[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.
____________________