Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 69 (Thursday, May 22, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 69 (Thursday, May 22, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3192-H3195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

(Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House for the
purpose of making an announcement regarding the schedule for our
Members.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of apology that I inform the
Members at this time that we will be unable to do any further work this
evening on the legislative business before the House that so many of
our Members have been so anxious about and that all had had such high
hopes that we might be able to work further on tonight.
Circumstances between ourselves and the other body have made it
impossible for us to do that work, in particular to further work on the
budget or the supplemental appropriations bill. That work cannot be
concluded tonight. Indeed, it will not be work we can resume again
until after the recess period.
I would like to inform the Members that I do not anticipate any
further votes this evening, any further work before the body, and that
Members should be advised that they are free to return to their
districts for the district work period.
Again, I would like to apologize to the Members, many of whom
suffered some terrible inconvenience, and some of whom have suffered
some bitter disappointment about this announcement, and I can only wish
them Godspeed on their journey to their districts and for the best,
most productive, and happy work period possible.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated the time and attention
that the majority leader has spent looking at the consequences of the
natural disasters experienced in our region, the people of Grand Forks
and East Grand Forks and Devils Lake, ND. The gentleman's statement
represents a very great disappointment to me and to those I represent.
I think there was a reasonable expectation that Congress would
respond to this disaster and do so in a timely manner. The outside
dimension of that timely response, I think, was before we certainly
left for the Memorial Day recess, and now the gentleman indicates that
that would not be the case.
Just when would the gentleman estimate that the relief so desperately
needed would finally be accomplished?
Mr. ARMEY. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his inquiry.
And, Mr. Speaker, responding to the gentleman from North Dakota may be
one of the most difficult things I will do this year.
The gentleman from North Dakota has worked hard on this issue of this
supplemental relief bill for his State. He has worked hard in the
State, has expressed much concern to myself and other Members in the
body. Indeed, I had the privilege of returning to the gentleman's
State, my home State, at his invitation, to see for myself the
devastation that has been inflicted in the area where, in fact, I
attended graduate school. And I understand, I think, the degree to
which the gentleman from North Dakota must be severely disappointed.
I can give the gentleman from North Dakota my assurance that the
appropriators working on this bill are not walking away from their
work. They are going to continue with their interest in this regard and
will be bringing this up as soon as possible as soon as we return and
the House reconvenes.
The gentleman from North Dakota, the respect with which he is held by
the other Members of this body, will continue to be appreciated among
those appropriators, and I can tell the gentleman that it is my great
expectation and my full intent to complete this as quickly as possible
upon our return.
I might also remind the gentleman from North Dakota that there are,
in fact, continued relief efforts that will continue during this period
of time for the State, and nobody from this body nor the
administration, I believe, intends to leave the good people from the
gentleman's home State in any kind of a state of disaster.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the majority leader. I too
have to say that I am extremely disappointed that this institution has
failed to act on something that is so important to so many people in
this country.
I think it is a tragic, tragic and a huge mistake for us, actually,
to leave without having resolved the issue of what we are going to do
to complete the process of getting assistance to the people of the
Dakotas, Minnesota, and other States around this country who have
suffered enormous costs and personal heartbreak from these disasters
that we have had in the past few months.
If I thought that I could prevail on a motion to block this House
from adjourning, I would do that. In deference to many of my friends
here who are anxious to get going, I will not do that. But I will say
that I believe that we have made a huge mistake in putting politics and
process in front of people.
I think that the real victims and the real losers in this are the
people of our States, and I would hope that we will not delay any
further when we return in getting this situation resolved.
Mr. ARMEY. Reclaiming my time, and if the gentlemen would please be
patient, I wish to respond to the gentleman from South Dakota.
The gentleman from South Dakota has also worked hard on this bill, in
fact, has introduced and won many innovations that will be very useful
for the people in actually all three of the States that are so severely
impacted by this.
I want to recognize again, as I did in the case of the gentleman from
North Dakota, the good work and the dedication of the gentleman from
South Dakota. Again, I would like to extend personally between himself
and myself my apologies to the gentleman from South Dakota.
I understand that it would be within the gentleman's prerogative to
call for a recorded vote. I understand how he must have every impulse
of his being driving him in that direction. But I think the gentleman's
assessment of the extent to which that would be consequentially in his
favor is correct, and I, on behalf of so many of our colleagues that
would be unnecessarily inconvenienced by his doing so, want to
appreciate that as well.
I know the gentleman from North Dakota has these very, very same
strong feelings, and I must say the gentleman from North Dakota has
expressed them to me in what I would have to say was strong, congenial
yet somewhat colorful language, and that is appropriate.

{time} 1845

It is appropriate that my colleagues should all fight for their
States and

[[Page H3193]]

their districts with the fervor that has been demonstrated here. And
again, I thank the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
I know, having raised the point of the gentleman from North Dakota
[Mr. Pomeroy], he wishes to make a point.
Mr. POMEROY. I make one final point. The outpouring of support the
people I represent have seen from across the country in response to the
disaster that has hit us so brutally hard has been overwhelming. I
think the American people truly had a right to expect that their
governing body, the Congress of the United States, in a timely fashion
would also commit the resources to help get our area back on its feet.
I am going to ask the Members to resist the motion, to vote ``no'' on
adjournment. We have no business leaving town with the disaster
supplemental in a point of incomplete status. We have got to finish
this up. The people we represent deserve no less.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy]
again for his comments and his conviction and his commitment to his
State. It is certainly well noted and appreciated by myself.
I can only say that the people of this country, through their
legislative bodies, this body and the other body, will in fact, as soon
as the difficulties are resolved, have this problem done. The
gentleman's work will continue. I understand the work of the gentleman
from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] will continue. And it will be completed.
I think, in all due respect, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] would understand that I would most logically yield to the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson], who has such tremendous
serious affliction in his own State.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Certainly the gentleman has the right to
yield to anyone he wants to at any time. I will remain on my feet.
Mr. ARMEY. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] I am sure
would like to share some of his concerns with me.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Armey] for yielding to me. I want to be brief. I want to associate
myself with the remarks from the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr.
Pomeroy] and the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
I just wanted to relay, I just got off the phone with the mayor and
city leaders of East Grand Forks, which was entirely under water, and
they are in the process of trying to figure out what to do. They are
under tremendous pressure from the homeowners that want to be moved.
They want answers today about what they are going to do. Are they going
to have their houses bought out? Are they going to be able to buy
another house? And this is a real frustration for them, not having
these answers and possibly us going home tonight without having passed
a bill.
If I could just make a suggestion. It appears, from everything I can
tell, that the $500 million for CDBG money is in both bills and that is
pretty much a given. What really is a bigger problem, and maybe those
of you that are working on this, if we can come to some specifics of
how we are going to put the CDBG money out to the States so we can
start the process, so that when this does get done in 2 weeks we will
be ready to hit the ground running, that will help us a lot.
So if there is some way that that part of it could get resolved so we
could tell our people this is how it is going to work, so we could talk
to our Governor and other folks and set up a process so that when this
does happen, we will be ready to go. That will be very helpful if we
are not able to move on this this evening.
Mr. ARMEY. Again, if I may, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]
is very patient. The appropriators that have been working in this
conference I am sure have dealt with that and many other issues. And I
will ask the staff to digest that and get that information, if it is
available, to the gentleman as quickly as possible.
And now I believe if the gentleman from North Dakota and the
gentleman from South Dakota have no further points, I would be happy to
yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], who has been so
gracious in deferring to those two colleagues.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Thank you, Mr. Leader. I am striving to be
polite, but I am not patient. I am frustrated, as I think most Members
of the 33 States that have been affected by disasters are. I appreciate
the tremendous work done by the two Representatives from the Dakotas,
and I know we all appreciate your returning to your family home and the
efforts that have been made in the more immediate Grand Forks crisis.
But there are a number of States, Ohio and Kentucky, the Pacific
Northwest, California. The district that I represent and several around
it, were impacted with $2 billion in losses.
I would like to hear from the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], the chairman of the committee, why we cannot pass what he
described in our debate earlier today as a short-term, temporary,
partial distribution of flood-related funds. It seemed to me a proper
compromise. We were not removing your ability to deal with the Gekas
amendment on an automatic continuing resolution. We were not rolling
Senator Stephens and his concerns about roads on Federal lands. We did
not provide all the money. That was still before the House on our
return.
But at least we could say, as we went home for this 10-day break,
that we have gotten part of the money, the core money, the FEMA money,
whatever it may be, that needs to be provided. I would love to hear the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] say why his very worthy
compromise proposal is not before us for unanimous consent, and I would
hope that the leader would allow him to speak.
Mr. ARMEY. It is my time. And of course, I see the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the very distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations, has risen, I assume to seek recognition or
time from the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentleman would yield, I would be happy to
respond to the gentleman from California.
The fact is that, as the gentleman who is a member of the Committee
on Appropriations knows, that we reported this bill out on April 24.
The Senate has considered their bill and reported it out, as well; and
for the last several days, we have attempted to reach a resolution
working out the differences between the House-passed bill and the
Senate-passed bill. We met all day the day before yesterday. We met all
day yesterday. And we were unable to come to a resolution of the
differences in the bill.
I would have hoped that we might have taken it up earlier, but that
proved not possible. It was my intent to extract a portion of that bill
today and pass it with unanimous consent. But, as I pointed out on the
floor earlier today, that would have required unanimous consent of the
House and of the Senate; and it now appears that because of the
lateness of the hour that unanimous consent was not possible. I regret
that.
I want to tell the gentleman, I sincerely regret that. I believe that
it is important for this House to make a statement and to tell the
people that have been devastated by the flood damage in the some 35
States that have been afflicted across the country with flood damage or
tornadoes or whatever happened, however they qualified, that they are
going to be assisted by the Federal Government.
I am told that there is enough money in the pipeline and that the
Federal agencies that are required to respond to their devastation will
be available to respond and will have the sufficient resources to
respond over the next couple of weeks, so that we can return to
Congress and readdress this and get the bill out.
I hope that is true. But quite frankly, in my opinion, it would have
been better had we addressed this issue earlier and gotten it
confronted and signed by the President. It proved impossible to do
that, and so we are at an impasse.
All I can do is say that I will extend my best efforts to make sure
that the bill is readdressed as soon as we come back. We will have our
staffs working on this bill as we adjourn or are on recess, and we hope
to have a bill on the floor as quickly as possible when we return.

Mr. FAZIO of California. If the leader would just yield to me for one
additional comment, and I will yield back

[[Page H3194]]

to the chairman, I would urge him to offer that unanimous-consent
request; and if the Senate will not deal with it, let the burden fall
on their shoulders.
I do not think there is a Member on this floor of either party who
would object to the proposal the gentleman outlined earlier today on
the floor. We know we need to move forward. We know we cannot get it
all done. It was a compromise, and we ought to agree to it. If the
gentleman would place that unanimous-consent request, let the Senate
decide whether it will take it up or not.
Mr. OBEY. Would the distinguished majority leader yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] for his
very helpful comments.
I might yield now to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], who
also has been very patient.
Mr. OBEY. Let me simply make a point and ask a question. As the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations just indicated, we have
been working very hard over the last 2 days in conference to try to get
a bill that this House can vote on before we adjourn.
I had been under the impression that the motion just described by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] was indeed a very real-life
option today, so that we could at least deliver small amounts of funds
needed to assure that there are no irregularities or problems
associated with any of these relief programs.
I, for the life of me, do not understand why that motion is not
before us now. And I want to stipulate that the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations has conducted himself at all times in an
absolutely straightforward manner. He has dealt with this in as
nonpolitical fashion as possible, given the circumstances.
But I honestly feel, as a member of some experience on the Committee
on Appropriations, that once again the regular appropriations process
has been victimized by bringing into a bill designed to provide
immediate emergency relief, a series of other unrelated items, which
represent simply portions of other people's political agendas, people
who are not on the Committee on Appropriations.
Two years ago, this Congress got into a very big amount of trouble
because all kind of extraneous material were dragged into appropriation
items, and the result was chaos and the Government shut down. Today it
seems to me that we are causing Government chaos by accident rather
than intent because of the insistence that a number of these other
political issues be dragged into the appropriations process.
I think it is outrageous that we do not have an opportunity to offer
that motion tonight. And I do not know, for the life of me, why we
should not have a vote on adjournment under these circumstances.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his
helpful comments again. Let me just say, first of all, that the
supplemental appropriations bill touches many people. Perhaps it
touches no heart as deeply as it touches the heart of those whose heart
breaks for the horrible devastation that is so immediate in the lives
of the residents of North and South Dakota and Minnesota. But it
touches many people, it touches many issues.
The innovation that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]
came up with today was in fact a good innovation, and it is to his
credit that he was responsive enough to these concerns to come up with
this idea. The parliamentary procedures under which we operate would
give an opportunity for any number of different Members to effect an
objection to that. And I think the gentleman from Louisiana quite
rightly recognizes the reality of that situation and has determined
that it is not in his best interest to again make that effort.
I must say one thing, though, and I say this on behalf of all of the
Members of Congress and all of their respective constituencies. The
supposition that the supplemental bill, or any appropriations for that
matter, any appropriations bill, or, for that matter, any bill within
the jurisdiction of any other committee is the property of that
committee and that committee alone is a supposition of course that is
errant and could only provoke mischief.
The appropriators do a wonderful job, and they are to be appreciated
and to be congratulated. But in truth of fact, the bill belongs to the
entire body and all of their respective constituents and they all have
a right to be involved in the bill.
Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. ARMEY. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman for one final
short question.
Mr. OBEY. Could the gentleman tell me who was it that was expected to
object to such a proposition?
Mr. ARMEY. Reclaiming my time before I yield to the gentleman from
Iowa, there were and are any number of different Members who might do
so, and the gentleman from Texas is not prepared to reveal any of those
names.

{time} 1900

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. BOSWELL. I thank the honorable leader for yielding. I appreciate
that very much.
First of all, I like the tone of what the gentleman is trying to
share with us. I know the gentleman has had a difficult day. I
personally am willing to stay here until the cows come home if we can
deal with this tonight, tomorrow or whatever.
In 1993 we had a similar situation. We came to you folks for help and
you helped. I greatly appreciate it, but it kind of looks to me like I
can see where this is going. I think as I have walked around these
halls the last several days that there is a toll-free number in Grand
Forks that our friend from Grand Forks established, which I think is 1-
888-74-FLOOD, is what I understand, where people if they are tuned into
this, they can call there and offer their assistance. I would guess it
would be greatly appreciated. I just wanted to make that remark to all
of us. If we have folks out there who would like to help, let us let
them help. But if it takes us staying here to get the job done, count
me in.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. Again I think the
gentleman reflects the kind of compassionate concern that all the
Members of this body have for that, as they couple that with interest
and concerns that they may have for other related matters.
Mr. POMEROY. If the gentleman will yield further, this will be my
final point in this discussion, Mr. Leader.
Let me again say I appreciate the gentleman's personal time and
attention, the personal time and attention of all, majority, minority
alike, that have focused on our problem and worked in the
appropriations process to get some relief. But the bottom line is this:
If this Congress goes home without doing something to provide flood
relief to those who need it, this Congress will have failed. I urge a
no vote on the motion to adjourn.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield further to the gentleman from South
Dakota who is seeking recognition.
Mr. THUNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to, because I think it has been mentioned
here from the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, if there is
some opportunity that we could get something done under a unanimous-
consent request here this evening, I think it would behoove us to try
and accomplish that and try and resolve that. I for one would be
interested in hearing from the chairman as to what that might be.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, and, Mr. Speaker,
I am prepared to make a motion before the House after the gentleman
from Maryland's comment.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for yielding. Like the gentleman from
Iowa, I appreciate the tone of this discussion.
The gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], all of our good
friends, one of our newest Members and others who represent immediately
the areas, obviously the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy],
indicated the frustration, not so much the anger but the frustration
that they are feeling, I am sure, that all of us can share, even those
of us, like those of us in Maryland who thankfully are not immediately
impacted, but we grieve for

[[Page H3195]]

those who have been immediately impacted.
I rise for a number of reasons. First of all, I want to congratulate
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], my chairman, who, as he
has said, has been working very hard to try to either resolve the
supplemental as a whole or to take a portion of the supplemental and
move that forward for immediate relief and to indicate that this
Congress was going to act. I congratulate the chairman for his efforts
and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], our ranking member, for
his.
Mr. Leader, if I might, in the spirit of positive debate and
constructive debate, I want to make an observation. It relates to the
complaints that were made about ``Christmas treeing'' supplementals
when the Democrats were in charge. There is a tremendous inclination,
not by Democrats or Republicans but by all of us, to see a vehicle that
is going to pass, going to pass because everybody in this Congress
wants to help the flood victims, the victims of disaster, and we all
see it, there really are no clean hands, as an opportunity to pass
something that we otherwise might not be able to pass.
Let me suggest, Mr. Leader, constructively on the problems that this
bill has. If I were the President of the United States, I would say,
notwithstanding the compelling objective of aiding flood-ravaged
victims around this country, there is still a willful----
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I choose to reclaim my time. The gentleman
from Maryland is a very good speaker and he gives great political
speeches, but quite frankly, we have a great many Members that will be
only further inconvenienced by him making the political points he is
about trying to make. If the gentleman can make his points so that we
can get on with the business.
Mr. HOYER. I have a point that I think is worthwhile for the leader
to consider. It is not a political criticism.
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will make his point, I will continue to
yield, but I have a sense of responsibility to my colleagues to move on
now that we have, in my estimation, given people an opportunity to
fully air their positions on this issue.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Leader, my point is this, and I appreciate the
gentleman for yielding. This is not an accusation of one side or the
other. This is a history of practice that has occurred. But I say to
the leader, the reason the President of the United States has said that
he will not allow this bill to go forward if the CR is included, and I
am one who voted to include the CR, as the leader knows. I was on his
side of that vote. But the reason the President of the United States
has said I will not sign this bill, because we know there is not the
same kind of compulsion to pass appropriation bills consistent with the
budget agreement that there is, Mr. Leader, for the empathy that we
have for the flood victims.
Therefore, I say to the leader that we ought to consider passing a
clean supplemental at some point in time, tonight, tomorrow, whenever
we get back to it, Mr. Leader, so that we do not again revisit this
anguish that we are now experiencing because of our inability to act. I
would urge the leader that we do the unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman, wanted to do.
If we cannot do it, I will lament that, but I think we ought to
consider doing a clean CR for the victims of this flood.

Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman for his very helpful remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank again all of my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle. I want to thank my colleagues, if I may, for the
compassion, the concern and the interest that they have demonstrated
for people across this country and the hard work that they have put
into trying to produce a response. I want to thank my colleagues for
their willingness to stay late tonight for the chance that perhaps we
might have been able to finally and fully address this.

____________________