[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 79 (Monday, June 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5399-S5403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            DISASTER RELIEF

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I come to the floor today again to speak 
of the disaster relief bill, the so-called supplemental appropriations 
bill. This bill provides substantial amounts of money for disaster 
relief, especially for people of the region of North Dakota, South 
Dakota, and Minnesota, the region where victims of blizzards, fires and 
floods now await action by the U.S. Congress on a disaster 
appropriations bill.
  On Saturday, in the Bismarck Tribune, an associated press writer, 
John McDonald, was in Grand Forks, ND. The headline says, ``Patience 
Short with Congress.'' Here is what the story says:

       Ranee Steffan had strong words for Members of Congress who 
     think flood victims can wait while the bickering continues in 
     Washington over a disaster relief bill.
       ``You are playing with our lives,'' Mrs. Steffen warned 
     Friday from the sweltering travel trailer that she and her 
     family now call home. ``This isn't some game. You should come 
     here and walk in my shoes for a day.''
       Homeless for over a month, out of work and bounced from one 
     temporary shelter to another, the wife and mother of two is 
     fed up with lawmakers who seem to think that Grand Forks 
     residents are ``getting along just fine.''
       All she wants, she says, is to move back into a real home 
     and to start working again.
       But that isn't likely to happen until Congress and 
     President Clinton work out differences in the emergency 
     spending bill that has $5.6 million of disaster relief for 
     disaster victims.

  I noticed this weekend in the Washington Times, Saturday, June 7, 
Speaker Gingrich, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, ``vows 
not to yield on disaster aid,'' according to the headline. He says that 
after a veto, the GOP

[[Page S5400]]

will send the bill back with the same riders. And then it says, ``Mr. 
Gingrich predicted voters will not remember this standoff over the 
supplemental appropriations bill at the ballot boxes next year,'' 
suggesting, I suppose, that, well, it is just that region up there, 
North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota. They will not remember this.
  In this morning's Washington Post, we read that in a ``contentious 
meeting of Republican leaders after adjournment Thursday, Majority 
Leader Lott of the Senate argued that this time--unlike 2 years ago--
the GOP would win the PR battle. He claimed Americans did not care much 
about the supplemental appropriations bill providing help for the 
victims of Red River flooding in the Dakotas and Minnesota.''
  I do not know if that is an accurate quote. It is in Robert Novak's 
column in today's paper. But I worry about what all of this says. It 
says somehow that this is a game, it is politics, it is trying to claim 
a political advantage in the fighting over a disaster bill.
  It is interesting that if you take a look at other disaster bills in 
the Congress and what has happened in those disaster bills, the time 
line is really quite interesting. We had, as many Americans will 
recall, a terrible hurricane called Hurricane Andrew. When Hurricane 
Andrew hit the Florida coast, it decimated and devastated miles and 
miles of homes, and people were living in camps and trying to figure 
out what to do next. That was 1992. That hurricane hit August 24, 1992, 
killing 40 people and destroying more than 25,000 homes. Again, this 
was August 24, 1992 that the hurricane hit. On September 8, just 2 
weeks later, President Bush called for a $7.7 billion relief package. 
That took place on September 8. On September 23, President Bush signed 
it into law. It took 1 month from the hurricane to signing the bill 
into law.

  What a difference compared to our experience this year.
  Madam President, on March 19 of this year, the President sent his 
first request to Congress for a disaster bill to provide supplemental 
appropriations for a range of disasters that had occurred in our 
country. March 19, April 19 went by, May 19, and we are headed toward 
June 19--nearly 3 full months--and the disaster bill is not yet law.
  Now, Congress passed a disaster bill, but some in Congress decided 
they wanted to make a political sideshow out of it and they put very 
controversial provisions in it, provisions they knew the President 
would be forced to veto, provisions that had no relationship to this 
bill at all, extraneous provisions having no business in this bill. The 
President told them long ago to pass a clean bill. If they put 
provisions that were controversial in this bill thinking he would sign 
it, they were wrong.
  So the Congress, attempting to provoke a fight, because some 
political leaders here decided it was in their advantage to do so, 
stuck a couple of very controversial items in this bill and sent it 
down to the President, knowing it would face a certain veto. They took 
a couple of weeks' vacation first, and broke for the Memorial Day 
recess. Now it is going to be nearly 3 weeks later than it should have 
been before a bill would get passed that the President might have an 
opportunity to sign. But, in any event, they finally did send a bill 
down to the President this morning containing provisions they knew the 
President would not sign. The President vetoed the bill, and it now has 
returned to the House of Representatives, just within the past several 
hours.
  At the end of my remarks, Madam President, I will introduce a bill 
that is a clean disaster supplemental bill. It strips the two 
extraneous provisions that are highly controversial out of the 
legislation. I will send it to the desk and ask it be considered by 
unanimous consent. If it is considered by unanimous consent, this will 
go to the House of Representatives. After all, the House passed this 
bill plus the two controversial provisions. The House could consider 
it, they could send it to the President, he could sign it, and tomorrow 
the disaster relief would be available to the people who are victims of 
this disaster. I have alerted the majority that I intend to do so, and 
at the end of my remarks I will ask this piece of legislation be 
considered.
  Now, Madam President, before I go further, I will go through once 
again what has happened to our region and why this is urgent and why 
some of us have had a bellyful of the politics around here on this 
bill.
  Let me describe, first of all, the blizzards in our part of the 
country, 3 years' worth of snow in 3 months, 10 feet of snow dropped on 
our region of the country. The last blizzard was the worst blizzard of 
50 years, and the worst blizzard of 50 years dumped nearly 2 feet of 
snow on much of North Dakota, some of South Dakota, and some of 
Minnesota. Traffic was stalled, as it was many times this winter, with 
the nine blizzards that we had. All the roads were shut down. Power 
poles snapped like toothpicks.
  Here is the result of howling winds of 20 and 40 miles an hour and 
80-below windchill temperatures and 2 feet of snow in the worst 
blizzard of 50 years. This is a snowbank on flat land and a farmer 
standing in front of it to show the size of the snowbank. The snowbank 
is nearly three times as tall as he is.
  The blizzard that hit had this impact: 80,000 people in our region 
out of power, power poles snapped like toothpicks, lying on the ground 
all across our region. Some people were out of power for a week and 
more, while power crews struggled 24 hours a day to try to get the 
poles up and the lines up and restore power to these communities.
  I was in Grafton, ND, when they were out of power for 5 days, and met 
a woman who was 89-years-old at a shelter. Yes, they went to shelters 
because they could not cook, did not have electricity, did not have 
heat in their homes, and it was bitterly cold. Madam President, this 
woman was 89 years of age, and she said, ``I am getting along just 
fine. We sure appreciate all the folks here at the shelter.'' What a 
great spirit and a great attitude.
  But all of those folks went through this kind of dilemma of blizzard 
after blizzard after blizzard, with shutdowns of virtually all the 
roads in the State, cattle freezing on their feet because the snow was 
suffocating them, and then power outages affecting tens of thousands of 
people. My colleague Senator Conrad showed this picture the other day. 
I had shown it previously, a picture similar to it, dead cattle lying 
on the range, cattle whose hooves were frozen, dairy cows whose udders 
were frozen. A fellow was in town a while back and he said someone 
asked a rancher, ``What are you doing this afternoon?'' He answered, 
``Going home to shoot some more calves.'' These calves simply would not 
make it. Their hooves were frozen and they would not be able to walk 
any longer. Hundreds of thousands of head of livestock died in those 
winter blizzards.

  Then what happened is the Sun came out and it began to warm up in our 
part of the country. What was a farm--and this is a farm--now looks 
like an ocean. The Red River Valley became a flood that was 140 miles 
long by 20 to 30 miles wide. This is a farm in this photograph. But, of 
course, this year, it was a flood; 1.7 million acres of farm land were 
under water when this picture was taken.
  This picture shows what that flood looks like from the air. It looks 
like a huge lake that extends for the entire Red River Valley, with 
patches of ground in places where you could see some dikes that have 
been erected to try to protect some areas of the country. That flood 
inundated Watertown, SD. It was an enormous flood--in Watertown, MN, 
and Breckenridge and Fargo, ND. That flood water was channeled through 
Fargo, and for 24 hours a day they wondered whether the dikes would 
hold, and they did hold in Fargo. Some homes got wet and they had some 
flooding damage, but it could have been much worse. Then that Red River 
flooding came to Grand Forks, ND, as they tried to channel that through 
the city. The flood crest was predicted to be 49 feet, the highest 
flood crest in history. But it wasn't 49 feet, it was 54 feet. As the 
water rushed over the dikes down the streets of Grand Forks, people 
left their homes, running to their cars, running to National Guard 
trucks, to evacuate their city, in most cases with nothing but the 
clothes on their backs.
  In this photograph is Grand Forks, ND, and East Grand Forks, MN. It 
looks like a lake with buildings sticking out of the lake, a city 
completely inundated by a flood. A city of 50,000

[[Page S5401]]

people was on this side of the river, with 90 percent evacuated; 9,000 
people were on this side of the river, 100 percent evacuated. I might 
say that this whole area in Grand Forks, ND, will never again be 
inhabitable. All of these business places are ruined and will be 
destroyed.
  More than that, during the flood when the waters broke the dike, the 
city of Grand Forks also suffered a major fire, as depicted in this 
photograph. In the middle of flooding, you can see the firefighters of 
Grand Forks, ND, standing in the ice-cold water up to their wastes, 
fighting a fire, a fire that destroyed 11 of the larger downtown 
business buildings in Grand Forks, ND, and then spread to three blocks. 
They had to bring this firefighting material in with huge airplanes, 
dropping flame retardant on these buildings because they couldn't fight 
the fire from here. The firefighters didn't have the equipment to fight 
a fire in a flood. These firefighters, suffering from hypothermia, were 
using fire extinguishers to fight a fire in downtown Grand Forks, ND. 
Of course, they finally put the fire out.
  I was on a Coast Guard boat in Grand Forks, and as we went up and 
down the streets of Grand Forks, ND, here is what you saw, streets that 
looked like rivers and lakes, as shown in this photograph. 
Occasionally, you would see a car top sticking up. The boat I was on 
ran into a car. We could not see it, but we knew we ran into a car 
because we saw about two inches of a radio antenna sticking above the 
water. When I told the pilot of the boat, ``I think you ran into a 
car,'' he said, ``I guess so, but, you know, it wasn't there 
yesterday.'' What happened is that river was running so fast that it 
was taking cars underneath, and you could not see them moving all 
around that town, as the river destroyed the central core of that city. 
When the fire was finally put out in downtown Grand Forks, ND, here is 
part of what it looked like. It skipped over three different blocks, 
but you could see what it did to downtown Grand Forks, ND.
  Some say, well, that is quite a tragedy, but it happens other places 
in the country. I don't know of any other place in the country where 
they have suffered a circumstance where a major city was almost totally 
and completely evacuated and a major part of the city permanently and 
totally destroyed. In the middle of all of this, I went to North 
Dakota, and I was in North Dakota on almost all weekends. I went there 
with President Clinton on Air Force One during the middle of a week, on 
a Tuesday. He flew into Grand Forks, ND. While this city was evacuated, 
thousands of them were sent to Grand Forks AFB. They were put in giant 
airplane hangars where thousands of cots were set up, and that is where 
many of them slept overnight until they could find some other shelter 
to move to or some other family to take them in or to get 
transportation to a relative who lived in another city. ``Red Cross 
tops 1 million meals,'' the Grand Forks Herald says. ``How bad was our 
disaster? Let us count the meals.''

  People who one day had a home, had warmth, had shelter, had a stove 
and a refrigerator, a place for kids to come home to from school and a 
place to come to at the end of the work day, now had nothing. They were 
living on cots in an Air Force hangar and eating from the Red Cross 
shelter. And then, finally, the river went back into its bank. Here is 
what Grand Forks residents have come home to find: 600 homes totally 
destroyed that will never again be lived in. Another 600 to 800 homes 
were severely damaged.
  I don't know if many people know what a home looks like when it has 
been totally submerged in a flood. I was in a boat that was floating on 
top of the water at the rooftop level of most of these homes. These 
homes are totally destroyed and will never again be repaired. I have 
some more photographs here. Here is what a basement looks like.
  This is what happens out in the yard. They strip all the wallboard 
out of a home and all of the things that used to be their possessions 
and put them on the boulevard out in front. What used to be a nice 
street, where cars would drive up and down, is now on both sides of the 
street filled with trash, filled with the remnants of a home. You can 
only drive there one way, up and down. The garbage trucks come all day 
long, back and forth, trying to keep up to haul out this garbage.
  This home was totally submerged in water. When it came back to rest, 
it rested on top of an old Ford car. This picture shows a home sitting 
on top of a car. That is what floods do.
  This home was in the same neighborhood, and it just collapsed. It was 
brought up from its foundation and then collapsed.
  The Grand Forks Herald, in the midst of all of this, says, ``Here is 
why the Federal Government needs to pass disaster relief now.'' I have 
shown you the result of all of this. There is more. There is a problem 
that farmers and ranchers have--some are flat on their backs having 
lost their entire herds in the blizzard. But most urgent is the need to 
give the people who are trying to run these cities the resources so 
they can tell the people who are out of their homes, here is what your 
future is going to be. Regarding the 600 homes that are going to have 
to be bought out, the city needs to be able to say to those 600 
families, ``We are going to buy you out and create a new flood way.'' 
Under any definition, all of those 600 homes are in the flood way.
  So those 600 families are on hold now. One is living in a tent, by 
the way, in their yard--a tent--a mother, a father, and children, 
because they need to know what their future is going to be. They don't 
have any money, or a home, and they don't have a job. In this disaster 
bill are the resources that allow the city to say to those people, ``We 
are going to buy your home and establish a new flood plain and, with 
that commitment, you can now go and get another home.'' Until that 
happens and this bill is passed, those families' lives are on hold--600 
families just in that area, and the 800 homes that were severely 
damaged. Many of them will face a similar circumstance. All of their 
lives are on hold.
  We hear people around here say this, and I heard them last week and 
the week before saying that time doesn't matter, nothing is urgent, 
nothing can be done that isn't being done, there is money in the 
pipeline. You know, I have heard people like that before. They say, 
``My belt buckle was won in a rodeo,'' and they say, ``There is money 
in the pipeline.'' What a bunch of nonsense. The fact is that the money 
in this bill is critical. It deals with housing. This funding is what 
is necessary to give these people hope and to give the city the 
resources to allow them to move back into either their homes or a 
different home and get on with their lives.

  Until this bill is signed, until the bill is done, all of these 
people's lives are on hold. ``There is money in the pipeline,'' we are 
told. Yes, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has some 
money, but that is short-term emergency money. It is not the kind of 
money that will finally unlock the housing questions and jobs questions 
that are in front of all of these families. Until this bill gets passed 
and signed, none of these families will know what their future can be 
or is going to be. So those who stand here and say that there is money 
in the pipeline and there is nothing that can be done that isn't now 
being done, I say to them, you are wrong and you know it. If you don't 
know it, buy a plane ticket and fly to Grand Forks and talk to the 
flood victims that you are holding hostage. If you don't have the 
decency to do that, then stop talking about it, because you don't know 
what you are talking about.
  There is not money in the pipeline to deal with the emergency needs 
of these people. Every one in this Chamber has a responsibility to 
understand that. If they don't understand it, they will not talk about 
it. If Congress doesn't decide this week--and there is some indication 
it won't--to pass a disaster bill without continuing to play politics, 
then all of these people's lives will continue to be on hold for 
another week and another week and another week. In the midst of all of 
this, we will have, I suppose, the prospect of front page stories like, 
``Gingrich Vows Not to Yield on Disaster Bill.'' This says, ``After 
veto, GOP will send back same riders.''
  We have people who, a couple of years ago, waltzed around this town 
and boasted--and I can get you the quotes and the names and the days, 
but I will not do that at the moment--that

[[Page S5402]]

if they didn't get their way in this Congress or in the last Congress, 
they intended to shut down the Government. They boasted repeatedly, 
``Either we get our way or we will shut down the Government.'' They 
said, ``Frankly, nobody cares if we shut down the Government.'' Well, 
they boasted about it and they kept their word; they shut down the 
Government and they paid an enormous price for it.
  Now, some of those same people are trying to portray themselves as 
being opposed to shutting down the Government, so they want to attach 
an amendment to this disaster bill saying, we want to tell people that 
we are opposed to shutting down the Government. The amendment has 
nothing to do with this bill--totally extraneous and unrelated. But 
they want to use this bill to say we are opposed to shutting down the 
Government. The amendment by which they do that is controversial, and I 
am not going to get into the merits of that. Frankly, I care less about 
the merits of that than do some other people. But as was demonstrated 
by my comments about the disaster relief when Hurricane Andrew hit 
Florida, a disaster bill that was passed in less than a month--in fact, 
in about 2 weeks after President Bush sent it up. As was shown by that, 
it is unusual for people around here to believe it is appropriate to 
play politics on a disaster bill.
  In most cases when you are talking about disaster aid, you are 
talking about victims. When you are talking about victims, in most 
cases, politics takes a back seat. Members of the House and the 
Senate--Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals--don't think 
much about politics in those cases. They say we have had people who 
were victims and had tough times through an act of nature, who have 
been dealt a bad blow, who are homeless, hopeless, helpless, and whose 
families are jobless and who need us to say, ``You are not alone, let 
us help you.'' And in almost all cases, the Congress has reached out a 
helping hand and said, ``Here is a disaster bill we are going to pass 
and we are going to do it on a timely basis to try to give hope to 
those people who are victims.''
  In every case that I have recalled since I have been here, whether it 
was the earthquake victims of California, or the hurricanes in Florida, 
or tornadoes, or blizzards, or floods, I have felt that the taxpayers 
of North Dakota want us to say: Let us help.
  Let's reach out and provide the helping hand; extend the hand of 
friendship and the hand of help to say that the rest of the country 
wants to join you in helping you get back on your feet.
  For years we have had disaster bills move through the Congress 
without someone saying, ``I have a new idea. Why don't I try to jam up 
the disaster bill with a very controversial issue and shove it down the 
President's throat? Why don't we try to do that? So what if the victims 
are hurt by that? So what? They are just from North Dakota.'' Or, as 
this paper says, people will forget by the next election. ``So what?''
  What a hard-headed, cold-hearted attitude for people to take on a 
disaster bill. I can't remember when I have been as disappointed in the 
behavior of Congress as on this bill.
  Last evening, after the basketball game, the Chicago Bulls and the 
Utah Jazz promoted during the second half of that game a new television 
sitcom, I guess--I don't know. I have never seen it, probably never 
will, certainly don't intend to. If I do, it will be by accident. But 
the title was ``Men Behaving Badly.'' ``Men Behaving Badly.'' I 
thought, that could describe what I am going to face tomorrow in the 
Senate again. And someone said, ``Well, but the Senate is more than 
just men.'' That is true, and it is a better place because of it. But I 
don't see anyone other than some prominent leaders out here leading in 
a direction that is counterproductive, and it is behaving badly.
  There is an easy way for us to solve this problem. Today, Monday, 
thousands of people in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks woke up not in 
their homes--some in camper trailers, some in tents, some in motels, 
some in shelters, some in neighboring towns, some in acquaintances' 
homes, some in relatives' homes. They woke up not in their own homes 
and not in their own beds because they do not have a home. Most of them 
don't have a job. What they have is a wait on their hands waiting for 
the Congress and for their city to make a decision about their future.
  Why is it up to us to make a decision? Because we have in this bill 
the resources that will allow those two cities to describe a new 
floodplain and buy out some of these homes and give people an 
opportunity to create a new future. But today, on Monday, they woke up 
probably feeling as anxious and as angry about this as I did, 
wondering: What on Earth are people thinking about trying to create a 
major political issue over a disaster bill?
  Madam President, this weekend in the middle of this debate the 
Republican National Committee was on the radio in North Dakota with 
paid radio ads on this issue. Why would the Republican National 
Committee be doing paid radio ads about this issue? Because this is 
now, and has always been, according to leadership and the Republican 
National Committee, a political issue. From their point of view, the 
point seems to be to add extraneous and unrelated issues to this bill, 
and then try and shove it down the President's throat.
  You know. The shoe is going to be on the other foot someday. Someday 
somebody else is going to have a disaster. Somebody else is going to do 
to them what is now being done to the people of this region. And then 
they are going to complain about it, and say, ``How can you do that?'' 
I am not going to do it to them because I have not done that since I 
came to Congress, and I will not do it in the future. I will not play 
politics with the lives of people who have been victimized by national 
disasters. But someone will again in the future because the precedent 
is now established that it is just fine to do. It is OK. Get a disaster 
bill, and then get the national political committee of whichever party 
involved and start doing radio ads creating an advantage, and have the 
Speaker go to the Editorial Board and say, ``We are not going to yield 
on this issue.'' Besides, it is just a bunch of folks up there in that 
territory; and says, ``Voters will not remember this standoff over the 
supplemental appropriations at the ballot box.''
  Well, I am appalled by what we are facing here. And I don't know what 
we expect this week.
  And I am not the only one who is appalled. I have here an article 
from the Sioux Falls, SD, paper. The headline reads, about the Governor 
of South Dakota, Governor Janklow, who is a Republican: ``Janklow Slams 
GOP on disaster-aid bill.'' The article goes on to say, ``Misguided 
Republican strategy will make Congress look bad.''

  Governor Janklow has it right.
  This is not, and should not be, a bill on which the two parties play 
a game of political Ping-Pong. This ought to be a disaster bill that 
provides relief to victims.
  So, Madam President, in the remaining days of this week I urge 
Members of the leadership here in the Congress to give us an 
opportunity to pass a disaster bill that does not contain extraneous or 
unrelated issues that are controversial. Give us an opportunity to pass 
a piece of legislation like that, have the President sign it, and have 
those people who are now wondering about their future who suffered 
through significant disasters, blizzards, floods, and fires to be able 
to understand disaster aid is on the way with the President's 
signature, that aid begins to move, decisions will be able to be made, 
and people's lives will be able to begin to move on as if normal again. 
But that can only happen if Members of the House and the Senate decide 
that they will forgo the opportunity to play politics with the disaster 
bill.
  Madam President, the Fargo Forum, which is a newspaper in North 
Dakota, wrote an editorial. This is North Dakota's largest paper. ``Act 
now on flood relief bill. More than 6 weeks ago the flood-ravaged Red 
River Valley just wanted to be left high and dry * * * [In] an ironic 
perversion of the wish, Congress acted or failed to act.'' The ``Red 
River Valley just wanted to be left high and dry.'' Well, it is high 
and dry all right.
  The point of their editorial is that Congress needs to act now. This 
is not a case where a week from now, or a month from now it is just 
fine. This is

[[Page S5403]]

urgent. This is an urgent need, and Congress needs to act now.
  The Grand Forks Herald is the newspaper of a city of 50,000 people. 
Every day since Congress took the Memorial Day recess at the front of 
their masthead they say, ``10 Days Since Congress Let Us Down.'' I 
suppose it is now 18 days since the House adjourned without passing the 
disaster bill. The editorial makes the point, and every citizen in 
Grand Forks makes the point, that Congress ought to move on this 
disaster bill and move now.
  On March 19 the President sent his request to Congress. When the 
flood occurred and the President went to Grand Forks, ND, and spoke to 
several thousand people in an airplane hangar at the Grand Forks Air 
Force Base, he made the point that he was seeking a significant 
disaster relief bill and that he hoped that Congress would not add 
extraneous or unrelated amendments to the bill. What he hoped would not 
happen has happened. The result has now been substantial delay--at 
least 3 weeks' delay, and probably more.
  Madam President, my desire would be that everyone call a political 
truce, that we simply recognize that the disaster bill is to respond to 
disasters, and that the way to provide hope and help to the victims of 
the disasters is to pass a bill without the major areas of controversy 
that have now been sent to the President.


                       Unanimous-Consent Request

  Madam President, for all these reasons, I now send to the desk a 
clean supplemental appropriations bill for myself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
Wellstone, and Mr. Johnson.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
the consideration of Calendar No. 18, H.R. 581; that all after the 
enacting clause be stricken, and that the text of the clean 
supplemental appropriations bill that I just sent to the desk be 
inserted in lieu thereof, that the bill be passed, and that the motion 
to reconsider be laid on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me describe what it is I was just 
proposing. The major items of controversy that now exist in the 
legislation the President vetoed are the so-called anti-Government 
shutdown provision--the so-called continuing resolution provision--and 
the census issue.

  I know the President in his veto message was going to object to more 
than those two. The bill that I sent to the desk and asked unanimous 
consent be considered was the conference report that was agreed to in 
both the House and the Senate, with the anti-Government shutdown 
provision and the census provision removed.
  The shutdown provision has substantial amounts of controversy 
attached to it. I have no objection at all for that to be considered at 
any time. I just do not think it ought to be considered on a disaster 
bill.
  My bill removes the census portion of the disaster bill. I do not 
object that the Senate consider the census provision at some point. But 
there are plenty of other opportunities to consider it. As soon as the 
President signs the bill and disaster aid begins to flow, we will have 
other bills come to the floor of the Senate. My understanding is that 
there was a proposal to be brought to the floor of the Senate tomorrow. 
Both of these issues could be offered as amendments to that bill. I 
have no objection to that. If somebody wants to offer that, let's offer 
that and have a debate. I have no objection nor concern about that.
  I just do not want these provisions to be provisions that 
interminably delay a disaster bill which should have passed, now it is 
3 weeks ago.
  If the newspaper reports are correct, it looks like this issue will 
not be resolved this week, nor probably next week.
  How long do victims of a disaster have to wait? When will Congress 
understand its obligation, and the historical approach of dealing with 
disaster bills, of not adding highly controversial issues to a bill 
that deals with disasters?
  It seems to me that this should be a time for cooler heads to 
prevail; a time for both sides to back away a bit and decide to pass 
the disaster bill without these provisions.
  I have taken the time again today simply to attempt to describe what 
our region of the country is faced with, to describe why we are upset 
and angry about what has happened to this piece of legislation. And I 
will no doubt be on the floor additional times today and during this 
week.
  I hope that in the coming couple of hours Members of Congress will 
decide this is not a strategy that does anything other than hurt 
victims of a disaster.
  Does it help the political party? I don't think so. I mean, I guess 
that is why a political party would run ads over this weekend in my 
State, because they think they are being helped by it. I don't think 
anybody is being helped by it. I think the net result is that victims 
of a disaster get hurt.
  I mean, if there are some who do not care who gets hurt as you march 
toward a political victory, that is one thing. But I don't think this 
is marching toward anything but chaos in any event, and I think it is 
clear who is getting hurt. Victims of the disaster are getting hurt.
  I started today with a description of Ranee Steffan, who is living in 
a camper trailer, has been for some while, perhaps will be for some 
while, with her kids. She does not want much. She, her family, and her 
children want a job because she doesn't have a job, because most of the 
businesses in this area have been closed--wants a job and a home. She 
wants decisions to be made that will allow that to happen in her city, 
and in her community. And until this piece of legislation passes that 
cannot happen.
  On behalf of Ranee Steffan, and so many other thousands of families 
whose lives are on hold, I hope very much that both sides of the aisle 
will decide to pass a disaster bill free from contentious unrelated 
political matters. We need to get aid to those who need it as quickly 
as is possible.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________