extend my sympathies to the communities and families of the upper 
Midwest who have experienced the terrible flooding over the past 
several weeks.
  It brings back vivid memories of the flooding that hit western 
Maryland last year and I know all Marylanders join me in extending our 
thoughts and prayers to everyone in the Midwest.
  Like many of my colleagues, I was hoping for quick consideration of 
this important legislation so we could speed relief to disaster 
victims. They are counting on us to help them get back on their feet--
to help them rebuild their homes and businesses.
  I am so disappointed that what should have been a speedy, nonpartisan 
targeted relief bill has turned into another nasty partisan battle.
  I am greatly concerned about the many extraneous provisions that have 
been wedged into this bill. The provisions are designed to inflame and 
divide us and to provoke a veto from the President.
  They make it so much more difficult to get assistance to the people 
in flood ravaged communities who are counting on us. I am particularly 
alarmed by the inclusion in this package of what is artfully called the 
Shutdown Prevention Act.
  Nobody knows the pain of a Government shutdown better than me and the 
Marylanders I represent. When the last shutdown occurred, I visited 
Government agencies that had to remain open.
  I saw the frustration on the faces of the workers and the financial 
hardship it caused for all Federal employees.
  I do not want another shutdown and will do everything I can to 
prevent it. But, the revised bill now provides for a permanent 
continuing resolution which is nothing more than a partisan trick.
  It is designed to lock in deep cuts to important programs under the 
cover of preventing a Government shutdown. I am opposed to this 
provision and urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  In addition, I am disturbed by the way in which we have chosen to pay 
for this bill. This bill takes $3.6 billion in unobligated funds from 
HUD's section 8 public housing program to pay for FEMA's disaster 
relief fund.
  I do not believe we should be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  Eventually, Peter will be broke.
  The projected budget problems with regard to the section 8 program 
are well known.
  In fiscal year 1998, section 8 renewals will cost $10.2 billion. That 
is a $7 billion increase over the fiscal year 1997 funding level.
  We will need the unobligated funds to pay for the section 8 renewals 
in fiscal year 1998. We should not be raiding the program to pay for 
disaster funding.
  I am pleased that of the $5.8 billion in unobligated section 8 funds, 
$2.2 billion will be saved to cover fiscal year 1998 section 8 renewal 
costs. However, as the budget estimates show, we will need every dollar 
we can find to cover the huge increase in section 8 costs next year.
  The VA/HUD Subcommittee cannot serve as the ATM machine for the rest 
of the committee. If we are going to pay for emergency disasters, one 
subcommittee should not bear a disproportionate share of the burden.
  We must find a new way to pay for emergency supplemental 
appropriations bills. These disasters are not going to end.
  We could be facing even more expensive disasters in the near future. 
Are we going to continually robe the VA/HUD account to pay for these 
bills?
  I believe we need a new system or a new arrangement to deal with 
these type of disasters--a new system that is off-budget.
  I wanted to support this bill because it is so important to the 
families and communities who need help. However, the changes that were 
added at the last minute make it impossible for me to do so. I hope in 
the future we can avoid partisan fights over disaster relief bills and 
find a more equitable way to pay for them.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I, of course, like all Americans, extend 
my deep and profound sympathy and

[[Page S3821]]

pledge of assistance to those who have been ravaged by these natural 
disasters which are unprecedented in some parts of the country. But I 
am, frankly, very surprised that the Senator from North Dakota, and 
others, would not want to also prevent a man-made disaster that took 
place 2 years ago.
  I ask the Senator from North Dakota if he realizes, if the Government 
were to shut down again, whether those people would be able to get that 
assistance? The answer is no, I say to the Senator from North Dakota, 
and it is foolishness--it is foolishness--not to understand that when 
there are manmade disasters, it affects people just as badly as natural 
disasters do.
  I say to the Senator from North Dakota, I am sorry he is not 
concerned about the people of Arizona, the hundreds of families who 
were put out of work and lost their livelihood the last time the 
Government was shut down, the thousands of families who didn't work for 
the Federal Government, who were never repaid--never ever repaid--when 
the Secretary of the Interior, my fellow Arizonan, in his wisdom 
decided to shut down the Grand Canyon for the first time in 76 years.
  Mr. President, I am astounded at the arguments that are made against 
this amendment that Senator Hutchison and I and those of us on this 
side of the aisle are supportive of to prevent the effects of a manmade 
disaster which happened 2 years ago, which every American decried, 
which every American thought was terrible, the hundreds of millions of 
dollars that were lost, the people who were trying to apply for 
Medicare benefits, the people who were trying to apply for Social 
Security, the other aspects of Government services that they lost, like 
getting a passport so they could get back from school in Europe or take 
a vacation--all of the Government services that we were deprived of. 
Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have the unmitigated 
gall to call this an extraneous provision.
  I don't know where the Senator from North Dakota was--and I am sorry 
he left the floor--3 years ago when the California emergency earthquake 
supplemental contained language inserted by then Majority Leader 
Mitchell that dealt with the investigation of potato diseases.
  I didn't see the Senator from North Dakota on the floor when Senator 
Byrd put language in the bill that funded employees at the fingerprint 
lab in West Virginia. You know, it is a long way from West Virginia to 
California, Mr. President, and that language required $20 million to be 
expended to hire 500 employees to remain available, to be expended 
without regard to any other law--without regard to any other law. That 
was put in the California emergency earthquake supplemental.
  Where were my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when all of 
these extraneous provisions were put in, which is a habit around here 
which I have decried and taken the floor in opposition to time after 
time after time.
  Mr. President, this is crazy, this is just crazy, and do you know why 
they are doing it? Because they want to be able to threaten the 
shutdown of the Government so they can achieve one of two things: one, 
an enormous political advantage like they gained 2 years ago when, over 
Christmas, we saw pictures of Federal workers sitting around empty 
Christmas trees; or what they were able to do last year, and that is to 
basically blackmail the Congress into spending around $9 billion more 
than had been budgeted for. That is the kind of leverage they want to 
maintain.
  Do you know what, Mr. President? I understand political leverage, I 
think I understand it fairly well after a few years around here, but I 
am not prepared to do it at the expense of the lives and welfare of the 
American people, and clearly those on the other side are willing to do 
that. I view that as gross and crass and cynical and the worst aspect 
of this kind of process that we are engaged in here.
  We are trying to prevent the shutdown of the Federal Government, 
which affects the lives of millions of Americans, perhaps 250 million, 
and for the Senator from North Dakota, who I am glad came back to the 
floor, to say that this is an extraneous amendment when it has been a 
habit in the Congress to put extraneous information--where was the 
Senator from North Dakota when Senator Byrd put on the amendment that 
required $20 million in the hiring of 500 employees in West Virginia on 
the California earthquake disaster bill? Where was the Senator from 
North Dakota when then Majority Leader Mitchell put in the California 
emergency earthquake supplemental an investigation of potato diseases?
  I hope the American people know better than to accept these bogus 
arguments when we are trying to prevent a manmade disaster.
  I repeat, again, to the Senator from North Dakota, I am concerned 
about the people of North Dakota. I want to get them money as quickly 
as possible, but I am deeply disturbed he doesn't care about the people 
who live around the Grand Canyon who, if the Government shut down, 
would be out of work and not get the money back. It happened in my 
State. I don't know what happened in North Dakota when we shut down the 
Government. I know what happened in Arizona. I know what happened in 
Texas. I know what happened all over the country. I was flooded with 
calls and letters and messages: ``What are you idiots doing in 
Washington shutting down the Government?"

  I do not want it to happen again. It cannot happen again. This is a 
big issue; this is an important issue. I am going to object and come to 
this floor every time someone from the other side of the aisle says 
this is extraneous and the President is going to veto it. If the 
President wants to veto it, fine. The President of the United States 
then will be responsible the next time the Government shuts down--don't 
blame us--and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, too, who 
don't support preventing the Government from being shut down. That is 
where the responsibility will lie.
  The President may veto it. It may come back. We may cave. We have 
done that before. If we do, the record will be clear, I say to my 
colleague from North Dakota. I really appreciate, again, his concern 
about extraneous amendments. I hope he joins me the next time a 
supplemental bill comes to the floor and we will propose amendments 
together to take out those extraneous amendments, because he wasn't 
there on the other times that I have been on the floor when there have 
been extraneous amendments on a supplemental appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, thank you. I commend my colleague, the 
Senator from Arizona, for his commitment to trying to do what is right. 
We are supposed to learn from our mistakes, and I think everyone 
believes that it was a mistake that we had a Government shutdown. It is 
not anything anyone intended, but to say that we would allow ourselves 
to go forward into a disaster like that again would be saying you 
cannot learn a lesson of history.
  We are learning the lesson of history. We know what it was like when 
veterans were not sure they would get their benefits because this 
administration refused to say that veterans benefits were essential 
payments, and they really lived in fear that those benefits that they 
earned would not be there. Not to mention all of the other Federal 
employees who wanted to come to work but could not by law do it and 
were not sure if the money to pay their mortgages would be there.
  Mr. President, let's talk about the timing. This is the first bill 
out of the Appropriations Committee. It is a supplemental bill asked 
for by the President to cover some of the unforeseen expenses. But 
there are other things in the bill as well, Mr. President. I don't 
think the Senator from North Dakota can just pick and choose which 
things are essential. We have to look at good government, and we have 
to look at our responsibility. Part of our responsibility is seeing 
that the victims in North Dakota, who have suffered greatly--and we all 
understand that. I grew up on the gulf coast and have lived through 
hurricanes and have seen people not have homes. I, of all people, 
understand disaster. We are going to do the right thing, and part of 
doing the right thing is we are going to take up raises for the 
District of Columbia police officers. We are going to take up

[[Page S3822]]

U.N. dues. That is part of this bill, in addition to disaster relief 
and taking care of our soldiers and their requirements in Bosnia.

  So this is the time that we are able to address how we will 
appropriate this year. What we are saying is, we are not going to shut 
down Government. This may work to the benefit of the President; it may 
work to the benefit of Congress. We do not really know. But what we are 
saying is, we are not going to shut down Government. We are going to 
allow the negotiations that occur on September 30, that are still 
occurring to continue to occur based on the merits without any 
artificial hammers over anyone's head, not the President, not Congress.
  That is the only responsible way we know how to deal with these 
disagreements. So we are saying, come September 30, we will fund at 
present levels minus 2-percent because in fact that 2-percent going 
into the next fiscal year is appropriating money that we have not yet 
decided how to appropriate. We did not say 75 percent. We are not 
looking at Draconian cuts here. We are looking at staying with the 
budget resolution that we passed out of this Congress and sticking to 
it.
  The budget resolution says that we would have $541 billion for the 
next year in the budget plan that marches toward the year 2002 in a 
responsible approach to cutting the rate of growth of spending.
  The President's request for the 1998 budget that we are discussing 
was actually somewhat under that. So how someone can say we are 
actually cutting the President's budget is really hard to understand 
because we are actually over what the President said he wanted for the 
1998 year; we are over that by $3 billion.
  So what has happened here is the President has come in and asked for 
$25 billion more; and we are being accused of cutting the $25 billion-
add that he has put on to his own budget submitted last year.
  So, Mr. President, this is a lot of rigmarole to say that we are not 
trying to do the responsible thing. We are doing it in the first bill 
that comes out of the Appropriations Committee to set the process for 
this next year. And the process is going to be that if we do not have 
agreements by September 30, which we hope we do, but if we do not, that 
we are going to continue at present levels minus 2 percent. If any 
agency of State or Federal Government cannot operate on a 2 percent 
cut, ask them to call any small business, ask them to call any family 
that has had trouble making ends meet to see if they would be able to 
budget a 2 percent cut. If 2 percent is a Draconian cut, it is time 
these people came into the real world, the real world of taxpayers 
trying to make ends meet.
  So we are saying, everyone will be on notice that if we do not have 
an agreement for a particular appropriations bill, we will continue 
funding, there will not be a shutdown, and if you cannot cut 2 percent 
out of your budget with 6 months' notice then you really do not deserve 
to be running the Federal Government.
  Second, Mr. President, I think it is very important when we are 
addressing the issue of responsible governing that we say we are going 
to cover disaster victims and we are going to do it in a timely way.
  If the President says that a 2-percent cut in present spending is 
something that would make him veto the bill, then the President should 
answer to the victims of North Dakota, the President should answer to 
the soldiers in Bosnia. Because 2 percent from what we are spending 
today, if we do not have an agreement, I think is quite responsible.
  We are not talking Draconian cuts. We are talking responsible 
Government. In fact, you know we had hoped to have total bipartisan 
support for this. We thought from all the things that were said when 
the Government was shut down that we would have a huge Democrat-
Republican alliance to say, let us address it now. Let us give everyone 
notice so that everyone can plan.
  In fact, I will quote from Senator Daschle, December 30, 1995, 
talking about the Government shutdown:

       The Government remains shut because some Members . . . want 
     it shut. It is Government by gimmick, and it is wrong.

  Mrs. BOXER. Would the Senator yield?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We are addressing the concerns raised by Senator 
Daschle. And those concerns are addressed so that we will not have 
Government by gimmick, so that we will have responsible Government, so 
that everyone will know what the rules are, and so that we will be able 
to negotiate in good faith on appropriations that have not been 
finished by September 30.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a brief question on the 
shutdown issue?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator know how many times in the 200-year 
history of America the U.S. Government has shut down for an extended 
period of time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would appreciate hearing from the Senator from 
California on that.

  Mrs. BOXER. It only happened one time when this Congress was put in 
the hands of her party. And I would just like to say to my friend, who 
is my friend--and we do work on other things together; I am very happy 
about that--that on this matter it is tragic--tragic. And I wish you 
would go to North Dakota or maybe come to California where 120,000 
people had to be evacuated from their homes. That we are putting a 
budget fight on an emergency supplemental--emergency--we do not have a 
budget.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. We are not having a budget fight. We are talking 
about responsible Government.
  Mrs. BOXER. If we can meet on the----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I would just say, if we did this work we would not have 
this problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has her time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I have seen victims of floods. And I am glad the 
Senator from California suggested it because I have seen the victims of 
flood. I live on the gulf coast. I have lived through hurricanes. I 
have seen my own home flooded. I have seen neighbors who have not had 
homes to live in, who stayed in our home because of the water. I know 
what it is like to see a tornado tear up an entire city in Dallas 
County.
  But you know something? This is trying to do the responsible thing. 
If the President decides to veto a bill because we are trying to stop 
the Government by gimmick that Senator Daschle accused us of doing--and 
the Senator from California points out that we have only had a shutdown 
for an extended period of time one time. And I am saying, we have 
learned from history.
  The President vetoed the bills back in 1995, but he blamed it on 
Congress. So Congress is saying, let us do the responsible thing. Let 
us make sure that we do not have a Government shutdown. If it is our 
fault, then we are trying to correct it, we are trying to do the right 
thing. And it is not a budget fight. It is the first bill out of the 
Appropriations Committee. And we are trying to set a process that would 
allow us to meet the needs of the victims of North Dakota, the soldiers 
in Bosnia, pay U.N. dues, raise the salaries of D.C. police, and make 
sure that everyone is on notice that we are not going to have 
Government by gimmick, we are going to have Government by responsible 
people, and we are going to set the parameters right now which it is in 
our prerogative to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
  I will be very brief.
  Mr. President, I served in the House of Representatives for 10 years, 
and I served on the Budget Committee for 6 years during that time. I 
now serve on the Budget Committee and happen to be on the 
Appropriations Committee as well. And since the Senator from Texas 
wants to learn from history, let me share some history with her.
  In all those years on the Budget Committee--it is actually 11 in all; 
6 in the House, 5 in the Senate--I have never seen the majority party, 
whether it was Republican or Democrat, not put forward a budget. I have 
never seen such a dereliction of duty. I miss my Budget Committee 
chairman. I want to

[[Page S3823]]

send him a card: ``Looking forward to seeing you.''
  I like working with Chairman Pete Domenici. We do not even meet 
anymore, Mr. President. We are not doing our work. And now on an 
emergency supplemental bill, where the people who have been suffering 
are counting on us, we move a piece of legislation on to that bill that 
has nothing to do with a natural disaster, that has to do with a 
budgetary fight which is an admission of surrender by the people who 
are offering it that they cannot play by the rules of the game, by the 
laws of this Congress which say you must have a budget on the floor by 
April 15.
  And then to come to the floor and criticize the Senator from North 
Dakota, who has been working, as I have, with our Republican friends, 
with our Democratic friends, to craft an emergency bill that is 
fiscally responsible, that meets the needs of people, to have my friend 
from North Dakota attacked as not being empathetic to the needs of this 
country, to me, is beyond repair.
  We have two jobs to do today. We have to pass an emergency 
supplemental appropriations to help the people of California, to help 
the people of North Dakota, indeed, to help the people of 22 States who 
have suffered, who have lost their homes, their businesses, who were 
evacuated--we have to do that--and we have to do it fast. We have to 
help our farmers, our small businesspeople.
  I do not think I will ever forget the vision of that city in North 
Dakota that is a ghost town. It just looked like something out of a 
picture out of World War II--burning buildings sitting in water. And we 
are putting our budget battle on to this emergency bill. And I just 
have to say, I am so surprised that this has occurred. It did not 
happen on the House side.

  Our chairman, Chairman Stevens, called off the hearing--the markup--
after telling us that he was prepared to go forward with a clean bill 
but others wanted this added. In respect to his colleagues, of course, 
he did the right thing, called off the markup.
  So I hope we can come together as Democrats and Republicans. That is 
what the people want us to do. And let us do our job. Let us get these 
people the help they need.
  There are other amendments now on there, environmental amendments 
that totally eviscerate environmental laws that should not be part of 
this bill.
  There is a labor fight going on about how much you pay workers at 
construction projects. That has now gotten on to this emergency bill.
  We have procedures here. We have processes here to deal with these 
other matters. So I am hoping we do two things today: We pass a clean 
bill in the committee, and we are going to go to that markup at 2 
o'clock; and, second, we ask our colleagues on the Budget Committee, 
``Put your budget on the table before you try to resort to across-the-
board cuts.''
  And I want to correct the record on this point. My friend from Texas 
made a point that in actuality this continuing resolution is going to 
be a level of spending higher than the President suggested. Now, this 
may be true for the overall number, but I can assure my friend, he has 
an initiative in education, he has an initiative in children's health, 
he has an initiative to clean up Superfund sites, he has an initiative 
on crime. This President has initiatives in his budget. So if you just 
go ahead and say, well, we have decided to forget about our free markup 
budget, and throw in the towel, and put this solution down on the 
table----
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. Put this 2-percent solution on the table and indicate to 
the President that there will not be severe cuts in education, the 
environment, in crime, in health research, that is simply not true.
  As a matter of fact, our analysis that we have done thus far--and we 
are still working on it--shows in some cases a 7-, 8-, 9-percent 
reduction that will result in young people not having Pell grants, kids 
not getting into Head Start, Superfund sites being delayed, veterans 
benefits being delayed, if that 2-percent solution goes forward. I hope 
we can have that debate another day.

  I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think the Senator is saying I was correct, then, 
that we are increasing over the President's own budget that he put 
forward last year.
  The Senator is making the point that there are new expenditures that 
you would like to make. I ask the Senator from California if she does 
not think it would be more responsible if the President would keep his 
word, keep to the $539 million that he asked for last year for this 
year, and set the priorities.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me answer your first question. If you want a second 
question, I will answer your second question. Let me answer your first 
question.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. You let me ask the question.
  Mrs. BOXER. You asked me a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has the time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It will be delayed if there is a Government shutdown, 
but not with a 2-percent cut.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am delighted to yield as long as you want, but I do not 
want to forget your first question.
  You asked me, did I not think it would be more responsible for the 
President to stick to last year's budget? No, absolutely not. Maybe the 
Senator has forgotten, we had an election, and this President won. Do 
you know what the election was about? It was about how much you ought 
to cut Medicare, how much you ought to spend on the environment, how 
much you ought to spend on education, how many more cops we should put 
on the beat. We had the election and the American people chose this 
President.
  I am answering your question.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I need to finish my answer, Mr. President, and then I 
will be happy to yield again.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. The President----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If we could have some order. The California 
Senator has the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me finish. The Senator is asking what is responsible.
  It would be irresponsible for this President to back down on what he 
said he would do for the American people. I know there are some of my 
colleagues who do not agree with this President, who do not want to 
spend more on education, who do not want to spend more cleaning up the 
environment, who want to cut more out of Medicare, who would like to 
give tax breaks to the very wealthiest.
  That is a fair debate, I say to my friend. This is a debate about 
budget priorities.
  What I think would be responsible for this President is to stick with 
the promises he made in his campaign to the American people.
  The second thing I think would be responsible for us is to keep this 
emergency supplemental appropriation clean of this budget battle. I 
think the American people can see in the debate between the Senator 
from Texas and myself, in the remarks that were made by the Senator 
from Arizona, that the budget battle is a very heartfelt battle. As a 
matter of fact, it differentiates the parties. So what is responsible 
for this President, it seems to me, is to get this emergency 
supplemental to the people, clean of these other amendments, and what 
is responsible for this U.S. Senate is to produce a budget and do our 
work.
  Mr. President, I am thoroughly convinced if we do that, we do not 
need a 2-percent gimmick. We can have a real budget debate and a real 
balanced budget for the people of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield to myself the 10 minutes allocated 
previously.
  Mr. President, the only thing that matters to me at the end of the 
day is, has the Congress proceeded to enact the disaster supplemental 
bill? And will the disaster supplemental, as enacted, be free of 
provisions that would otherwise engender a Presidential veto? Will the 
Congress get its work done on the disaster supplemental bill? That is 
all I came to talk about and all I intend to talk about.
  There was a demonstration here on the floor by those who say, well, 
if you do not support our amendment, whatever our amendment is, you do 
not care about Government shutdowns. What a load of nonsense. I will 
not respond to

[[Page S3824]]

all of this, but just to say this: I did not come to the floor to 
criticize anybody and I will not respond as I am tempted to do. I came 
here asking only one thing: That when the Senate Committee marks up its 
bill at 2 o'clock, that we mark up a supplemental disaster 
appropriations bill without attaching amendments that are unrelated to 
the bill.
  One Member came and took great offense to that and ranted about the 
fact that I or others do not support efforts to stop Government 
shutdowns, and so on. I have no idea how people learn these 
techniques--the technique of misstating your opponent's position and 
going on and debating them. That is an old debating technique that some 
memorize. It does not serve a particular interest to me.

  I am very happy to work with all Members of the Senate in finding 
ways to avoid any Government shutdown, at any time. I have never 
supported a Government shutdown. I am happy to work with anybody at any 
time to avoid a Government shutdown. I do not want someone coming to 
the floor to ascribe motives I do not have. My motive was for one 
purpose today, and that is to encourage all Members of the Senate to 
understand this disaster supplemental has the word ``disaster'' 
attached to it because some parts of the country are suffering a 
disaster. We want, at the end of the day, to pass a bill that extends a 
helping hand to those folks.
  Now, I understand everybody else has 800 objections to it, and they 
have different agendas. We have in our caucus, people who have agendas, 
they want to bring things to attach to this bill. They are saying, 
``This is the first appropriations bill. We want to attach something to 
it.'' My position to them was exactly the same. It does not matter what 
party you are in. I have told members of our caucus, ``I do not want 
you to attach things to this bill.'' I will tell them that today if 
somebody says they want to do it.
  Leave this bill alone. This bill affects 22 States. It affects people 
who have been driven from their homes who need help. We do not need 
people to come to the floor pointing and shouting about who supports 
Government shutdowns in September or October. Who is willing to help 
pass a disaster bill in April and May? That is the question.
  I get sorely tempted some days to come and respond in kind to some of 
the things I hear. But my Scandinavian heritage overcomes that urge 
from time to time, and it will again today. My response would be in a 
more personal way to those with whom I take offense when they suggest 
somehow that those of us who want to see a disaster bill passed without 
interference have an agenda that does not care about the rest of the 
country and Government shutdowns. People know better than that. We 
should have reasonable and thoughtful debates here in the Senate. We 
should not do that sort of thing.
  The agenda of the Senate, it seems to me, in the Appropriations 
Committee this afternoon, is how does this country respond to a series 
of disasters. That is what I care about. There are other issues that 
others care about. That is fine. We should talk about the issues. But I 
would feel the same way, I guess, if it was your disaster. I would want 
your people to get the help they deserve. And I have done that on 
earthquakes, fires, floods, and tornadoes all around the country in all 
the years I have been here.
  My hope is, without ascribing ill motives to anyone in the Senate, 
that we can just decide to work together. I have said three times, and 
let me say again, Senator Stevens is a wonderful chairman of that 
committee and he has been enormously helpful, I think doing a terrific 
job, as are other members of that Appropriations Committee, Senator 
Byrd and others, in difficult circumstances, putting together a 
disaster relief bill that extends a helping hand to people who 
desperately need help in this time.
  Mr. President, my hope is that when we convene at 2 o'clock, we will 
proceed through this bill and probably be able to talk some people out 
of offering amendments that might load this bill down and not allow it 
to get passed on an expeditious basis. My hope is perhaps at the end of 
next week all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike who care about 
this, can join the President in a bill-signing ceremony that says we 
did what we were supposed to do. We did what was necessary. This 
Government extended a helping hand to people who were down and out, 
flat on their back, who needed help, and that there were not intramural 
political games being played here, there and everywhere that would 
delay and do the things that people so often and too often now expect 
of the Congress.
  I understand sometimes why the American people look at this process 
and become profoundly disappointed--profoundly disappointed--because 
almost everything that happens is someone thumping their chest saying, 
``I am the one that will save the Republic.'' The fact is, what saves 
the Republic is the good will of men and women working together on 
common problems in this country in a sensible, thoughtful way. I hope 
that we will begin doing that and continue to do that not just on this 
bill but on bills that affect all of America and all of Americans. That 
is my hope.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________