[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5309-S5325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 1997--
                           CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
hours of debate on the subject of the conference report on H.R. 1469.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use. I 
state to the Senate that I don't intend to use the whole hour, unless 
it is necessary to respond to some comments that may come up. It is my 
hope that we can finish debate on this bill and then turn to the budget 
resolution.
  The conference report on the defense and emergency disaster 
supplemental bill will soon be before us. It is not before us yet. In 
the interest of time, we hope that we can get this matter resolved so 
that we may vote upon the bill as soon as it is received from the 
House.
  Mr. President, the conferees completed their work yesterday afternoon 
and the conference report was filed in the House last night. The final 
bill keeps faith with the version that passed the Senate last month. It 
provides needed relief for the victims of disasters in 35 States. The 
bill also provides $1.8 billion for military operations in Bosnia, 
Southwest Asia, and foreign deployments. Those amounts replace funds 
already spent by the administration. Without this funding for the 
Defense Department, we face a severe reduction in training, readiness,

[[Page S5310]]

and quality of life for our troops worldwide.
  The bill continues to exceed the levels requested by the President 
for the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA], the community 
development block grants, economic development, agriculture, and for 
the Corps of Engineers. I might say, however, Mr. President, while this 
bill involves increases of $8 billion, we have offset $8.4 billion. 
There is no net increase in this bill. We actually have a $400 million 
net reduction in spending for fiscal year 1997 as a result of this 
bill.
  Each of our subcommittees have carefully reviewed the amounts 
proposed by these agencies, and working with the Members from the 
impacted States, we have arrived at these funding levels. The new 
budget authority is offset by corresponding rescissions, as I have 
indicated. Those exceed the total spending.
  Again, let me say, all defense spending is offset by reductions 
available to the Department of Defense in terms of prior 
appropriations. Again, consistent with the Senate version of the bill, 
additional amounts are provided for needed highway programs. Mr. 
President, there was a request from the administration for some highway 
money. We added to that. We have reached a compromise now by virtue of 
the work that was done by Senator Shelby and Senator Lautenberg. That 
results in an increase for the so-called donor States, compared to the 
bill that passed the Senate. But I believe it keeps faith with the 
commitment that we have made to provide more funding to the donee 
States. We did not rewrite the highway formula. We reached an honest 
compromise with the House, where the House is dominated primarily by 
donor States and this Senate has more votes from the donee States. Now, 
this is a legitimate compromise on the money without rewriting the 
highway formula.
  The conferees maintained the continuing resolution language; it is 
unchanged. It was the same version in both the House and Senate bills. 
It was not before the conference, actually. The levels of the 
continuing resolution version provide 100 percent of the fiscal year 
1997 enacted rate of appropriations in the event a bill is not passed 
by the end of the fiscal year. This is more generous than most 
continuing resolutions that have been passed by the Congress in prior 
years. Typically, past resolutions provided that the money to be 
available during the period of a continuing resolution was the lower of 
the two amounts provided by the House or the Senate. This is not that 
case. This continuing resolution would be 100 percent of the amount 
that has been available in 1997.
  I might say to the Senate that, after considerable debate, the 
conferees modified the language on the 2000 census; that is, we 
modified the provision adopted by the Senate. The conference agreement 
prohibits the use of sampling and mandates a full enumeration of 
Americans for the apportionment of the House of Representatives. This 
is nothing more than maintaining current law, Mr. President, the 
constitutional requirement for a real census. It does not permit a 
political polling type of census.
  I think we should state to the Senate that the Appropriations 
Committee in the House and the Senate each have recognized that this 
decision will increase the cost of the census for the year 2000. We are 
prepared to fund that additional cost within the total available under 
the bipartisan budget agreement, which we will vote on later today. I 
regret that no Member of the minority has chosen to sign the conference 
report, but I do understand and respect Senator Byrd's decision. I knew 
of his objection from the very beginning to the continuing resolution 
provision that is in the bill. But I want to assure Senators that, as 
far as the appropriations aspects of this bill, it is not a partisan 
bill. The agreements reached on the appropriations for disaster relief 
and for the recovery from the disasters were adopted with complete 
consultation with all Members of each body, regardless of party.

  I hope the President will closely evaluate the total bill before he 
reaches the decision on a veto. We know that there is a threatened 
veto. We hope to work with the President to meet the needs of the 
victims of these disasters and to maintain our national defense, which 
is our constitutional duty. Vetoing this bill will simply delay further 
the aid and support that is needed by the citizens of more than 30 
States.
  I do want to state, Mr. President, that this is the first bill that I 
have been privileged to handle as chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. I offer my thanks to Chairman Bob Livingston for his 
courtesy and cooperation in working with Members of the Senate on this 
bill. It is a very complex bill, Mr. President. At times, this was a 
very contentious conference. But the House chairman, who was the 
chairman of the conference, presided over the conference with 
considerable grace, diligence, and good humor. I do believe that all 
Members will agree that anyone who wanted to participate in the debate 
concerning this conference was able to do so. I do urge the adoption of 
the bill by the Senate today so the bill can reach the President as 
soon as possible.
  It will be a difficult vote, Mr. President, and I expect a very close 
vote on whether the bill goes to the President at all. Thank you.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following staff members of the Appropriations Committee and various 
subcommittees be granted floor access during the consideration of the 
conference report on H.R. 1469:
  Christine Ciccone, Becky Davies, Sid Ashworth, Alex Flint, Bruce 
Evans, Wally Burnett, Jon Kamarck, Jay Kimmitt, Michele Randolph, Jack 
Conway, Jim Morhard, Mary Beth Nethercutt, Robin Cleveland, Craig 
Higgins, Pat Raymond, Dona Pate, Susan Hogan, and Kevin Johnson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield myself some of the time assigned 
to the minority side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this bill is critically 
important because it responds to the disasters in many States. 
Obviously, of greatest concern and interest to this Senator are the 
disasters that have occurred in North Dakota. Perhaps I could give a 
brief review for my colleagues and people who might be watching on the 
need for this disaster legislation. Before I do that, I want to thank 
those who helped write this legislation. I specifically want to thank 
the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens. I 
also want to thank his staff because they listened to our plea for help 
and they responded. We deeply appreciate that. There were some heated 
moments as we discussed this legislation, but much of what is here is 
very good and critically important to our recovery.
  As I say that, I must also register disappointment for the unrelated 
matters that have been included in this legislation, which the 
President has indicated will compel him to veto the legislation. We 
asked for and pleaded for a clean disaster bill, one that did not 
contain extraneous matters. But that did not happen.
  Mr. President, I want to go now to a review of the disasters that 
occurred and led to the necessity for this kind of legislation. North 
Dakota has been hit with the most extraordinary set of disasters in our 
State's history. First, we had, as this chart shows, ``Snow Foolin', 
Fargo-Moorhead Sets Record.'' Mr. President, that is not an athletic 
record, it is a record for snowfall. At the time they wrote this 
article, we had received almost 95 inches of snow. Before we were done, 
we reached over 10 feet of snow that fell in North Dakota during the 
winter season.
  Next, we were faced with an extraordinary ice and blizzard storm, 
which was the most powerful winter storm in the last 50 years in North 
Dakota. That occurred in the first week of April. This picture shows 
downed power lines. It just snapped power lines all across the 
northeastern part of the State, and 80,000 people were without power. 
Many were without power for over a week. Not only were power lines 
affected by this incredible storm, but, as this picture shows, we had 
thousands of cattle that were killed by this extraordinary blizzard. 
This shows a mother who is

[[Page S5311]]

licking one of her calves. This calf, by the way, did not survive. You 
can see another dead animal, another dead cow. We lost over 150,000 
head in this incredible blizzard in early April.
  This is a circumstance in which some cows froze to death and many 
died by suffocation because in the blizzard the winds were so powerful 
that it blew snow up into their nostrils, and it compacted. And then 
the cows actually suffocated, an especially gruesome death for these 
animals.
  It didn't end there, unfortunately, because not only did we have 
record snowfall followed by the most powerful winter storm in 50 years 
but then we had on top of it a 500-year flood; a flood that in Grand 
Forks was 26 feet above flood stage. And the dikes could not hold. As 
this headline says, ``Broken Dikes, Shattered Hopes,'' and a picture of 
just one part of Grand Forks.
  Grand Forks is a city of 50,000 people. Ninety-five percent of the 
people were evacuated. Eighty percent of the homes were badly damaged. 
Tens of thousands of structures were just devastated. In fact, if you 
go to Grand Forks now--this is 6 weeks after the flood devastation--on 
every corner, on every boulevard are stacked the personal belongings 
and the personal effects of the people of the city of Grand Forks. It 
is like a giant junkyard because everything has been destroyed. This 
water was contaminated. All of these things are ruined. The carpets, 
the drapes, all of the furniture, all of their clothing and personal 
effects destroyed; all of it. It is amazing to go through town. You can 
see what everybody's refrigerator looked like; everybody's washer and 
dryer--because they are out on the curb. They are out on the boulevard 
waiting to be picked up because they are all destroyed. It is really an 
incredible experience.
  This picture shows the extraordinary extent of the flooding that 
occurred once those dikes broke. I went on a helicopter and flew north 
of Grand Forks. This shows from horizon to horizon water. In fact, the 
water was 40 miles wide. Remember. This river is normally 75 to 100 
yards wide. But after the dikes burst, the water spread and was 40 
miles wide.
  You will remember--I think the President has North Dakota roots--you 
may recall, Mr. President, that we used to have a lake thousands of 
years ago, Lake Agassiz, that covered much of eastern North Dakota. A 
lot of us said it looks like Lake Agassiz is reforming because to be up 
in a helicopter and as far as the eye can see was water; really a 
stunning sight.
  The disaster didn't end there because in the middle of the 500 year 
flood we had an incredible fire break out. The headline in the paper 
was, ``Red Overruns Heart of Forks.'' Of course, they are referring to 
Grand Forks. The picture shows amidst the flooded streets this fire 
that broke out. This fire devastated much of three blocks of downtown 
Grand Forks. Many buildings were destroyed. This picture shows the 
headline, which says it well, ``A City Scarred.''
  This shows the National Guard with the firemen fighting that 
incredible inferno. I mean it was an inferno. This fire was so intense 
and so powerful that giant support beams for office buildings actually 
went up and were forced by the convection, by the power of these air 
currents, they blew up into the air and went across the street to the 
next block. That is how this fire spread, block to block, and destroyed 
much of three city blocks.
  You can see. This is one of the major commercial buildings in the 
city of Grand Forks. It looks like it went through the raids of 
Dresden. It is just a shell. It was block after block that looked just 
like this. Over 150 business structures were destroyed in the combined 
flood and fire; 156 business structures in Grand Forks alone, housing 
about two businesses per structure on average. So about 300 businesses 
had their property wiped out.
  This headline came in the Grand Forks Herald, which says it all: 
``Come Hell and High Water''. It shows the little street sign with the 
water right up to the top; 6 feet of water standing right in the middle 
of town. Here is again the burned-out shell of a three-block area where 
the people have been absolutely devastated.
  Mr. President, we have another headline that comes from the Grand 
Forks Herald: ``4 Days Since Congress Let Us Down.''
  This was after Congress failed to act after the Memorial Day recess, 
and they gave 11 reasons to pass the disaster bill now.
  We have heard a lot of talk that, ``There is money in the pipeline. 
Don't worry about anything. Nothing is being held up because there is 
money in the pipeline.'' We just had the mayors of the affected 
communities in town yesterday. The business leaders of Grand Forks were 
here. One of them said, ``You know. I hear all of this talk about money 
in the pipeline. All I can say is there must be cement in the pipeline 
because the money is not getting through.''
  The fact is there is no money in the Housing Department's pipeline 
for the buyout and relocation of the thousands of homes that have been 
destroyed. There is no money in that pipeline. We met yesterday with 
Secretary Cuomo. We asked him. ``Do you have any money anywhere that 
could be diverted to go to work immediately so these homes can be 
bought out and relocated so we can start to rebuild this community?''
  His answer was, ``No, I don't.''
  We met yesterday with Secretary Daley, the Secretary of Commerce. We 
asked him. ``Do you have EDA funds that are in the pipeline that could 
be used to help rebuild the business community that has been 
devastated?''
  He said, ``No, I do not.''
  There is no money in the pipeline to reimburse the school districts 
who took the kids from the disaster areas. Those school districts 
stepped forward and said, ``Yes. We will take your children. We will 
put them in our schools. We will transport them. We will feed them. We 
will give them books. We will provide teaching''--because the schools 
in Grand Forks are devastated.
  There is no money in the pipeline to reimburse the school districts 
that stepped forward. There is no money in the pipeline for the 
Department of Agriculture to help the ranchers who lost hundreds of 
thousands of heads of cattle in this remarkable winter that we have 
just been through.
  So when people say there is money in the pipeline, that no project is 
being delayed, that is just not accurate. That is just not accurate. We 
had the direct testimony of the mayors of the affected cities, of the 
business leaders of these cities, and they are saying to us: ``We are 
stopped cold until and unless this disaster bill passes.''
  So, Mr. President, I am here today with two messages. No. 1, a 
message of thanks to those who have supported a disaster package that 
is meaningful and critically important for recovery. But I am also here 
today to say that I am also disappointed that we don't have before us a 
clean disaster bill--one that does not have unrelated provisions so 
that the President can sign this legislation and we can move forward 
with the recovery and rebuilding. That is unfortunate, and one that I 
hope is not repeated any time in the future.
  I have been in the U.S. Senate for 10 years. And when others had 
disasters, we never offered amendments that were controversial, that 
would hold up the legislation, or that would cause a Presidential veto. 
We never did that. We never even thought of doing such a thing. I wish 
others would have extended the same courtesy to us that we have 
extended to them.
  Some said, ``Well, you offered amendments.'' Yes. That is true. I 
have offered amendments to disaster legislation before--
noncontroversial amendments that were supported on both sides of the 
aisle, that were supported by the administration, that didn't hold up 
anything. I certainly have done that. But I would never have even 
thought of offering an amendment that would compel a Presidential veto. 
I mean I really do not understand why that would be done.
  I do not want to lose sight of the important provisions that are in 
this legislation--provisions that will help rebuild the homes and 
businesses that have been destroyed; provisions that will help farmers 
and ranchers in many cases who have lost their foundation herds; 
provisions that will help them recover; provisions that will allow the 
Corps of Engineers to rebuild and repair and reconstruct levies and 
dikes so that we don't go through this again next year.
  Believe me. We are acutely aware that in North Dakota we could face 
another disaster next year if we do not

[[Page S5312]]

act and act quickly. Again, remember, we have a very short construction 
season. We need to go to work now to get these projects completed. The 
money that is here for the Federal Highway Administration to rebuild 
roads, highways and bridges--many of the bridges up and down the Red 
River have been destroyed by this series of disasters--the funds for 
the school districts that have been impacted, and the funding for 
Devil's Lake because we have another disaster that is occurring in 
North Dakota: Devil's Lake. This lake is raising inexorably. It has 
tripled in volume and doubled in size in the last 3 years. It is like a 
cancer eating more and more of the countryside, eating up homes, eating 
buildings, eating up roads and bridges. And we are grateful to the 
committee for having included $5 million for the work that needs to be 
done this year on an outlet from that Devil's Lake; and, for the money 
to rebuild the rural sewer system; the money to provide floodplain 
easements for those whose land is flooded and who have now been denied 
any ability to earn an income necessary for their families.
  Mr. President, I want to end on this note, as I started, by saying:
  No. 1, we are deeply grateful for the response of so many in this 
Chamber who came to help out.
  The occupant of the Chair wrote me a very gracious note reminding me 
of his North Dakota roots and offering to help out with this disaster. 
We appreciate that.
  We appreciate again especially the assistance of the chairman of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee. We appreciate the help of his staff. 
We appreciate the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and 
his staff for the great assistance they have provided in getting this 
legislation in shape.
  Finally, Mr. President, we also have a disappointment. The 
disappointment is that we have these unrelated measures that are in 
this legislation. Hopefully, this will all be resolved as quickly as 
possible so that the relief can start to flow to those communities that 
have been so badly hurt.

  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall be very brief. I had a chance 
to speak at some length about the need for disaster relief, and the 
need for emergency assistance for Minnesotans and the Dakotas. I want 
in less than 3 minutes to just say two things on the floor today.
  I would like to thank my colleagues. This started out in the hope 
that eventually it will end up as a bipartisan effort, and a lot of 
cooperation to get help to people, our neighbors. This is help that 
doesn't make everybody whole again, but at lease it gives people a 
chance to rebuild their lives. I hope that next week that is where this 
ends up. It started out on a very positive note, and I hope it will end 
up there.
  My second point is my colleague from North Dakota said he was 
disappointed. I am actually outraged. I think it is transparent. I 
think what is going on here is silly.
  There are some extraneous amendments on what should be a straight 
disaster relief bill--the way we collect census data; having to do with 
a continuing resolution; having to do with a budget resolution; and, if 
there is any kind of crisis a Government shutdown next fall; having to 
do with parks; you name it. This shouldn't be on this bill.
  I think what people know here--for some reason they think people in 
the country don't know it--that it is going to go to the President, the 
President is going to veto it, and it is going to be sent back. If it 
is an effort to embarrass the President, what is accomplished? Because 
when it gets sent back here, it is my fervent hope--and I believe this 
will happen--that these extraneous provisions will be taken off the 
bill. Then it will go back to the President, and then it will be 
signed.
  What has been accomplished? Is the point to embarrass the President? 
Is it just a game?
  I think we are going to be faced next week with one of two scenarios: 
Either it goes to the President, the President vetoes it--and everybody 
here knows it. But so do people back in our home States. They have 
intelligence. The President will veto it. Then it will come back here. 
And one of two things will happen: Either the bill will be stripped of 
these provisions that have nothing to do with the compelling need to 
get help to people, in which case, great. Thank you. Fine. But what was 
the point?
  Or that will not happen. And if that does not happen, then I will use 
every measure I know how to use as a Senator to stop this process here. 
I will do everything I can next week if we do not get a clean bill. 
Everything I can do to fight for the people in Minnesota I will do. So 
my hope is that this ends up on the positive note that it started out 
on because this is really not about a kind of strategy or tactics. It 
is just about getting help to people, and it is time. It is time to do 
the right thing.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from 
California [Mrs. Boxer], has been waiting.
  How much time does she wish?
  Mrs. BOXER. Up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes from the time under my 
control to the distinguished Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from West Virginia 
for his leadership on all of this, and the chairman of the committee. 
This is his first time as chairman bringing a bill to the floor. I know 
that both sides have worked very, very hard.
  Mr. President, this is a good news-bad news day for the people in 
North Dakota and for the people in the 21 other States who are waiting 
to see this Congress finally pass an emergency bill and send it to the 
President. It is a good news day because the bill is before us.
  As has been said many times, and I repeat it again, for both sides, 
from the chairman, Senator Stevens, to the ranking member, Senator 
Byrd, to their staffs, to all of the members of the Appropriations 
Committee, of which I am a new member, I cannot tell you how grateful 
we from California are for the patience and understanding and the work 
that went into this bill, for the things we have in this bill to help 
our people. We have had devastating floods, and we have many things to 
do to pick up the pieces for the people who were hit hard, for the 
people who have to replant orchards, for the people who depend on 
Yosemite National Park and the tourism that it brings to give them 
livelihood and sustenance.
  Those funds are in this bill, and they do not come from FEMA, I say 
to my colleagues. And, as my friend, Senator Conrad from North Dakota, 
said, they are not in the pipeline. These funds must come through the 
pipeline, and until this bill passes they will not be there because 
they are from agriculture, they are from the highway fund, they are 
from the Army Corps of Engineers, and they are from housing.
  So the funds that are in the pipeline--and I think it is important we 
all understand this--are the FEMA funds. By the way, if we have another 
tragedy in our country--we never know when disaster strikes--even that 
could be jeopardized. I watched with horror the tornado that hit Texas, 
and I thought to myself here we are on a break and another natural 
disaster hits. I hope FEMA does have the wherewithal to meet that 
disaster.
  So, my friends, we are playing with fire. We are playing with 
flooding. We are playing with earthquakes. We are playing with disaster 
here. We need to be sure that the funds in this bill which have been 
put together in such a careful way get to the people who need them the 
most.
  I am glad my colleague from North Dakota showed the photographs again 
of the devastation because sometimes we have a short attention span and 
we forget, but when we see those buildings as they looked when they 
were in flames in the middle of a flood, it really did remind you of 
World War II pictures, of the worst kind of attack, and this was an 
attack from nature.
  We need to do what we can to make these people whole, to work with 
their

[[Page S5313]]

private insurers, to work with communities, to work with local and 
State governments to do what we can do. It is a very basic question: 
What are we here for? Are we here to play political games? Are we here 
to win a political skirmish? Or are we here to help the people who so 
need that help? I hope that, after we get through today, because 
clearly we have these riders attached to this bill that have nothing to 
do whatsoever with the emergency, I hope when this bill comes back from 
the President, who has been forthright about the fact he will veto a 
bill with these riders, we will strip these controversial riders from 
the bill and move on.
  Mr. President, my people in California are waiting. They do not 
understand it. I went home, and they said, ``Well, why, Senator, is 
this all taking so long?'' I explained that there were three 
controversial riders placed on this bill that have nothing to do with 
the emergency. And one of them, the most controversial, undermines the 
budget agreement that we were all so proud to say we support. It is 
almost as if the majority is protecting the Senate from the majority.
  Why do I say that? Because there is no reason why we have to put this 
Government on automatic pilot. There is no reason why we cannot do our 
work and pass our appropriations bills. We do not need an automatic 
pilot budget process in place. If we had that in place, why do we need 
the Senate? We would not need it; we would just put everything on 
automatic pilot. The only people who can cause a shutdown are the 
people right here in this Senate. If we agree we are never going to 
shut down the Government, let us agree to do our work and pass our 
bills and compromise and move forward.
  I do not blame the President for being outraged on this. Here he 
holds a press conference; everyone is hugging everyone, Democrats and 
Republicans; they passed the budget. Everyone gave a little and 
everyone got a little. Now we have this automatic CR placed on an 
emergency bill, which, if it passes, will totally undermine that 
agreement there. There are harsh cuts in education and the environment. 
This does not belong on this bill.
  Here is the point. These riders should stand on their own two feet. 
They should come here as separate bills. We should debate them and vote 
them out. They should not be attached to legislation to help people who 
have been thrown off their feet by disasters. This is wrong. We do not 
have to do this.

  So, yes, it is a good news-bad news day for people in 22 States--good 
news because we are moving the supplemental, bad news because it has 
these extraneous matters attached that undermine the budget agreement 
and do other things and do not belong on this bill. The bill will be 
vetoed, and we will be back to square one. And people in the country 
will scratch their heads and wonder what on Earth are we doing. That is 
not a proud moment for this Senate.
  Mr. President, on an unrelated matter, I want to mention that 
something historic happened in California yesterday that does deal with 
another type of emergency, and that is the passage of junk gun laws.
  Let me tell my colleagues what happened in California yesterday.
  The California State Assembly and the California State Senate passed 
legislation to prohibit the manufacture and sale of junk guns in 
California, Saturday night specials. Those guns that have not one 
quality of safety standard are now banned from manufacture in the State 
of California, assuming the Governor signs this bill.
  Mr. President, we talk about emergencies; 40,000 people a year are 
killed by gunshots in this great Nation, almost 300,000 a year are 
wounded, and the criminal gun of choice is the Saturday night special, 
the junk gun, the only product in America today that has not one 
quality of safety standard. In 1968, those guns were outlawed from 
importation after Robert Kennedy was assassinated. I have to say there 
was a big loophole that allowed American companies to make these guns. 
I am proud that the State assembly and the senate passed this bill. It 
is modeled after my bill that I introduced last year and again this 
year.
  I hope that as we deal with emergencies and we look at the emergency 
of gun violence, we will recognize we have guns on the market today 
that are banned from importation because they are so poorly made, and 
at the minimum people deserve to have safety standards and quality 
standards on guns that they purchase.
  So, Mr. President, it is a great day for Californians. Even with the 
worst, heaviest type of heavyhanded lobbying, these bills passed, and I 
am very excited about it. I hope that we will have the courage to do 
the same in the Senate. I will give the Senate a chance to cast that 
courageous vote.
  I close, Mr. President, by again thanking my colleagues from Alaska 
and West Virginia for their assistance to the good people of California 
and the 21 other States, particularly the heart-rending photos we saw 
today that just reminded us of what happened in North Dakota. I thank 
them for working in a bipartisan fashion to get a bill to us that is an 
excellent bill, and I pray and I hope that we can get these extraneous 
riders stripped off of this bill so that the people in North Dakota and 
the people in the 21 other States can say this Senate did something to 
really help the people of America.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 28 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time did the Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], 
use?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. She used 10 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. All right. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I will yield myself such time as I may consume from 
the time under my control.
  Mr. President, I regret that I am unable to support the conference 
agreement on the emergency disaster assistance appropriations bill, 
H.R. 1469, now before the Senate. I am unable to do so despite my total 
support for the more than $5 billion in disaster assistance payments 
which are included in this measure for the hundreds of thousands of 
people across the country who are the victims of the many natural 
disasters that have occurred in recent months.
  I also support the nearly $2 billion contained in the measure for aid 
to our men and women in uniform around the world, particularly in 
Bosnia, engaged in peacekeeping operations, as well as the nearly $1 
billion contained in the measure for payment of veterans' compensation 
and pensions.
  These funds are all vitally needed for the purposes for which they 
are appropriated and should be made available at the earliest possible 
time. Indeed, it is my view Congress should not have recessed for the 
recent Memorial Day break without having enacted into law these funds 
that are contained in this bill.
  Unfortunately, as did the bill when reported out of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee and after Senate action, this conference 
agreement contains a number of controversial, extraneous legislative 
provisions which have no business being included in an emergency 
disaster assistance bill. The President has never wavered in his 
statement that he will veto the measure despite the critical nature of 
funding it contains for hundreds of thousands of people. He has urged 
Congress to remove the extraneous provisions and send him a clean 
disaster assistance bill which he can sign. Regrettably, the leadership 
in Congress has chosen to use this bill as a vehicle for making 
political points on such things as keeping the Government operating on 
automatic pilot for the entirety of fiscal year 1998 at 1997 levels 
regardless of merit and ignoring the fact that a number of activities 
throughout the Federal Government should not continue and should be cut 
or eliminated altogether.
  This so-called automatic CR and other extraneous provisions need not 
be on this bill. They can be raised at any time and debated in their 
own right as freestanding measures. They can be raised by the 
leadership at any time. What other reason can there be then to insist 
on including them in this disaster assistance measure than to make 
purely political points?
  I am disturbed by this decision to proceed in this fashion. I note 
that no Democratic Member of the conference on H.R. 1469, no Democratic 
Member signed the conference report. In not signing a conference 
report, I find no

[[Page S5314]]

fault with and intend no disrespect toward the chairmen of the 
conference. I congratulate Chairman Livingston on conducting a very 
fair and evenhanded conference. I congratulate our own chairman of the 
conference, chairman of the Senate conferees, Senator Stevens, who 
also, likewise, is very aware of and always considerate of the needs of 
the constituencies of the Members of this body. I have always found 
him, over the long years of friendship that I have enjoyed with him, to 
be most considerate, charitable and fair. In the conduct of this 
conference, these two chairmen were courteous to all members and showed 
great patience and eminent skill in completing the conference as 
expeditiously as possible. Unfortunately, they had no ability to remove 
these controversial matters that have caused me to oppose the measure 
and have caused me not to sign the conference report, and I speak for 
others on my side of the aisle who, likewise, did not sign this 
conference report. Only the leadership of the two Houses could have 
accomplished that result.

  To those Senators who have chosen to delay the enactment of the 
measure in order to make political points which they hope to gain from 
forcing the President to veto it, I say consider this: Next time it may 
be your State, it may be your people, it may be your constituents.
  For the reasons I have stated, I will not vote for the adoption of 
the conference report.
  We must not continue to play cynical games with people who need help 
when a disaster has taken lives, taken homes, taken farms, taken 
livestock, taken livelihoods. I hope that this will be the last time 
such tactics are employed on an emergency disaster bill.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Does the Senator 
from North Dakota wish to have some time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota, [Mr. Dorgan].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I spoke earlier today on the floor for 
about 30 minutes on this subject. I shall not extend much beyond that. 
But I did want to add my voice to the voice of Senator Byrd and 
express, as I indicated previously, two things. First, my gratitude for 
the resources that are in this bill that would be available and helpful 
to the victims of the flood in my State; and, second and also 
important, my concern about the unnecessary delay.
  I was looking for a copy of the conference report. It is not yet 
available here in the Senate. The conference report is a conference 
report to provide emergency appropriations. The emergency 
appropriations are necessary to respond to natural disasters. But, of 
course, there are issues in this conference report that determine that 
it will not become law. The conference report, if it were on my desk, I 
would hold it up and say, ``This is not going to be law, and everyone 
in this Chamber knows it.''
  It is part of the process that is so frustrating from time to time in 
this Chamber. It is a process that goes on from time to time on a lot 
of legislation--and the Democrats do it, the Republicans do it: Put 
extraneous or unrelated amendments on a bill. That is not unusual. The 
rules of the Senate allow that. What is unusual is that a bill 
providing for disaster relief to thousands and thousands of people is 
now being used for that purpose. That's unusual. That's unprecedented. 
That didn't happen previously. A disaster bill, generally speaking, was 
a piece of legislation that most understood should not be used for the 
traditional kinds of political games that are played here in the U.S. 
Congress. That is what is different this time.

  This aid will come. The resources in this bill will be available. 
Recovery will take place, but after, now, 2 weeks' delay. Two weeks ago 
today, the Congress left for the Memorial Day recess without having 
enacted a conference report. Now, today, the conference report is 
before us and it will be undoubtedly approved. It will not be signed 
into law, and everyone in this Chamber knows it.
  Some say, and they make the case with great forcefulness, ``It 
doesn't matter. Nothing that needs to be done is not now being done. 
There is money in the pipeline.'' I have heard it a hundred times this 
week from people who don't have the foggiest idea about what the facts 
are.
  Will Rogers once said, ``It's not what he knows that bothers me so 
much, it's what he says he knows for sure that just ain't so.'' There 
is some money in the FEMA pipeline to deal with emergency immediate 
relief--food today, housing tonight in a motel. But there is no money 
in the pipeline from HUD to rehabilitate the housing, to begin the 
construction that is necessary--in a State, by the way, that has a very 
short construction season. Losing 3 weeks in North Dakota, in a 
construction season where we have to replace probably 1,000 to 1,500 
homes, is devastating. It is a delay that is devastating to the region.
  That is the point that drives us and compels us to say, thanks for 
this aid. It will get there. We appreciate very much the cooperation of 
everyone. But we remain enormously disturbed by the fact that this 
conference report is not going to be law and everybody in this Chamber 
knows it, and the result will be another week of delay. There will be 1 
more week with thousands of people who wake up in the morning not in 
their own beds, somewhere else--a shelter, a neighboring town, a hotel, 
a home of a stranger who took them in. There are thousands of them, 
thousands of them today without a home, waiting for the fundamental 
decisions that will be unlocked by this bill. And the strategy today, 
by some, is to include in this bill something that will certainly gain 
a veto, because it has no relationship to this bill and the President 
has said it is something he cannot support. The result will be 1 more 
week, 7 more nights, 14 more nights, for people who don't have a home. 
That's the dilemma.
  Mr. President, I have consumed my time. I thank the Chair and the 
ranking member of the committee. I hope, when all of this process is 
complete and the dust settles, that the quantity of resources involved 
in this bill finally, even if belatedly, will be there to provide some 
hope and help to those families who now feel hopeless and helpless. 
There is help on the way.

  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes and 40 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished 
senior Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. President, I very much agree with the Senator from North Dakota, 
the Senator from West Virginia, my colleague from California, and all 
who have really very sincerely expressed their dismay on the way this 
bill has been handled. I would like to just take a few minutes and 
remind my colleagues that this started with a flood in California in 
January, and it is now June. According to the California Office of 
Emergency Services, California sustained $1.8 billion in damages during 
last winter's flooding. In California alone, 9 people died and 100,000 
people lost their homes. They were forced to flee from their homes. 
This was the third 100-year flood in the last 10 years. It gives you 
the idea of the impact on part of the State.
  Mr. President, 48 out of 58 counties in California were declared 
Federal disaster areas. Damage to levees, to roads, and other 
infrastructure was severe. There were over 60 levee breaks in the delta 
area of California. Many of those breaks have yet to be repaired. These 
levees do two things. Because the land behind the levee is below sea 
level, the levees protect homes and agricultural land from the rivers. 
Now, when the levees break, the land behind the levee is peat, and the 
peat comes out into the water. That water is the drinking water for 
two-thirds of the people of the State; that is 20 million people. And 
when you treat the water for drinking and it has been infested by peat 
soil, the chlorine throws off carcinogens. So the longer you leave 
these levees unattended and the longer you have the intrusion of the 
peat-infested

[[Page S5315]]

water into the drinking water, you increase problems in California.
  So far, out of this more than $1.8 billion, California has only 
received $27 million for FEMA, for flood fighting, for debris removal, 
and for infrastructure repair. Fully repairing the damage to public 
facilities will take months, if not years.
  I spent 3 days in these areas. I have flown over most of the levee 
breaks. I saw the extent of the damage. In places where I flew in a 
helicopter, let's say maybe 300, 400 feet above the ground, you could 
not see anything that was not flood-affected on either side. As far as 
your vision could go, flat land, from 300 to 500 feet above the ground, 
it was all water. You only saw rooftops.
  I talked with people who lost as many as 14,000 trees in their 
orchard, who were wiped out of their dairy farms, wiped out of their 
homes. I went into the homes of people who were not farmers. I saw 
water halfway up the ceiling, everything ruined. Wiring, everything was 
ruined in the house. If only everyone could see this, I don't think 
they would want to play these games with this vital piece of 
legislation.
  Let me remind my colleagues of the emergency relief provision and 
exactly what is in the bill: $5.6 million, 22 States. According to OMB, 
the bill allocates $3.3 billion out of new money and existing FEMA 
funds for disaster aid to California. Additionally, the bill provides 
another $780 million for disaster-related work in California. This is 
$200 million for Federal highway work, $176 million for repairs at 
Yosemite, $300 million for the Army Corps of Engineers, and $47 million 
for the Department of Agriculture.
  I want, just for a moment, to try to debunk the implication that no 
family has been denied assistance due to delays in the bill. This might 
be true for agencies like FEMA, which has the disaster trust fund to 
draw from. But other Federal agencies responding to the disasters are 
depending on this funding.
  HUD currently has no CDBG funds to dedicate to disaster recovery 
efforts, and both the House and Senate bills contained a half a billion 
dollars for CDBG disaster recovery efforts. So without this bill, there 
is no money for these efforts.
  Other Federal programs are also waiting for this funding: the 
Department of Agriculture's Emergency Conservation Program, which 
assists farmers in rehabilitating flooded farmland and clearing debris 
from the fields. Without this bill, farmers in the upper Midwest have 
to delay planting and will see their costs driven up.
  The Watershed and Flood Prevention Program, the Tree Assistance 
Program--now, this is important. I mentioned losing 14,000 trees. Crops 
that are permanent, like vines and trees, are eligible for grants 
through the Tree Assistance Program for replanting. There are no moneys 
for that without this bill. So it is necessary, if you are going to get 
the tree in the ground, to get it done as fast as possible.
  Let me talk about one of our Nation's jewels--Yosemite National Park. 
Delaying this bill closes off parts of this park for millions of 
visitors, no question. The Park Service is proceeding with the most 
pressing needs, but funds in this bill are now going to arrive too late 
to affect this summer. That means that contracts to begin the permanent 
road widening and the permanent utility repairs need to be let as soon 
as possible to minimize the impact on the park. If it can't be done 
soon, we are into winter again and then it is not going to be for 
another year.
  The President has made no secret about the fact that he will veto 
this bill when it hits his desk. We all know the problems with the 
automatic CR. I, for one, believe that this killer provision is really 
not necessary. We have shown that when we want to work together in a 
bipartisan way and make the necessary compromises that we can do it. 
All we have to do is pass appropriations bills on time. Two weeks ago 
we voted for a balanced budget. I think it is somewhat disingenuous to 
include the automatic CR in this legislation.
  Let me spend a few moments on another killer issue, because I have 
spoken to a few Members on the other side about it, and that is the 
census sampling. I had hoped the conferees would have been able to 
accept the Senate compromise. The conference report prohibits the use 
of statistical sampling. This impacts every high-growth State in the 
United States. I know there is politics in it, let's face it, because 
lower-income people, minorities, are the most affected if you don't 
sample. So, if you don't sample, you cut down your numbers in that 
category. That might be one thing in elections, but let me tell you it 
is also another thing in funding formula. So by not accepting the 
sampling, the high-growth States are essentially deprived of vital 
formula.
  Without sampling, the 2,000 census undercount would reach more than 
18 million households, it would miss about 1 million people in 
California; it would miss 5 to 6 million in other States.
  Let me give you one example. California's share of Federal vocational 
rehabilitation funds total about 8 to 9 percent of the Federal funds in 
the program. These funds would be 11 percent going to California if 
based on an accurate census. If we don't do the sampling, the cost to 
the State is $70 to $100 million in just this one program alone. You 
can multiply that all across the board in title I moneys for schools, 
for poor children, and so every State that has a growth in these 
numbers, if you don't use the sampling, for political reasons you are 
sacrificing formula dollars for your State. I might tell you, I find 
that very hard to do.
  I intend to vote for this bill because the bulk of this bill is money 
for California. I recognize that the President will veto it. I will 
also vote to sustain his veto when this comes back. I am hopeful that 
the rumors I hear about the House are correct, that there will be 
another bill and it will be a basic disaster relief emergency 
supplemental so we can get on with other things.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the Senator from Arizona such time as he may 
require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank you, and I thank the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. As always, 
they have done a very dedicated and very important job here.
  As I always do on these bills, Mr. President, I am compelled to talk 
about some of the parts of this bill which were added which I find very 
objectionable and which I find unacceptable. I, again, lament that 
these really nonessential and sometimes wasteful appropriations are 
added to a bill that is labeled an ``emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill.''
  Mr. President, in this bill, some that I have found--I am sure there 
are others--are that it makes an additional $35 million available for 
new grants under the Commerce Department Advanced Technology Program. I 
am the chairman of the Commerce Committee. The Advanced Technology 
Program falls under the responsibility of the Commerce Committee. We 
have been investigating that program. We have had a lot of effort put 
in to making sure the best methods are used for selecting the 
recipients of these grants. And now in an emergency bill, we see $35 
million for new grants under the Advanced Technology Program.
  It earmarks $5 million for the study of water allocation issues in 
Alabama, Florida and Georgia; $10 million for transportation planning 
and other purposes at Yosemite National Park; $15 million for research 
on environmental factors affecting breast cancer; $650,000 for the 
National Commission on the Cost of Higher Education. Someone has to 
help me out here. Where is the emergency? Where is the emergency that 
requires $650,000 for the National Commission on the Cost of Higher 
Education?
  It earmarks $5 million for the development of a legislative 
information system in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate;
  And $16 million to continue development of an automated targeting 
system for the Customs Service; a set-aside, Mr. President--a set-
aside--of $12.3 million for discretionary authority to construct a 
parking garage at a VA medical center in Cleveland, OH. Do you want me 
to tell you that again? Mr. President, $12.3 million for the 
construction of a parking garage at a VA

[[Page S5316]]

medical center in Cleveland, OH. I know this bill covers a lot of 
disaster areas. I don't believe Cleveland, OH, was an area that was 
afflicted, and certainly I do not suspect that a garage for a VA 
medical center would be an emergency.
  There is an earmark of $500,000 from previously appropriated funds 
for a parking garage--another parking garage--in Ashland, KY, to 
instead restore the Paramount Theater in that city; authorization to 
make grants under the Center for Ecology Research and Training for Bay 
City, MI.
  There are others, Mr. President. This is really not fair to the 
American people, it is not fair to the taxpayers, and I wish we would 
stop these things. I, frankly, grow weary.
  I want to talk about an important part of this bill, and that is the 
provision which has been put in the bill which prevents the President 
from shutting down the Government. That is what it is all about. It 
prevents the President from shutting down the Government.
  As we know, in the last 2 years, one time he shut down the Government 
and another time the Congress was forced to add some $8 to $9 billion 
in additional spending which they otherwise wouldn't because of a 
threat to shut down the Government. Why would I care and why should we 
care, when we are talking about disasters, about the shutdown of the 
Government? Because the shutdown of the Government was a manmade 
disaster, Mr. President.
  The shutdown of Government was a manmade disaster that afflicted the 
lives of millions of Americans and if it happens again because of our 
failure to do our work, we will, again, inflict pain and punishment on 
the American people.

  I was interested in and I appreciate the comments just made by the 
Senator from California about Yosemite National Park. There is a report 
on the ``Economic Importance of National Parks: The Effects of the 
1995-96 Government Shutdown on Selected Park-Dependent Businesses and 
Communities.'' This is a report of the National Parks and Conservation 
Associations.
  On page 8 it says:

       Impacts were substantial in and around California's 
     national parks, in spite of the fact that they were not in 
     their peak seasons when the shutdowns occurred.

  The report goes on to say:

       At Yosemite National Park, an off season hardly exists. 
     Impacts in and around the park, which normally receives more 
     than 120,000 visitors in December, were the worst encountered 
     in our investigation.

  And then it goes on to quote Gilbert Ghyselinck, owner of Yosemite 
Gateway Inn, estimated loss, $45,000; Jim Houtz, owner of the Cedar 
Lodge Inn and Parkline Restaurants in El Portal, CA, south of Yosemite, 
estimated loss, $40,000 to $50,000. ``We put about 50 people on 
unemployment. It was pretty rough. The part that hurt us the worst was 
putting those people on unemployment when they were trying to put away 
for the winter.''
  Mr. President, I want to point out they were not Federal workers. 
They were people who were never repaid, never repaid for our shutdown 
of the Government.
  A gentleman in Oakhurst, CA:

       That Christmas and New Year's shutdown was the toughest on 
     us. We're close to full that time of year--90 percent 
     occupancy. I think we barely made 50 percent. It was only 10 
     days, but it was the 10 days you want. It's also had some 
     lingering effect.

  Cheryl Tyler, of Oasis of Eden Inn, Yucca Valley, CA, estimated loss, 
$30,000. Cheryl Tyler said:

       It really killed us. They were canceling as fast they could 
     get on the phone. People booked for 5 days. They stayed one 
     night and left. We lost half our business.

  It goes on and on. Mr. President, this is what happens when you shut 
down the Government. I am totally and completely in sympathy with my 
colleagues who are seeking disaster relief. We, on this side of the 
aisle, are also seeking disaster relief. We are seeking relief from a 
disaster to ensure that it will never happen again.
  I would like to quote from a study that was made by the Congressional 
Research Service, a CRS report for Congress entitled ``Shutdown of the 
Federal Government: Effects on the Federal Workforce,'' James McGrath, 
analyst, National Government Division, updated June 17, 1996, conducted 
by the Congressional Research Service. Let me just tell you some things 
they talk about.
  Examples of Federal services adversely affected by the shutdowns 
include those related to health, welfare, law enforcement, public 
safety, financial services, parks, museums, monuments, visas, 
passports, services to American Indians and services to veterans, among 
many others as listed below.
  Health: New patients not accepted into clinical research. Toxic waste 
cleanup at 609 sites stopped; 2,400 Superfund workers sent home.
  Welfare: 10,000 new Medicare applications, 212,000 Social Security 
card requests, 360,000 individual office visits, 13 million recipients 
of aid to families with dependent children, 273,000 foster care 
children, over 100,000 children receiving adoption assistance services, 
and over 100,000 Head Start children experienced delays.
  There were 10,000 home purchase loans and refinancing applications 
totaling 800 million dollars worth of mortgage loans for moderate- and 
low-income working families nationwide that were delayed.
  Law enforcement and public safety: Well, there is one good piece of 
news here, Mr. President, the suspension of investigative activities by 
the IRS. So I guess something good comes out of every disaster. But on 
a far more serious note, the Department of Justice suspended work on 
more than 3,500 bankruptcy cases. Delinquent child support cases were 
suspended, the deadbeat dads program. Closure of 368 National Park 
Service sites. Loss of 7 million visitors. Grand Canyon National Park, 
closed for the first time in its 76-year history.
  Local communities near national parks lost an estimated $14.2 million 
per day in tourism revenues. I point out, again, Mr. President, the 
people who lost those tourism revenues never got them back. It was not 
like the Federal workers, where they were repaid when we started the 
Government up again.

  Closure of national museums and monuments--the loss of some 2 million 
visitors; 20,000 to 30,000 applications by foreigners for visas to come 
to this country went unprocessed each day; 200,000 U.S. applications 
for passports went unprocessed; U.S. tourist industries and airlines 
sustained millions of dollars in losses because of visa and passport 
curtailment.
  The American Indians. I will quote Deborah Maddox, the acting deputy 
commissioner for the Bureau of Indian Affairs:

       We are getting close to an emergency situation. This week, 
     we would be generating our general assistance payments for 
     53,000 individuals and families. These grants are for very 
     basic needs and are for people who are not eligible for other 
     services.

  Mr. President, American veterans sustained a major curtailment in 
services as a result of the Federal shutdown, ranging from health and 
welfare to finance and travel. They include cancellation of vocational 
rehabilitation appointments; nonprocessing of payments for 
compensation, pension and education claims; delayed payments of GI bill 
education checks and insurance death claims; and canceled counseling 
services to avoid foreclosures. It goes on and on.
  Mr. President, what we did when we shut down the Government was 
unconscionable and unacceptable, and it cannot be repeated. And for the 
life of me--for the life of me--I do not understand why. There is some 
connection being made between the extension of emergency disaster 
relief services and this provision in the bill. The only reason, Mr. 
President, there is a distinction being made is the President of the 
United States does not want to have to sign the bill with this in it 
because the President of the United States does not want to see 
legislation which would prevent his ability to shut down the 
Government.
  Mr. President, in the Washington Post not long ago, a few days ago, 
there was a letter from Mr. Albert R. Wynn, who is a U.S. 
Representative to Congress representing a district in the State of 
Maryland, very close to here in the District of Columbia, it is a 
letter to the editor of the Washington Post.

       While I recognize that The Post considers itself a national 
     newspaper, as a U.S. Representative from the Washington 
     region, I find portions of The Post's May 15 editorial

[[Page S5317]]

     ``Fooling Around in the House'' very troubling.
       I cosponsored the bipartisan ``Government Shutdown 
     Prevention Amendment'' to the ``Disaster Recovery Act of 
     1997.'' The amendment guarantees that the federal government 
     will remain open and functioning at current funding levels if 
     Congress and the administration cannot agree on the details 
     of the Federal budget. Basically, this amendment provides a 
     safety net for federal employees and the American taxpaying 
     public, which expects its government to provide uninterrupted 
     service. Given the devastating psychological and economic 
     effect the last government shutdown had on our region, I am 
     concerned that The Post considers such an amendment ``fooling 
     around.''
       The Post's assertion that this amendment ``would change the 
     balance of power between the elected branches'' and that 
     ``the effect would be to lock in place a new norm in which an 
     agency's appropriations would be frozen from year to year 
     unless Congress acted to raise--or lower--it'' is just plain 
     wrong. The amendment clearly sunsets in 1998, and thus would 
     affect only the appropriations bills now under consideration 
     . . .
       Let me remind The Post of the effects of the last 
     shoutdown: The cost to the federal government was $1.5 
     billion; 170,000 veterans did not receive December 1995 
     Montgomery GI Bill education benefits on time; more than 
     200,000 passport applications were not processed; pay for 
     more than 750,000 federal employees was delayed; 7 million 
     national parks visits were prevented; 2 million visits to 
     historic museums were prevented; 5,200 small businesses did 
     not receive guaranteed financing; 1,036 contract bid 
     opportunities were lost for small businesses, and 30,000 FHA 
     single-family home loans could not be insured.
       For those who apparently think the Republicans are so 
     humbled that they wouldn't shut the government down again, I 
     would remind them that we never thought the government would 
     shut down during the Christmas season 1995.
       Thus, in the final analysis, I do not believe federal 
     employees or taxpaying citizens think keeping the government 
     open with a continuing resolution is ``Fooling Around in the 
     House.''

  Mr. President, I cannot say it any better. We have an obligation to 
provide for the needs of those who have suffered natural disasters. 
There is no one who sponsors this amendment who disagrees with that. 
And we want that money there as quickly as possible.
  But I would allege, Mr. President, that when we ignore the 
possibility and fail to address the looming possibility of a manmade 
disaster which would be caused by the shutdown of the Federal 
Government, again, Mr. President, I cannot quite comprehend why we 
would not understand that we also have that obligation as well.
  So I hope the President of the United States will change his mind. 
The Senator from Alaska, the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, has said, and I have said, we would be 
willing to negotiate the details of this amendment. We would be more 
than happy to talk about satisfying some concerns as long as we 
preserve the basic principle of keeping the Government open.
  So, Mr. President, I believe we are going to pass this bill. I 
believe it is going to the President with it included in the bill. And 
I hope that the President of the United States will sign the bill, and 
then we would prevent again the disasters that we inflicted upon the 
American people during Christmas of 1995, for which not only did the 
American people suffer, but I have to tell you, in all candor, the 
reputation of the legislative branch of Government and the entire 
Federal Government, the governing body, suffered as well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I reluctantly rise to oppose the 
supplemental appropriations bill currently before us.
  But first, let me once gain take this opportunity to extend my 
deepest sympathies to those communities and families in the Upper 
Midwest who have had to deal with the loss and anguish caused by the 
terrible flooding several weeks ago.
  I know all Marylanders join me in extending our thoughts and prayers 
to everyone in the Midwest.
  Like many of my colleagues, I had hoped for a quick and speedy 
passage of this critically needed assistance to the disaster victims. I 
know they are counting on us to help them get back on their feet--to 
help them rebuild their homes and businesses.
  I am therefore deeply troubled by the fact that what should have been 
a speedy, nonpartisan targeted relief bill has instead turned into yet 
another nasty partisan battle that is designed to divide us and provoke 
a veto from the President.
  I have several major concerns with the supplemental, the first of 
which is the census sampling amendment that prohibits the Census Bureau 
from using funds to conduct statistical sampling in the year 2000 
census. While to many this is a dry, academic topic, it impacts all 
Americans on a daily basis.
  In addition to being the manner for determining representation in the 
Congress, the census has become the basis for which billions of dollars 
in Federal assistance are allocated. Programs such a low-energy 
assistance, community block development grants, and other vital 
programs to Maryland for transportation, housing, and education all 
rely on accurate census data.
  This amendment does not follow the congressionally sought 
recommendation of this Nation's top statistical experts who advise 
using statistical sampling to get accurate data. Instead this provision 
would result in an undercount of many of the Nation's citizens. 
Especially hard hit would be those in rural areas and the inner city 
poor. That's wrong.
  There is no reason to play games with the census, particularly when 
so many people's lives are at stake. Everybody counts in America, and 
everybody should be counted.
  Mr. President, I am also very concerned by the continued inclusion in 
this disaster relief package of what has artfully been 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, numerous 
people from across my State felt the shock and dislocation of those 
events.
  When I visited the 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.
  Let there be no mistake, I do not want another shutdown and will do 
everything I can to prevent it. But this bill is not the answer.
  Instead, this bill which provides for a permanent continuing 
resolution, is nothing more than a partisan exercise designed to 
hamstring Congress from exercising its constitutional role in the 
legislative process.
  If we fail to enact our appropriations bills on time, the continuing 
resolution contained in this bill simply prevents Congress from 
increasing spending on such crucial items as cancer research, crime 
fighting, and education. It also hampers Congress in cutting 
unnecessary spending and eliminating waste.
  Lastly, I am disappointed by the method we have chosen to pay for 
this bill. By taking over $3 billion in unobligated funds from HUD's 
section 8 public housing program to pay for FEMA's disaster relief 
fund, we are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  We cannot keep on raiding this program to pay for disaster funding. 
We must find a new way to pay for emergency supplemental appropriations 
bills because these disasters are not going to end.
  We could be facing even more expensive disasters in the near future. 
Are we going to continually rob one or two agencies to pay for these 
bills?
  I believe we need a new system or a new arrangement to deal with 
these types of disasters--a new system that is off-budget.
  Mr. President, because of the census sampling amendment, the 
continuing resolution, and the way in which we have chosen to pay for 
the bill, I am forced to oppose this bill.
  It is my sincere hope that in the future we can avoid these partisan 
fights over disaster relief bills and find a more equitable way to pay 
for them.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute to express my 
deep satisfaction with the results produced by the conference on the 
emergency supplemental bill. The negotiations were complicated by how 
many issues were in play, but the chairman did a masterful job at 
methodically and successfully working through each and every item. 
Chairman Stevens' patience and perseverance are why we are here today.
  I want to take note of two sections of particular importance to me. 
First, the transportation chapter includes language which is essential 
to Kentucky. This legislation provides for a long overdue funding 
correction in Federal-aid highway funding. As a result of an

[[Page S5318]]

accounting error, Kentucky's highway funding in 1996 resulted in a loss 
of Federal funds. This bill will provide Kentucky with $29.8 million to 
correct this funding shortfall. I am pleased to report that this level 
exceeds the $12.6 million requested by the Governor to complete the 
William H. Natcher Bridge. I know the people of Daviess County and 
western Kentucky look to the completion of this bridge.
  Second the foreign operations chapter in the House bill included 
language giving the President permission to waive earmarks for Ukraine 
which the Senate had included in last year's bill. This waiver 
authority was being offered in response to a deteriorating situation 
involving corruption and a slow down on crucial economic reforms. 
Congressman Callahan and I have very different views on the need for 
earmarks, but we share a concern about the trends in Ukraine. We were 
able to craft a compromise which made clear we are not content with the 
pace or scope of reform by allowing the President to waive any earmark 
as it affects aid to the Government of Ukraine. The compromise exempted 
important projects such as nuclear safety and all activities carried 
out by the private sector and nongovernment organizations. Most 
importantly, we did not permit any reduction in the overall level of 
the aid we provided--the $225 million stands intact. Should the 
administration choose to withhold or suspend funds for the government, 
they must reallocate the funds to other programs within Ukraine.
  We have sent a clear and focused message to the government that 
reforms are essential if businesses are going to have the confidence to 
invest. But, we have narrowly crafted that message so that we do not 
damage our bilateral relationship or the support we provide to 
organizations committed to advancing both Ukrainian and American 
interests. Both Congressman Callahan and I will review the progress 
made on this important issue when we take up the fiscal year 1998 bills 
in the coming weeks. I want to congratulate him on concentrating our 
attention on Ukraine's problem and working so effectively with me and 
my Senate colleagues to produce a compromise which we all hope will 
generate real results.


    direct operating loan funds for low-income and minority farmers

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I want to mention another group of Americans 
who are suffering as Members of Congress continue to hold up the 
disaster relief supplemental appropriations bill and prevent us from 
passing a funding measure that the President can sign. That struggling 
group is our Nation's low-income farmers.
  Back in April of this year, a group of farmers came to my office and 
described to me a crisis as real as the floods faced by Americans in 
the Upper Midwest. It is planting season and many States, including 
Virginia, have exhausted their total allocation of direct operating 
loans. Direct operating loans are the funds made available by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to cover the costs of planting and repaid 
when crops are harvested. Without operating funds, the livelihoods of 
many farmers, mostly on small farms, are threatened.
  The Operating Loan Program is especially important for minority 
farmers, many of whom have suffered from the well-documented 
discrimination within the Department of Agriculture. Discrimination has 
caused or contributed to the financial ruin of minority farmers 
nationwide and has resulted in bankruptcies and impoverished 
retirements. But as the number of black farmers in the United States 
has dwindled at three times the rate of other farmers nationwide--
nearly to the point of extinction--a few farmers have managed to 
survive and keep their struggling farms afloat. USDA acknowledges that 
``having direct operating loan funds is critical for low-income 
minority farmers in their effort to become self-sustaining, successful, 
contributing members of rural communities.''
  After speaking with Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman and with the 
assistance of Senators Cochran, Bumpers, Stevens and Byrd, we were able 
to include an appropriation in the supplemental to provide $100 million 
in direct operating loan funds to those low-income farmers who cannot 
obtain credit elsewhere. I believe these funds are as critical to 
serving the needs of small and limited-resource farmers as implementing 
the recommendations outlined in the Civil Rights Action Team report to 
remedy many of the long-standing problems plaguing the Department and 
eradicating, once and for all, the discrimination that has plagued the 
Department for decades.
  Unfortunately for Virginia and the other Southern States, it is now 
June, and we have reached the tail end of the planting season. As we 
waste time disputing controversial provisions attached to a disaster 
relief funding bill, we've denied farmers access to loan assistance and 
prevented the farmers who have survived decades of discrimination the 
money needed to get their crops in the ground and to keep their farms 
afloat.
  Mr. President, I find this situation frustrating, but my frustration 
must pale in comparison to the low-income and minority farmers who have 
struggled and, thus far, have managed to survive this manmade disaster. 
Again I want to thank my colleagues who are interested in helping our 
Nation's farmers and helped add my language to the supplemental. But, I 
ask my colleagues who are keeping this desperately needed money out of 
the field and out of the hands of our Nation's farmers to stop playing 
politics and let us pass a bill that the President is willing to sign.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me say, as I did when this legislation 
originally came before the Senate a month ago, that I fully support the 
disaster relief that is being provided here. My heart goes not to the 
families that have lost their homes, their businesses, and their 
schools in the recent floods and snows. We have all seen the 
devastation on the evening news, in the newspapers. It is tragic, and 
we owe it to the people in the Midwest and elsewhere to put the full 
resources of the Federal Government behind the relief effort to help 
them get on their feet as soon as possible and restore some sense of 
normality to their lives.
  Mr. President, the relief in this bill is urgently needed. So are the 
provisions that would prevent another shutdown of the Federal 
Government this fall. It seems to me that we are taking the very 
responsible step of acting now to prevent another shutdown of the 
Government--something President Clinton says he, too, wants to prevent. 
Yet the President is threatening to veto the disaster relief, of all 
things, on account of the antishutdown provisions.
  Why would a President who says he opposes Government shutdowns 
threaten to veto a bill that would prevent Government shutdowns?
  I will tell you why. Recognizing how anxious Members of Congress were 
about being perceived as responsible for another Government shutdown 
last fall--recognizing that Congress would do just about anything to 
avoid another shutdown--the President was able to demand and win an 
additional $6.5 billion for his favorite programs. Majorities in the 
House and Senate went along. I did not. The threat of a shutdown proved 
to be a valuable part of the President's arsenal then, and it will be 
again unless we put a mechanism in place to keep the Government open 
while we continue to negotiate acceptable spending levels.
  There are other good things in this bill as well, including 
provisions to extend the expiration date of the San Carlos Apache Tribe 
Water Rights Settlement Act of 1992, and to ratify the agreement 
between the tribe, Phelps Dodge Corp., and the Secretary of the 
Interior for long-term water use.
  Yet, Mr. President, I find myself in the position of having to vote 
against this bill for the very same reason I did when it first came 
before this body last month: it is yet another in a long line of 
spending bills that merely add to the deficit. It is business as usual, 
and it comes at a time when we supposedly have reached agreement on a 
plan to eliminate deficits by the year 2002.
  It would be one thing if there were no other way to get aid to the 
flood victims except to borrow. But it is quite another thing when we 
ignore other options in order to keep spending on other programs.
  The Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, offered an amendment that 
would have reduced spending across the board by a grand total of 1.9 
percent. One point nine percent. That is less than 2 cents on the 
dollar in other programs to pay for this disaster relief

[[Page S5319]]

and other spending. That is all it would have taken, yet there were 
only 38 of us in the Senate who voted for that amendment.
  Later today, we will be asked to vote on the so-called balanced 
budget agreement that our leadership struck with the White House. The 
ink on the budget agreement is not even dry. Yet the supplemental 
appropriations bill we are about to vote on would add $6.6 billion to 
the deficit over the next few years. It busts the budget agreement 
before the final vote is even taken.

  What does that say about the budget agreement, which does not even 
begin to reduce the deficit until the year 2001? Consider the deficits 
that are projected under that plan. The deficit this year is expected 
to total $67 billion. We are trying to get to a zero deficit--to 
balance--by the year 2002. But under the budget agreement, the deficit 
goes up, not down. It climbs 34 percent--to $90 billion next year--and 
then remains in that range for 2 more years. Only in the final 2 years 
of the 5-year plan--in 2001 and 2002--would the deficit drop 
dramatically.
  If anyone thinks that we are really going to be able to eliminate a 
$90 billion deficit in those final 2 years--when we cannot even find a 
way to pay for less than $7 billion in disaster relief in the bill 
before us today--they are mistaken.
  Mr. President, we all know that disasters can and will occur on a 
regular basis. Unfortunately, they will happen--floods, hurricanes, 
earthquakes, and the like. We know it, and we should plan for it.
  The Appropriations Committee acknowledged in its own report that the 
number of major disaster declarations in the 1992-1996 period has 
increased 54 percent. In other words, we had ample warning that 
something would occur somewhere.
  Had we prepared for the need for disaster assistance last fall, 
instead of using every extra dollar to meet President Clinton's demands 
for new spending, we would already have been able to respond to the 
emergency in the Midwest and elsewhere around the country. But by 
ignoring the potential for disasters last fall, we merely paved the way 
for adding to the deficit now when the need for relief takes precedence 
over budget concerns.
  Mr. President, this bill is more expensive than when it left the 
Senate a month ago. It is still not paid for. It busts the budget 
agreement that we will vote on this evening. We can and we must do 
better.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I want to voice my very strong objections 
to the 2000 census language in this bill. It bans the use of sampling--
and any other statistical technique--to count the American population 
for purposes of apportionment. It's unfair--it will cost the American 
tax payers about a billion dollars--it's political--it just doesn't 
make sense.
  Let's talk about fairness. Without sampling, the Census bureau tells 
us that the 2000 census may be about as accurate as the 1990 census. 
That's the best case scenario. But in 1990, the census missed 10 
million people. It counted 6 million people twice. And it counted 
another 10 or 20 million people in the wrong place--maybe even in the 
wrong congressional district. Is that our idea of fairness? Is that our 
idea of ``one man, one vote?''
  And many of the people undercounted in the last census are poor. Many 
of them belong to ethnic and racial minorities. We excluded some of 
America's most vulnerable people from the democratic process. Is that 
our idea of fairness? Of course not. But that's the kind of census we 
will have if this language passes into law.
  Let's talk about cost. The Census Bureau tells us that a non-sampling 
census could cost almost a billion dollars more than a non-sampling 
census. Much of that additional cost will go toward various efforts 
that the Bureau knows will have only marginal pay-off. But if the 
Bureau can't sample, it will have to make every effort--even marginally 
effective efforts--to count people the traditional way. Without 
sampling, we're talking about a higher cost census to deliver a less 
accurate population count. Is that a responsible use of tax payer 
dollars? Does that make sense at the precise moment in time when both 
Congress and the American people are committed to the painful process 
of balancing the budget?
  And let's talk about common sense. Statistical sampling is a 
rigorous, reliable, scientific tool. You can't find a statistician who 
disagrees with that. That view is supported by GAO, the Commerce 
inspector general, the National Academy of Sciences, and a host of 
professional organizations.
  The Bureau has been using statistical sampling in the decennial 
census for decades. The census long form--which goes to only one in six 
households--is a perfect example of a kind of sampling that is widely 
accepted. Virtually every arm of Government--Federal, State, and 
local--uses long-form data for enforcement of laws like the Voting 
Rights Act and for tailoring programs to the cultural diversity of our 
population. And we are not plagued with law suits challenging the 
reliability of this data because it is based on sampling.
  Ironically, the language in this bill would allow continued use of 
sampling for the long-form. In fact, it allows sampling for every 
purpose except that most important one--counting the American people 
for purposes of apportionment. On the one hand, it acknowledges that 
sampling is valid and valuable--a scientific tool. But on the other 
hand, it denies us the use of that tool just where it would be most 
valuable. That makes no sense at all.
  Finally, despite what I read in the newspapers, I have seen no data 
whatsoever validating the apparent political assumption that an 
accurate census means fewer House seats for Republicans. It is true--as 
I have already stated--that many of the undercounted people are poor or 
members of minority groups. But other groups are undercounted, too. We 
undercount people in rural areas--that's a third of the 1990 
undercount--and many of those areas are Republican strongholds. We 
undercount people who are renters rather than homeowners, and 
statisticians tell us that disadvantages the Sun Belt States--where 
Republicans are also strong. Just last week the 2000 Census Advisory 
Committee discussed the politics of the undercount. That committee 
consists of census and population experts representing the statistical 
community, every level of Government, and every large minority group. 
The committee was unable to determine who would be the political 
winners and losers in an accurate census.
  This isn't about Democrats versus Republicans. We undercount people 
of every race, gender, age, State, and political persuasion. The real 
winners and losers in the sampling debate are the American people. Our 
system of Government guarantees equal representation for all 
Americans--regardless of race, ethnicity or economic circumstances--
whether they live in the country or the city--whether they own their 
homes or rent them. That should be our goal--our only goal--in planning 
the 2000 census.
  In my home State of Ohio, we had a slight overcount in 1990. But I 
don't fear the political consequences of an accurate census. My 
commitment is to the fundamental principles of America's system of 
Government. And I'm confident that the citizens of Ohio feel the same 
way. Give us a fair, accurate census, and let the political chips fall 
where they may.
  I know full well that the Census Bureau's plan to use sampling is 
highly controversial. I have some reservations about it myself. Some 
people say that sampling doesn't meet the constitutional requirement 
for an ``actual enumeration.'' Some say that sampling is inherently 
subjective because it is based on statistical assumptions. These are 
questions that must be resolved.
  On the constitutional issue, however, the Governmental Affairs 
Committee recently heard testimony from a panel of attorneys who are 
not friends of sampling. The panel included Wisconsin's Attorney 
General James Doyle. He led the charge against sampling in 1990 because 
statistical adjustment of that census would have given California an 
additional House seat at Wisconsin's expense. We also heard from Stuart 
Gerson, the Assistant Attorney General who advised the Bush 
administration not to adjust the 1990 census. Both testified that the 
constitutional requirement for an ``actual enumeration'' doesn't 
require a headcount. What it requires--what the Framers intended--is 
the most accurate census possible. That's what we should be aiming for. 
And those who tell us that

[[Page S5320]]

sampling is inherently unconstitutional are trying to scare us into a 
census process that doesn't meet the Framers' goal.
  What's critical right now is for census to continue its planning 
process--continue to appear before congressional committees--as it is 
doing before the Governmental Affairs Committee--and continue to 
explain its plans. Most importantly, the Bureau must test the proposed 
census plan in the 1998 dress rehearsal. Only after this process is 
complete will we know whether sampling will yield a better census--a 
census that includes every American. The census language in this bill 
would make that impossible.
  My heart goes out to all the Americans who are counting on us for the 
disaster relief this bill will provide. I want to give them that 
relief. It is extremely regrettable that in our legislative process 
this has also become a bill that jeopardizes the most fundamental 
principle of our Democratic society--every American's right to equal 
representation. If the census language in this bill passes Congress 
today, it will add to the other reasons that may persuade the President 
to veto the bill--and send it right back to us. Then perhaps we can get 
on with the job of providing relief to the thousands of people who are 
counting on us, and let the Census Bureau get on with planning the best 
decennial census in American history.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I reluctantly rise to oppose this 
conference report. Regrettably, the majority has decided to play 
politics with the lives of disaster victims. This is a tragedy.
  Mr. President, I don't have a particular dog in this fight. My State 
has been fortunate to be free of disasters recently. But it pains me to 
look at television footage of homeless people in the Dakotas and 
Minnesota and know that they are not getting all needed assistance 
because of two unrelated political riders to this legislation.
  Mr. President, I oppose this conference report because it includes 
the so-called automatic CR. I want to be clear with my colleagues--this 
provision violates the bipartisan budget agreement. Let me repeat this, 
the automatic CR violates the bipartisan budget agreement.
  It violates the budget agreement for two reasons:
  First, it would lower the total amount of discretionary spending 
available for fiscal year 1998. The budget agreement calls for $527 
billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 1998, which is a $17 
billion increase over last year's level. If the automatic CR is 
enacted, the majority could refuse to pass the 13 appropriations bills 
and they would succeed in a $17 billion cut in discretionary spending. 
This would violate one of the basic Democratic accomplishments in the 
budget agreement.
  Second, the automatic CR would make deep cuts in programs that are 
protected in the bipartisan budget agreement. The bipartisan 
negotiators agreed to provide large increases in 13 major discretionary 
programs.
  Examples of these programs include: Elementary and secondary 
education improvement, Pell grants, child literacy, Head Start, 
national parks, job training, the Clean Water Act, Superfund, and the 
COPS Program.
  Mr. President, the automatic CR would freeze these programs at last 
year's levels. Therefore, these programs would not get the increases 
promised in the bipartisan budget agreement if Congress did not pass 
certain appropriations bills.

  Mr. President, as ranking member of the Budget Committee, I am 
concerned that the majority is violating the bipartisan budget 
agreement before the ink is dry.
  First, they include this automatic CR that cuts overall discretionary 
spending and specific programs that were protected by the bipartisan 
budget agreement. Second, a House Ways and Means Subcommittee has 
approved welfare provisions that are in direct violation of the terms 
of the bipartisan budget agreement.
  This is a disturbing trend. If we are to maintain bipartisan 
cooperation in the coming weeks, the majority will need to drop their 
efforts to move legislation that directly violates the bipartisan 
budget agreement, like the automatic CR.
  Mr. President, I also oppose the census provision in the supplemental 
bill. This is not a provision based upon statistical science, it is a 
provision based upon politics. It is the latest attempt by the 
Republican National Committee to try to increase its political fortunes 
in the next century.
  My Republican colleagues, at the request of the RNC, have proposed to 
throw hundreds of millions more at the 2000 census. This additional 
money, we have been told by the National Academy of Sciences, will not 
make the census any more accurate, just more expensive. The Census 
Bureau estimates that spending up to $800 million more than planned 
would reduce the undercount only marginally.
  This provision does not belong in a disaster relief bill and it 
should be stripped out and sent back to the Government Affairs 
Committee for further consideration.
  Mr. President, I hope that the President will immediately veto this 
bill and that the majority will then pass a clean disaster relief bill 
so that people suffering all over this country will be able to begin 
the process of rebuilding their lives and communities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I sincerely regret that the bill before us 
today is not the one which will get relief to the flood victims of the 
Upper Midwest. Why, because it is laden with extraneous, highly 
political provisions which the President has told us for months that he 
could not and would not sign.
  What are those provisions? The first is an automatic continuing 
resolution which, if enacted, would put the Government on automatic 
pilot if Congress is unable to complete its work on appropriations 
bills by the end of the fiscal year. While that may sound like a good 
idea, it is not. It would serve as a disincentive for Congress to 
complete their work in a timely fashion, and it would remove any 
leverage the President would have on appropriations bills not enacted 
by the end of the fiscal year.
  The second extraneous provision prohibits the Bureau of the Census 
from using statistical sampling in preparing the 2000 census. Never 
mind that statistical sampling was proposed by the National Academy of 
Sciences after a lengthy study as the best way to ensure an accurate 
count. There is no question that this attempt to prohibit such sampling 
is politically motivated. While I oppose both provisions on their 
merits, neither, in any case, belongs on an emergency disaster 
appropriations bill.
  The sole purpose of the bill before us today is to try to embarrass 
the President, not to help disaster victims. This is a sad day in the 
annals of congressional history. It is political one-upmanship at its 
worst. It is not about helping the people we were elected to serve. It 
is not about helping thousands of people in Grand Forks who are trying 
to rebuild their homes and their lives. It is about raw politics, pure 
and simple. Never, to my knowledge, has a disaster bill been held up 
for purely political, partisan advantage. That is what we are doing 
today, and that is just plain wrong.
  A group of business and political leaders from Grand Forks were in 
Washington yesterday, including Mayor Pat Owens. They were here to meet 
with officials of the various agencies that will receive emergency 
funds in this bill. Our officials were discussing how the money 
contained in this measure could help their devastated community. A 
couple of them sat in on the appropriations conference. They were 
appalled at what they saw and heard. They heard about the census, the 
Ukraine, Uruguay, a continuing resolution, but they heard almost 
nothing about disaster funds. The people of Grand Forks are in dire 
straights. Their needs are urgent. Their lives are on hold, yet their 
problems were barely discussed in the conference.
  We North Dakotans are a strong, proud, and resolute people. We will 
face the challenges ahead with courage and commitment. But with damages 
expected to be in the billions, we can not fully recover without the 
Federal help provided in this bill. As I stated earlier today, I am 
enormously grateful for all the resources provided in this bill to help 
our disaster stricken region. I am particularly grateful to Senators 
Stevens and Byrd who were extremely helpful and supportive throughout

[[Page S5321]]

every step of the process. Without their personal intervention and 
continuous support, many items and millions of dollars would not be in 
the bill we have before us today.
  I want to thank their staffs as well--Steve Cortese and Jim English--
who gave me wise advice and counsel on my maiden voyage as a member of 
the Committee on Appropriations. On behalf of all the people of North 
Dakota, I want to thank them as well as all the members of the 
committee for their understanding and their generous assistance. I hope 
that by next week, we will be able to deliver the resources promised in 
this bill.
  Let me just list a few of the items in the bill that will have a 
direct bearing on our ability to recover, and for which there is 
currently no money available in the pipeline:
  $500 million in community development block grants. This is the most 
flexible funding and the most crucial component to allow for buyouts. 
While all disaster States are eligible for this assistance, we 
anticipate that the majority will go to the Dakotas and Minnesota;
  $50 million for a new Livestock Indemnity Program which will help 
North Dakota farmers and ranchers who have lost close to 125,000 head 
of livestock;
  $15 million in Department of Agriculture funds to purchase floodplain 
easements to reduce hazards to life and property due to the floods;
  $5 million for the Interest Assistance Program to provide additional 
funding for guaranteed, low-interest loans to farmers;
  $20 million to reimburse school districts who have had to educate 
additional children who were dislocated by the floods;
  $5 million for all preconstruction and design work for an outlet from 
Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River;
  $27.9 million in Corps of Engineers funding for North Dakota from the 
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies Program;
  $600,000 for Ramsey County to mitigate damages to the sewer system 
from flooding, if necessary;
  Up to $20 million for the Corps of Engineers to raise the levees at 
Devils Lake;
  $210,000 for North Dakota's National Parks;
  $3.9 million for the BIA in North Dakota;
  $265,000 for the Indian Health Service in North Dakota;
  $6.1 million for North Dakota to repair damaged freight rail lines;
  $9.3 million to the Fish and Wildlife Service in North Dakota;
  $840,000 for the U.S. Geological Survey in North Dakota;
  Department of Education waiver authority language which will permit 
the Department to help students having difficulty meeting application 
and other statutory deadlines regarding Federal education funds; and
  Language that allows disaster States greater flexibility in using 
child care and development block grant funds to help families in 
nonemployment-related activities relating to the cleanup and recovery.
  My purpose in providing this list is to illustrate the urgent need to 
pass a bill the President can sign. Those who argue that there is 
plenty of money in the pipeline to respond to our needs are just plain 
wrong, as the list above so aptly demonstrates. None of funds listed 
above will be available until the President signs a disaster bill.
  There are many people beyond the Congress to thank for their support 
in the wake of a series of historic and devastating disasters in North 
Dakota. Above all, I want to thank the people of North Dakota who, 
despite their losses, have refused to be overcome. They have displayed 
a remarkable sense of courage, caring, and conviction throughout the 
ordeal. Never have I been more proud to represent the State of North 
Dakota than I am now. They are wonderful people. They know the meaning 
of neighbor. Whenever and wherever they were able, they extended a hand 
to those less fortunate.
  The great spirit of our people is embodied in the mayor of Grand 
Forks, Pat Owens. While small in stature, she has the heart of a giant. 
She gave us the courage not to lose courage. Her indomitable spirit 
held the citizens of Grand Forks together during the worst days of the 
tragedy, and now is guiding us patiently and compassionately through 
the recovery.
  Finally, I want to thank all the Federal agencies for their long 
hours and hard work in bringing emergency assistance to relieve the 
immediate suffering of our citizens. They have done a magnificent job 
under extremely trying circumstances, and we are grateful for their 
superhuman efforts. James Lee Witt, the Director of FEMA, has been the 
guiding light in this endeavor. He came to North Dakota and personally 
witnessed the devastation, and then rushed personnel and resources into 
the State to assess damages and provide emergency assistance. He has 
also coordinated the activities of other Federal agencies in trying to 
get assistance to those in need as quickly as possible. That process is 
ongoing, and James Lee remains the stalwart in that endeavor. We thank 
him for all he has done and continues to do.
  I intend to support this bill even though I know it is headed for a 
veto because of the extraneous provisions contained in it. I am voting 
for it to keep faith with my constituents, and to give them hope that a 
very similar bill, absent the political riders, will be passed next 
week. That bill will provide us with the helping hand we need to 
rebuild our communities, reunite our families and restore our economic 
base. We will face the challenge ahead with courage and commitment. 
With our prairie faith to guide us, we will rebuild, we will recover, 
and we will be a stronger community.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 36 minutes, and 
the Senator from West Virginia has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. FORD. And it be charged to the majority.
  Mr. STEVENS. We will take it off our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to add my comments to those 
already expressed about how important it is that this legislation be 
passed, that it be acted upon rapidly, that people understand the 
extraordinary emergency that we are experiencing, that money is not 
adequately found in the pipeline today to meet all of the contingencies 
that are currently affecting communities all through the Midwest.
  A delay by any other means will send exactly the wrong message to so 
many people who are waiting for us to act. We know that the legislation 
in its current form will be vetoed. It is a very dark day in the 
Senate, and, in my view, it is an extraordinarily unfortunate set of 
circumstances that today when we have an opportunity to send the right 
message to all the people who have contacted us, when we have an 
opportunity to say we do understand, we find many of our colleagues 
pushing a political agenda that has nothing to do with this legislation 
at all.
  Mr. President, I would hope that the Senate would not adjourn until 
we find a bill signed by the President. I would hope that once this 
bill is vetoed, we will move a clean bill immediately, send it back to 
the President immediately, that we will not allow that veto to be any 
cause for delay in responding as comprehensively as we know how to 
respond to the needs we find across this country.
  The balanced budget agreement we all voted on just 2 weeks ago makes 
a continuing resolution virtually unnecessary. We do not need to have a 
continuing resolution given the fact that we are working now in good 
faith on both sides of the aisle to resolve what remaining problems 
there may be with regard to budgetary policy. And I have every 
expectation we will be able to pass these appropriations bills and we 
will pass the reconciliation bill along the lines of the agreement that 
we have just voted on.
  We know that there are contentious issues that have to be addressed 
outside the budget itself. The census sampling question is one that 
understandably is controversial. But I must say,

[[Page S5322]]

the National Academy of Sciences was charged with the responsibility of 
coming up with a way with which to improve upon the accuracy of the 
census.
  We know that, because of methods used in 1990 by the Bureau of the 
Census, we were not even as accurate in 1990 as we were in 1980. And as 
we examine all the other possibilities for attaining a greater degree 
of accuracy, the one that is universally accepted is the one subscribed 
to and incorporated in the policy that is the subject of this 
controversy right now.
  This is not something dreamed up by a Democratic or a Republican 
administration. This is something calculated to be the most accurate 
response by the National Academy of Sciences. But regardless of how one 
may view that particular issue, it ought not be in a bill to address 
the disasters that we face across this country.
  There are many, many needs that are unmet. We received letters from 
communities across South Dakota, across North Dakota. Every one of them 
has made it very clear that the immediate passage of this supplemental 
is crucial to their economic viability. No contracts can be awarded to 
repair the sewer system in Watertown, SD, until this bill is passed.
  I have a letter from the mayor of Watertown, who has asserted once 
more the extraordinary difficulties that she, as mayor, is facing. I 
will just read a couple of passages.
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of the letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            City of Watertown,

                                      Watertown, SD, June 3, 1997.
     Senator Tom Daschle,
     Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: I appreciate the opportunity to 
     provide information which underscores the need for the 
     immediate passage of the Supplemental Disaster Relief 
     Appropriation bill.
       On April 4th, the City of Watertown, a City of 
     approximately 20,000 residents suffered a 500 year flood 
     event which was fought by City, County and State resources in 
     the midst of a 60 mph blizzard in subfreezing temperatures. 
     Flood waters froze and remained for 4-5 weeks. Over 4,000 
     residents were evacuated during the flood and storm. 
     Approximately seven hundred and fifty homes were left without 
     sewer and water for over four weeks. The sanitary and storm 
     sewer systems were inundated and our wastewater treatment 
     facility which was designed to treat 3.5 million gallons of 
     sewage per day was flooded by over 18 million gallons per 
     day.
       Substantial damage was done to the sewer and infrastructure 
     system. Many homes were severely damaged by water and ice. A 
     substantial number of residents remain displaced today.
       Both FEMA and SBA, along with Red Cross and the Salvation 
     Army were enormously helpful in meeting the emergency needs 
     of the affected residents and continue to assist to this day; 
     however, without the Supplemental Appropriations bill, it is 
     impossible to begin to fully recover.
       As a City, it now becomes our responsibility to prioritize 
     needs, both short term and long term. As we proceed to do so, 
     it is incredibly difficult to make firm plans without the 
     commitment of Federal emergency dollars. Certain emergency 
     projects, which have not been budgeted, must now be done to 
     protect the community from experiencing further damage: the 
     capping of storm sewer pipes from the river to prevent the 
     reflooding of an entire quadrant of the City; significant 
     sections of sewer must be repaired to prevent the system from 
     being flooded by extremely high groundwater levels, streets 
     must be patched or repaired due to extensive water damage and 
     shorelines along the lake area must be reinforced to stop the 
     ongoing damage due to high water and wave action. No 
     contracts can be awarded without confirmed sources of revenue 
     for projects which the City cannot accommodate due to lack of 
     dollars. In addition, South Dakota construction seasons are 
     very short. Without immediate passage of the Supplemental 
     bill, Watertown will be unable to make many necessary 
     repairs during the current construction season.
       Mitigation issues, both short term and long term are 
     dependent on immediate Federal assistance: flood control 
     projects cannot be accurately assessed without the 
     consideration of the buy-out program which serves to relocate 
     businesses and residences out of the flood plain. The degree 
     to which buy-outs or flood prevention structures are 
     necessary cannot be determined without the knowledge of 
     available assistance levels. Residents whose homes would be 
     excellent candidates for buy-outs are in limbo, unable to 
     make decisions about reconstruction or completing the 
     recovery process because the City is unable to negotiate 
     unless firm funding commitments have been made. And, in fact, 
     the result of delayed passage of the Supplemental bill may be 
     that the City is forced to eventually pay more for homes 
     which were repaired in the meantime.
       CDBG funds are incredibly important to the States and 
     Cities because they are flexible funds, allowing dollars to 
     be delivered to priority projects in a timely manner. 
     Leveraged with local and EDA funds, communities can get the 
     most for the dollars being spent. No community or State is 
     prepared for the immediate incredible costs of additional 
     staffing needs, mitigation planning and project costs 
     resulting from such devastating, unexpected occurrences. 
     Immediate dollars for planning and technical assistance are 
     critical to our recovery.
       In the case of northeast South Dakota, communities such as 
     Watertown continue to be threatened by record high water 
     tables, aquifers and saturated watersheds which bleed into 
     one another increasing the likelihood that flooding will 
     continue to be a problem. Unless necessary measures can be 
     undertaken to reduce our exposure to future floods now, 
     future costs will continue to mount . . . Immediate and 
     future mitigation needs require dollars for both local and 
     State governments working as partners to solve problems as 
     quickly as possible.
       Watertown's economy will be enormously impacted by the 
     devastating floods of 1997. Our very livelihood centers 
     around the agricultural community for 100 miles in all 
     directions. With many of the roads under water, travel to 
     patronize our businesses is severely impacted. Without 
     immediate assistance for animals killed during the disastrous 
     winter and historic floods, herds will not be revitalized, 
     profits will plunge and dollars for commerce will be few. 
     Fields unable to be planted will equate into diminished 
     dollars long term for businesses on main street. The very 
     economy of Watertown and many affected rural towns like it, 
     are dependent upon the immediate response of Congress. We are 
     so grateful for the generosity and assistance provided to us 
     from throughout the United States. We are now in need of 
     dollars to rebuild for the future. The very well-being and 
     livelihood of thousands of affected disaster victims in the 
     upper midwest cries out for assistance in picking up the 
     pieces of their lives and rebuilding the affected areas of 
     their communities.
       In closing, Senator Daschle, I would remind members of 
     Congress that the bottom line in all of this is people. As I 
     have stated before, Watertown is determined to recover and 
     become stronger than ever. The incredible community spirit I 
     have witnessed throughout these very difficult days has been 
     nothing short of inspiring. We simply ask that the 
     Supplemental Appropriations bill be passed as soon as 
     possible to enable our community and others to recover and to 
     heal.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Brenda S. Barger,
                                                            Mayor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is addressed to me. It says:

       [I want to underscore] . . . the need for the immediate 
     passage of the Supplemental Disaster Relief Appropriations 
     Bill . . .
       As a city, it now becomes our responsibility to prioritize 
     needs, both short term and long term. As we proceed to do so, 
     it is incredibly difficult to make firm plans without the 
     commitment of Federal emergency dollars. No contracts can be 
     awarded without confirmed sources of revenue for projects 
     which the City cannot accommodate due to lack of dollars. 
     . . .
       Watertown's economy will be enormously impacted by the 
     devastating floods of 1997. Our very livelihood centers 
     around the agricultural community for 100 miles in all 
     directions. . . . Without immediate assistance for animals 
     killed during the disastrous winter and historic floods, 
     herds will not be revitalized, profits will plunge and 
     dollars for commerce will be few. Fields unable to be planted 
     will equate into diminished dollars long term for businesses 
     on main street. The very economy of Watertown and many 
     affected rural towns like it, are dependent upon the 
     immediate response of Congress.

  Mr. President, I do not think you can say it any clearer than that. 
These people need help. They need it now. They do not understand all 
these complicated, misguided and extraordinarily problematic extraneous 
matters added to this legislation at the worst possible time. It is not 
just mayors, it is not just the people living in most of our 
communities in eastern South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota that 
are struggling. Farmers and ranchers have also expressed themselves in 
a myriad of ways.
  Mr. President, 350,000 livestock in South Dakota alone were lost in 
the storms and flood--350,000. We have never had an experience of that 
magnitude in my lifetime. We have $145 million in livestock losses 
alone. Not one dime has been provided or can be provided to indemnify 
producers for livestock losses until this bill passes. There is no 
possibility of providing any meaningful relief to livestock producers 
anywhere in the country until this legislation passes.
  Mr. President, I have received so many remarkable letters from people 
all over South Dakota. I want to read

[[Page S5323]]

excerpts of one, and I ask unanimous consent the entire letter be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   April 14, 1997.
     Senator Tom Daschle,
     Hart Office Bldg.,
     Washington, DC.
       To Whom It May Concern: We live in the far North West 
     corner of South Dakota. We have had a devastating winter to 
     say the least. This last storm just added a finishing flair 
     to the proverbial cake. When the winds finally died, we went 
     to check our cattle. We had bedded heavily and created the 
     best protection we could for them.
       We found a horrifying sight; the cows looked as if they 
     were walking snowballs. They had suffocated from ice covering 
     their nostrils. As we went along we found dead calves 
     scattered and tromped into the earth. Some stood like statues 
     froze over with snow, blinded by the same. Our hearts ached, 
     we spent the day dragging in cold calves that were trying 
     their best to hold onto life. We saved what we could, others 
     just gave up hope, as are we
       Our daughter who is eighteen, had never seen such a heinous 
     sight. It is seven days past since the storm. We are still 
     losing calves from the effects. Our greatest fear is not only 
     financially, but that our daughter is tremendously stressed, 
     as well as we. There is no greater pain than watching a child 
     agonize.
       As we heard of losses through the community our hearts were 
     further pained. All have lost livestock, all are in pain. 
     Some losses have been such as extreme ones we wonder how any 
     human can live through it. Some are not or have chosen not 
     to.
       We implore you to please send some relief our way. A 70/30 
     deal is to no benefit if you can't afford the 70. We have 
     lost 12 cows and approximately 30 calves. We know people that 
     have lost 100 head to 150 head so we feel fortunate.
       Ironically this loss could financially devastate us, so far 
     this winter has costed us $82,000 more than usual. Yet we 
     feel fortunate it isn't more. We also feel fortunate to still 
     have each other and God to hold us up.
       PLEASE.......................................S.O.S.!!
           Sincerely,
                                                    Nolan L. Seim,
                                                    Shadehill, SD.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The letter is from Nolan Seim:

       To whom it may concern,
       We live in the far North West corner of South Dakota. We 
     have had a devastating winter to say the least. This last 
     storm just adding a finishing flair to the proverbial cake. 
     When the winds finally died, we went to check our cattle. . . 
     .
       We found a horrifying sight; the cows looked as if they 
     were walking snowballs. They had suffocated from ice covering 
     their nostrils. As we went along we found dead calves 
     scattered and tromped into the earth. Some stood like 
     statutes froze over with snow, blinded by the same. Our 
     hearts ached, we spent the day dragging in cold calves that 
     were trying their best to hold on to life. We saved what we 
     could, others just gave up hope, as are we. . . .
       We implore you to please send some relief our way.

  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. My question to the leader is I hope he realizes this is 
new law. Never before in the history of the United States have we 
assisted people who lost cattle during a disaster. So we are making new 
law. It is not just an appropriation. It is an authorization bill, too.
  I accept what the Senator says. It would be nice to get the bill 
passed, but I want the Senate to know that we took it upon ourselves to 
not only appropriate money but to change the law so that disaster aid 
would be available to people who lost cattle. I understand this is a 
bad disaster, but there have been many disasters where people have lost 
cattle before and they received no aid.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I could respond to the distinguished chairman. He has 
done an outstanding job, and I appreciate his responsiveness to this 
particular need. We have had other disasters where cattle were 
detrimentally affected, and ranchers have been compensated for 
livestock, but they have never been compensated, as he has indicated, 
for losses as a result of floods or winter snowstorms.
  But we have clearly set precedent with regard to the reimbursement of 
ranchers, and, in fact, that happened in 1992. This legislation is 
modeled after that particular legislation, and I appreciate greatly his 
support and the effort he has made to respond to this circumstance as 
Congress has responded to situations in the past involving livestock.
  Mr. President, it is not just livestock producers, it is not just 
communities. People in South Dakota and across the Midwest have been 
hit across the board in a number of different ways. It has been the 
coldest winter on record, we have had the most severe blizzards in our 
history, a 500-year flood, and there were only 2 days in 1997 when a 
Presidential disaster was not in effect for South Dakota. The winter 
storms produced winds chills of 90-degrees-below-zero and 70-mile-an-
hour winds, 13,000 miles of road were impassable, and lives and 
livelihoods were threatened in ways we have never seen before.
  My point in reminding all of my colleagues about this loss, Mr. 
President, is simply this: There is no patience left out there. They 
have endured the winter. They have endured the floods. They have 
endured this long, deliberative process about how we respond in the 
most effective way to all the problems we have across the country in 
emergencies and disasters where declarations have been made, but they 
do not understand this. They do not understand how anyone can take a 
bill this important and use it for vehicles that have nothing to do 
with the disaster, nothing to do with an emergency, nothing to do with 
responding as effectively as we possibly can, given the circumstances 
that they have had.
  I do not understand it either, Mr. President, and I just hope that we 
can collectively respond as soon as the veto is made in a way that will 
give them more hope and less frustration, more belief in what we as 
Republicans and Democrats can do to respond more effectively than we 
are this afternoon. We have to get rid of the extraordinary cynicism 
that comes so often when people in the country affected by these 
circumstances watch what we do. We cannot effectively deal with that 
cynicism so long as cynical uses are made of legislation this 
important.
  So, again, let me thank the chairman for his best effort in trying to 
resolve any of these difficulties. Let me thank the ranking member. 
Senator Byrd has been extremely responsive and cooperative in all ways, 
as he is in so many instances. I thank the Members for their efforts.
  I must say, this is a disaster in and of itself. For us not to be 
able to respond, for us not to resolve these matters, for us to know 
that this bill will be vetoed, and do it anyway, is inexcusable and 
inexplicable. I just hope we can find a way to resolve these matters 
this week and decide in a mutual fashion that we will get a new bill 
that will be signed by the President in the shortest possible time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words that the 
Democratic leader has made here on the floor. My response to him would 
be that no President in the history of the United States has closed 
down the Government like President Clinton did. There are hundreds of 
thousands of people who were put in a position of being told to stay 
home, they could not go to work. When they did not go to work, 
facilities all over this country were closed. People were told they 
could not get their veterans checks, they could not get any assistance 
from the Social Security Administration. They were totally closed down.
  Now, to use the first vehicle available to us in the appropriations 
process to try to prevent that, I do not think is a cynical act. I am 
sorry that he used that word with regard to this provision. It is a 
legitimate difference of opinion with the administration and with the 
minority, but I do not believe we are being cynical in trying to 
protect the people of the United States from another shutdown, which I 
foresee is going to happen unless we find some way to come to an 
agreement with this President about the misuse of the Presidential 
power to shut down the Government when we were not out of money, by the 
way. We were not out of money. There were funds that could have been 
used to keep the office open.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me respond very briefly, and I know 
there are Senators who are seeking recognition. We will differ as to 
who it was that shut the Government down. I think many of those in the 
Republican leadership have already admitted themselves that they hold 
the larger share of the responsibility.
  The question is, do we need this vehicle, this bill, as the only 
means by

[[Page S5324]]

which we can resolve that problem in the future? That, in my view, is 
the cynical part of this. We know we can resolve it. We know we can 
find a way with which to deal with shutdowns in Government. We know 
that we can find other ways to resolve our differences. But to use this 
must-pass piece of legislation to do it, in my view, is wrong. A lot of 
our colleagues know it is wrong, and I just hope we can put those 
issues aside and deal with them at another time and get this 
legislation passed the way it should be passed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield the remaining time to the Senators from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Hutchison.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. What is the remaining time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes, twenty-one seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will speak for 5 minutes, and then I will yield the 
floor to my colleague from Texas.
  Mr. President, I would like to speak on two issues that were brought 
up by the Senator, the distinguished minority leader, and also others 
on the floor, and that is, we keep hearing, ``Send the President a bill 
he can sign.'' Mr. President, we are sending the President a bill that 
he can sign.
  It is like we have a responsibility in Congress just to please the 
President. Mr. President, I think this is a two-way street. 
Pennsylvania Avenue runs two ways.
  It is well settled in American law that there is a Congress that 
passes laws and a President who signs or vetoes those laws. So it is 
not, ``Send the President a bill he can sign.'' We are sending the 
President a bill he can sign. We are sending the President a bill that 
he has asked for, to replenish the FEMA funding. The people of North 
Dakota and South Dakota and Minnesota are getting the help they need--
and they should, and we want them to--and we are going to replenish 
those funds.
  In addition, we are providing the notice and the process to not only 
the people who work for Government, the people who depend on it, about 
what is going to happen, what process are we going to use for 
appropriations bills so they can plan, so they will know that the 
veterans checks will be there, so they will know, if they plan their 
family vacation on October 2, that they will be able to get into the 
Grand Canyon, so that if they have a problem with a passport, they will 
know that there is not an artificial disruption of Government on 
October 1 because the President and Congress have not agreed. What 
better time to provide that process than right now in the first 
appropriations bill of this year?
  Mr. President, we are sending the President of the United States a 
bill that he can sign to replenish the FEMA funding, and we are acting 
in a most responsible way so that the veterans of this country will 
never again have to worry if their check is going to be there on time, 
so that the very disaster victims that we are trying to assure have 
coverage will never have to worry that the check is going to get there 
on time because they will never have to worry that Government might 
shut down if Congress and the President have not agreed to one or two 
appropriations bills by the September 30 deadline. We want Congress and 
the President to have a level playing field, to negotiate in good 
faith, as Congresses and Presidents have done for years in this 
country.

  The second issue I want to talk about is why we have to do these 
things in this bill, why we can't do it in a separate bill, as the 
distinguished minority leader has asked that we do? It is because there 
is urgency. There is urgency in determining how we are going to do the 
processes of Government, whether it is census, whether it is just the 
functions of Government. There is an urgency that we set that process 
right now. So, Mr. President, when we hear all of the talk about 
sending the President a clean bill, we are sending the President a 
clean bill. We are sending the President a bill that provides for the 
funding for our armed services, to replenish their accounts; we are 
sending the President the replenishing of the Federal Emergency 
Management Account; we are providing for the people who are in need as 
we speak, and we are making sure that there is not a disruption today, 
nor on October 1 or 2 of this year, because we are providing for the 
orderly transition of Government from fiscal year to fiscal year.
  Mr. President, when you hear all of the horror stories about this 
bill not being clean, having political overtones, we need to set the 
record straight. The President can sign the bill that we are sending 
him, or he can tell us what he doesn't like about it and negotiate in 
good faith. But to tell the American people that any victim of a 
disaster is not getting funding, especially when he has not even made a 
decision yet to declare the victims of a tornado in Texas last week a 
disaster so that they will know the funding is coming, I think is a 
specious argument.
  I ask the President and the minority leader to cease and desist from 
telling the American people something that is not true, and that is 
that we are not providing for the disaster victims and the armed 
services of our country. We are doing it, and we are providing 
responsible Government for the people who depend on Government checks, 
whether it is the worker or a citizen of our country, so they will be 
able to plan on October 1 of this year that there will not be a 
disruption for any reason in the normal processes of Government.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me make a very brief comment on this 
issue that the minority leader has raised. Then I want to turn to the 
real purpose that I have come to the floor to speak on today.
  What we have done in this bill, recognizing what happened last year 
when the Government shut down, is simply say to the President that if 
we have an impasse in deciding on how much money we are going to spend 
in any given area, while we are working out those differences, the 
Government, in that area, will have the same level of funding that it 
had this year, and so the Government will not be shut down and services 
won't be disrupted.
  There is only one reason the President would refuse to go along with 
this imminently reasonable proposal, and that reason is that the 
President believes that by having the leverage of shutting down the 
Government, he can extract additional spending from the Congress. That 
is what happened in the last week of the session last year. We 
increased spending by about $7 billion in that year, and about $20 
billion over the next 4 years, basically because of the power of the 
President to intimidate a Congress that was frightened because the 
Government might shutdown.
  So I hope nobody is confused. This issue is about spending money. The 
President wants to spend more of it. We would like to begin by saying 
that while we negotiate on that subject, we will not shut the 
Government down; we fund it at the existing year's level.
  I am sorry to have to come over to be, apparently, the last speaker 
of the day on a bill that everybody will rejoice in and pound on their 
chest and say, ``Look what we have done for our fellow citizens who had 
the misfortune of having terrible floods.'' We have all seen the 
pictures, and those of us who represent States that weren't flooded 
have all been thankful that it didn't happen to us. Our hearts have 
gone out to those who have been victims.

  I want to end this debate today by pointing out why this bill 
represents a failure. It represents a failure for the Congress and the 
American people, not because we are helping people who suffered from a 
disaster, but because we are not paying for it. We want to get all this 
credit for being compassionate. We want to fulfill the obligation that 
the Government has taken on itself to help people who suffer from 
natural disasters. But when it comes right down to it, we don't want to 
do what families have to do in America, or what businesses have to do 
when they undertake similar activities--that is, we don't want to spend 
less money on other things. In fact, when we considered this disaster 
funding bill on the floor of the Senate, I offered an amendment to 
reduce spending across the board in other areas by .7 percent--hardly 
massive cuts--so that we could help those who suffered from natural 
disasters, but do it in such a way as to pay for it. I am sorry to say 
that my

[[Page S5325]]

amendment got only 38 votes. I personally believe that if the American 
people had the right to vote on paying for the disaster assistance by 
cutting other programs, they would have voted for that amendment and it 
would have passed. So I somewhat feel here in the Senate as if my views 
on this subject are kind of hopelessly out of fashion. But I do believe 
that when families sit around kitchen tables every night and write 
their budgets and make tough decisions when they have emergencies, they 
have to take money away from things they want to do, and I believe they 
would have been on the side that I took on this issue.
  This bill, as now written, with all the good things it will do, will 
raise the deficit this year by $760 million. It will raise the deficit, 
over the next 5 years, by $6.6 billion. We are going to adopt a budget 
resolution. We have already adopted it in both Houses of Congress--we 
are going to work out the differences and adopt it shortly--that is 
going to set out the claim of balancing the budget. I am not going to 
drag that dead cat back across the table by pointing out again in great 
detail that 97 cents out of every dollar of deficit reduction in that 
budget is simply assumed. It doesn't represent any policy change. But I 
have to lament, in passing, that before that budget is adopted, we are 
already busting that budget by $6.6 billion. The deficit spending in 
the Senate and the deficit spending in Washington never comes to an 
end.
  I wish we were having a different battle today rather than fighting 
over continually funding the Government--which I think we should--
instead of allowing it to be shut down. But I wish we were having a 
fight about the fact that this bill doubles the level of funding that 
was originally requested. I wish we were having a battle about the fact 
that this bill spends $8.6 billion --twice as much as originally 
requested--for flood damage and for replenishment of money for Bosnia. 
I wish there were greater concerns about the fact that this bill will 
raise the deficit by $6.6 billion. But that concern today, while it 
exists in the Senate, is certainly a minority view. I think it is 
important on these occasions to simply point out that we have done the 
right thing in helping our fellow Americans who have had terrible 
things happen to them that were beyond their control. But we have done 
the wrong thing by not paying for it, because in helping people that 
have suffered from a natural disaster, we are contributing once again 
to not only a man-made, but a Government-made disaster called the 
deficit. I simply want to predict that this problem is not going to go 
away and that we are going to be back here some day worrying about the 
deficit again, and that we might wish that we had not raised it by $6.6 
billion today.
  I thank our distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for giving me this time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen minutes forty two seconds.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this has been cleared with the Democratic 
leadership and our leadership. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
passage of the conference report accompanying H.R. 1469 occur at 6 
p.m., as ordered, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate may not have 
received the official papers from the House by that time, and that when 
and if the Senate does receive those papers, the vote at 6 p.m. be 
considered as a vote on final passage of the conference report, 
provided that the papers received from the House are identical to the 
conference report filed in the House last evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I note that the distinguished Senator 
from Oklahoma is here. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen minutes forty eight seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Oklahoma may speak within the balance of our time on a subject 
other than the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 842 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes and 17 seconds.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded.
  The vote, pursuant to the previous order, will take place at 6 
o'clock.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to ask for the yeas and nays on the vote at 6 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________