[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 80 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5470-S5475]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record at this point the list of some of the extraneous items that 
have been added to this bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        [In millions of dollars]

Highway trust fund.................................................$694
Title 1 grants (poor and disadvantaged schools).....................101
VA compensation (mandatory).........................................932
WIC..................................................................58
Botanical Gardens....................................................33
Law Enforcement Commission............................................2
Breast cancer research...............................................15
Retired Coast Guard pay...............................................9
Olympics counterterrorism fund........................................3
Indian health.........................................................3
California vineyards..................................................9
Customs Service expenses.............................................16
VA parking garage, Cleveland, OH.....................................12

  Mr. LOTT. I note the figure I used on the parking garage in 
Cleveland, OH, was not the accurate number. It is actually $12 million. 
It also has other interesting things in here, including $3 million for 
the Olympics counterterrorism fund, $3 million for Indian health care, 
$9 million for California vineyards.
  These may all be good programs and all deserving, but I wonder how 
they found their way into this supplemental appropriations bill.
  Also, I was here during the 1980's and early 1990's. I remember how 
supplementals worked. Unfortunately, I used to plead with President 
Reagan not to send supplemental requests up here because I knew it 
would become a freight train pulling all kinds of things through. I 
remember Presidents of both parties objecting to things that Congress 
added to the supplemental appropriations bills. The one we had June 30, 
1989, I see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine add-
ons. Some are not exactly insignificant, either, like East European 
refugee assistance, foreign aid to Haiti, funds for the Washington 
Convention Center. The supplemental appropriations also had about nine 
add-ons, including renewing section 8 housing contracts.
  Remember, supplementals are always alleged to be--while they may not 
all be natural disasters--they are always alleged to be somewhat 
emergency, or otherwise they would not be coming to the floor of the 
Congress saying, ``Give us some more money.'' Most administrations and 
Congress always underfund food stamp programs, knowing full well we 
will come back next year and add more money to it.
  Again, some of this is pretty significant legislation and pretty 
costly, also.
  The same thing again in 1991 and 1994. There is always language that 
is added. There is always funding that is added to these bills beyond 
what was originally requested. So, to infer that this is really 
something new or different is not the case.
  Now, what I maintain is different here, if I could make this point.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to respond if I could make this point.
  When I have suggested, and others have suggested, let's work together 
to work this out, I give credit to the Democratic leader. He has always 
been willing to listen, and I think that some of the things we have 
suggested he has been willing to think about and discuss with his 
colleagues. And he, like I, we cannot always say it will be this way or 
that way. We have a conference we deal with and you have an 
administration that you have to deal with. I have asked the President 
and his chief of staff, ``Please respond. Come back. Let's see if we 
cannot work this out.'' Basically, what they are saying is, ``Give us 
the money and no language. We want it our way and no other way.'' It 
does not work that way.
  However, in the realization and in recognition of the need for some 
of this to be done, I am advocating while we continue to work on that, 
that we do a smaller bill that would address some of the concerns that 
the Senator from South Dakota has.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota, if I could.
  Mr. DORGAN. I very much appreciate that.
  Mr. LOTT. Only for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader yields for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator from Mississippi yielding for a 
question.
  I ask the Senator if it is not unusual when very controversial 
amendments are added to disaster bills. I have been around here for 
some while, as well, and it is clear there have been on the other side 
of the aisle disaster bills, but not in my memory have very 
controversial measures been added to disaster bills that attract a 
Presidential veto and thereby delay or derail the bill.
  It seems there are two ways out of this. I ask the Senator from 
Mississippi

[[Page S5471]]

about both of them. One approach to resolve this issue is an approach 
that I offered this morning on the floor by unanimous consent, and the 
Senator from Minnesota has also, I believe, suggested something 
similar, and that would be to simply take the two big controversial 
items out of this, pass the bill, get a Presidential signature and get 
disaster aid to the victims of disasters.
  The second approach is an approach that the Senator from Mississippi 
seemed to suggest a few moments ago, and I would like to ask a question 
about that. As the Senator from Mississippi will recall, about 2\1/2\ 
weeks ago, just prior to the Congress breaking for the Memorial Day 
recess, there was some discussion that if the larger bill cannot go, at 
least extract the body of real disaster aid and allow that to happen 
quickly. Now, that could happen this afternoon if others around here 
believe----
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator would yield, I have been an advocate of 
doing that for probably about 3 weeks, and I would entertain doing it. 
I tell you why I said it to Senator Daschle earlier today, so that we 
can do something quickly. Even if we came to an agreement here in the 
next 24 hours on how we would do this, it would still have to go 
through the committees and both floors, with amendments in order. It 
would take time.

  This approach that you are suggesting, and I am suggesting, could 
take 24 hours if we put our heads to it, and we could go on and 
continue to work and think about the additional money. And the 
language, keep it in mind now, I do not know how much they are worried 
about some of these other issues, but I have the impression from the 
administration that they have a couple of other issues that they are 
very, very interested in. So it is not just two.
  But I am interested in, and I would like to work that out, and, 
again, we would have to do it over here, and we would have to get it 
done on the other side of the Capitol and the President would have to 
be willing to sign it.
  I think that approach makes sense--that is all I am saying. Common 
sense around here usually works pretty darn good.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further for an additional 
question, we had someone on the other side of the Capitol suggest prior 
to the weekend break, if this does not get resolved the way we--that 
being them--want it, we may very well cut the amount of disaster aid 
that is available to victims of disaster. Over the weekend in North 
Dakota, we had a lot of folks reacting to that with some real quaking, 
wondering, what does this mean? I hope that cooler heads will prevail 
and some common sense will prevail.
  I assume there has not been that discussion here in the Senate. We 
had bipartisan cooperation putting together the disaster portion of the 
bill, and for that we are very thankful. The trick now, the goal now, 
is to get that aid to people who woke up this morning and who are 
homeless, not just dozens but thousands of them, and the Senator 
suggests an approach I would support, and that is to take those 
portions of the bill that represent the aid that is necessary to go to 
disasters to help get their life back in order and pass that.
  I ask the Senator----
  Mr. LOTT. If I could----
  Mr. DORGAN. I just ask if we could assume, with your willingness to 
do that rather quickly, what kind of impediments does the Senator see 
to having that get to the President for his signature in the next 24 
hours or so?
  Mr. LOTT. I think that could be done quickly. It would take--I don't 
think it could get done right here and how. I'd like to talk further 
with your leader. One of the problems with the appropriations is they 
generally begin on the other side. But in furtherance of what you are 
saying, I have discussed this this morning with the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee here in the Senate and with the Speaker of the 
House. I presume he is consulting with his chairman and others. So I 
think this is the process by which we might move pretty quickly.

  I think there are opponents to this. There are urgent things sort of 
now with regard to some of the disaster programs--perhaps some of the 
housing programs, perhaps some of the agriculture. There is a need to 
get this done as soon as possible because of weather considerations and 
so forth.
  There is a second and third component. There are some other parts of 
it, some money that will need to be available and that will be 
available for months and even years down the line.
  So there are really two parts of it. The part that is somewhat in the 
emergency category is different from what we usually have because you 
are talking about some new programs and some new ideas--which I think 
have some attractiveness, by the way. I have said that publicly and to 
the people from your States; I think it is the way to go. I think it 
would save money if we can find a way to move people out of what you 
call the flood way--what we call the floodplain in my neck of the 
woods--into areas where they will not be flooded year after year. That 
would wind up in the long run saving money.
  So there is that part.
  Then there is the funding for the longer term which could be 
available maybe for your State and may be available for other States as 
we look at these various disasters.
  I will yield to the Senator from Missouri. But let me wrap this up. I 
am ready. I am willing. And I want to work with you to see if we can't 
do it that way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to ask the majority leader a 
series of questions that I think are necessary to clarify where we 
stand. I apologize for not being on the floor when he began.
  I have the responsibility for the subcommittee that appropriates 
money for FEMA. I wonder--as has been made clear on the floor, the 
emergency money is now flowing. There is money --$2 billion in FEMA--
that is going for the immediate needs right now. So there is money 
which can be paid out right now prior to the issuance of the completion 
of plans and assessments being available.
  Is that clear? Has that been made clear?
  Mr. LOTT. That has not been made clear, if I could respond to the 
question in this discussion. But I think repeatedly it has been noted 
that there is money in the pipeline. The distinguished Senator from 
Missouri is the chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction in 
that area. He knows what is available and what should be available to 
FEMA for housing-type programs. Clearly those funds are flowing. We do 
need to prospectively for the future have additional funds. But the 
money is there.
  I have spoken to the head of FEMA, James Lee Witt, to ask him that 
specific question. I have asked him, ``Do you need to do something 
more; something different? You do have the money, don't you? You do 
have temporary housing available, don't you? If you do not, we would 
like to help make sure that you have that temporary housing money 
available and the temporary housing available.''
  So I think the Senator makes a very good point.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. If I could ask another question----
  Mr. LOTT. If I could take another question, then I will go back to 
the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. BOND. It has been made clear to our colleagues and to the people 
viewing this that before major disaster relief can start flowing, there 
has to be damage assessments. I guess it is the understanding of the 
majority leader that they are at least 2 weeks away from getting the 
damage assessments. The State has to have a plan submitted and approved 
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Dollars then go to the 
State from FEMA and from the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. Is it the clear understanding that this is a long process 
which is not being held up during this day or tomorrow, but the money 
is needed, and we will provide it? But the time required to get the 
plans in place still has not been completed.
  Is that the understanding?
  Mr. LOTT. In answer to the Senator's question, that is my 
understanding. I have been through these disaster situations. I know 
there is a painful period during which you must have assessments and 
you must have plans. It is the most difficult time of all. It is 
actually worse a month after a disaster

[[Page S5472]]

than it is the day after, in some respects. Or certainly after 6 months 
you begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel.
  We checked this morning from the staff standpoint with regard to FEMA 
funds available. I understand there is $1.5 billion available as of 
this morning.
  So there are funds available, and they are, I believe, probably 
flowing to the various States that have been affected.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. I have one final question to the majority leader. I very 
much appreciate his efforts to bring up the Birth Defects Prevention 
Act, which would deal with a very serious problem of 150,000 babies 
being born each year with birth defects in this country. We would like 
to go to it.

  It is my understanding that, even if there were no other measure on 
the floor, the supplemental appropriations bill would have to come over 
from the House. There is no reason to filibuster or delay the Birth 
Defects Prevention Act, because taking care of this bill this afternoon 
will in no way delay the disaster. It will deal with the disaster of 
birth defects which we can deal with today without slowing down any 
supplemental emergency appropriations.
  Is that correct?
  Mr. LOTT. In answer to the Senator's question, it is absolutely 
right.
  I thank the Senator from Missouri for his work on this legislation. 
He has worked for a good long while and with the help of a lot of other 
Senators.
  He is absolutely right, also, that we have tried this afternoon, 
during which time we can do this birth defects legislation while we see 
if we can work out some agreement or some emergency disaster bill. It 
would have to pass the House. Also, in connection with the Senator's 
stand, we want to talk about the supplemental.
  I am prepared to work with the Senator from South Dakota to make sure 
we have adequate time later on this afternoon and tonight to have a 
full discussion.
  I thought last week having protracted discussion would have been 
counterproductive to trying to get an agreement, to get it completed. 
If the Senators feel strongly that they want time to do that tonight, 
my advice is to accommodate you in that effort. Of course, we will want 
Senators from our side of the aisle to have equal time or opportunity 
to speak also.
  I thank the Senator for his questions. I know he is prepared and 
ready to go to the birth defects legislation.
  Mr. President, I am glad to yield to the Senator from North Dakota 
for a question only.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the majority leader.
  Mr. President, is the majority leader aware that over the weekend on 
this question of the money in the pipeline that the Republican 
Congressman from Minnesota said this: ``Those who argue there is money 
in the pipeline are being disingenuous, at best. There is no money for 
housing, for livestock, sewerage systems, water supply, housing 
buyouts. There is no money in the pipeline for those things. They can't 
really rebuild without the funds that are tied up in the disaster 
relief bill.''
  I would like to ask further, is the majority leader aware of what the 
Republican Governor of South Dakota said on this question? Janklow 
said, ``The delay in the legislation is blocking reconstruction of 
sewerage facilities, highways, and a state-owned rail line in South 
Dakota.''
  He went on to say, ``I am not going to award contracts on the come. 
I'm not a fool.''
  Janklow said, ``What happens if we award a contract and we don't have 
the money for it?''
  Finally, I ask if the majority leader is aware that the mayor of 
Grand Forks has now written letters to the Senate and said the same 
thing and asked that the emergency provisions be stripped out--that is, 
the disaster provisions--and be passed so that in fact the aid can 
flow.
  Is the Senator aware of those developments over the weekend: the 
Republican Congressman from Minnesota saying the money is not flowing 
in those specific areas; the Republican Governor of South Dakota saying 
the same thing; and, finally, the mayor of Grand Forks asking that we 
move the disaster provisions as expeditiously as possible because they 
are not getting the aid they desperately need?
  Mr. LOTT. As a matter of fact, if I could respond to the question and 
comments, the Senator is suggesting right there at the end that we try 
to move the emergency disaster portion of this as expeditiously as 
possible. I suggested a way we can do that.
  I want to remind the Senator also that this additional funding and 
authorization, I believe, would be available--would have been available 
yesterday--if the President had signed the bill, a bill that 67 
Senators voted for. It would have been available yesterday just like 
that. But the President of the United States vetoed it because of 
language that he is not happy with, and, I repeat, a bill that got 67 
Senators to vote for it, including, I think, a majority or very close 
to a majority of Democrats. I know why. And I know that there are some 
areas where the youth program is being suggested, and I hope we can 
find a way to move that expeditiously, as has been suggested.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a further question?
  Mr. LOTT. I understand we can't use these dollars until the plans are 
available to use them. Anyway, we are still waiting on plans from FEMA 
or from the States.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes; I am glad to yield for a question only.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I could ask the Senator, with this question of the 
money in the FEMA pipeline, is the Senator aware that there are other 
pipelines that deliver assistance that in fact don't have money in 
them? That is, housing doesn't have money in their pipeline, 
agriculture doesn't have money in their pipeline. So the reference to 
FEMA is very limited with respect to those parts of disaster relief 
that they address.
  Mr. LOTT. In responding to the question, there are perhaps some 
programs or agencies that may not have specific disaster funds. I know 
that the Senator from South Dakota has advocated something new or 
different with regard to livestock, if that is an accurate way to put 
it.
  I know that agriculture has a good bit of money that they could use 
in a variety of ways that would be helpful. But, as I understand it, 
this would be a new program which I am sympathetic to. But before any 
of this is done, I repeat once again, there has to be a plan.
  I just say to my colleagues here again that as soon as we complete 
this dialog and then we hear from others who are awaiting to speak from 
both sides of the aisle, including the Senator from Minnesota, who 
wishes to be heard, I will be glad to talk further with the Senators 
from North Dakota, Minnesota, and South Dakota, or any other States. We 
can talk about how we can do this thing expeditiously while we continue 
to work on the bigger package.
  Also, I would like to note, if I could, that we hope to move other 
issues in the days ahead.
  I mentioned that I believe we hope to consider the State Department 
authorization bill next week, as well as the DOD authorization bill. We 
need to get this resolved as soon as we can so we can get on to those 
important issues.
  I understand that my Democratic colleagues have also objected to the 
permission of committees to meet during today's session. One of those 
committees, which is very important, is the Armed Services Committee. 
The Armed Services Committee is marking up the Department of Defense 
authorization bill for the next fiscal year.
  This year, unlike a lot of past years, I had the impression that the 
DOD authorization bill and the Armed Services Committee marking up is 
going smoothly and that it is not going to be as controversial as it 
has been in the past; that we may have one or two big amendments, but 
that this is something we can do in a relatively short period of time--
perhaps 3 days.
  The Armed Services Committee had three subcommittee meetings planned 
today in an effort to prepare or report the Department of Defense 
authorization bill.
  I really regret that objection. Needless to say, this objection to 
committee meetings will only delay and hamper their ability to report 
this bill.
  Then, of course, during the week of the 23d, the Senate will consider 
both

[[Page S5473]]

reconciliation bills, both the spending restraint and realignment-of-
spending bill. And the tax legislation will be reported out of the 
Finance Committee.
  So we are going to have long days and nights ahead of us. I want the 
Members to be on notice that we must get this work done before our 
Fourth of July recess. Therefore, in anticipation of that, Senators 
should be prepared to be here at least next week throughout all of the 
week and probably the next week, too. The objection to the birth 
defects bill, as well as the provisions for committees to meet, will 
only make these last few weeks even longer.
  I understand what you are trying to accomplish here. I hope that we 
can find a way to allow the committees to meet, and I hope to do that 
later on this afternoon.
  Then I would like also to talk to the Senator from South Dakota the 
Democratic leader about exactly what we need to do in terms of debate 
tonight and how long you are thinking about. Also, I need to talk to 
all of you about how we can move something very quickly and 
expeditiously.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield to Senator Sarbanes for the purpose 
of a question only.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator agree with me that all Members of the 
Senate have an interest in making sure that this disaster relief is 
provided to the people who have been hit by this extraordinary national 
disaster, and that there is a constant reference to the Senators from 
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota? Of course, they have been 
most immediately impacted, but it seems to me that every Member of the 
Senate has an interest in responding to this.
  Mr. LOTT. In response to that question, why, of course. We all have 
that interest. As a matter of fact, 35 States have had some amount of 
disasters--whether it is flooding, freezes, or whatever it may be--
including my own State, in which I think for three or four counties a 
request was made by our Governor to have disaster assistance available, 
which I might note has been turned down by FEMA even though the State 
right across the river, which was also flooded, was approved.
  But in answer to the Senator's question, the Senate, the Congress, 
has always shown a desire to, as a matter fact, address natural 
disasters; and also a desire to avoid manmade disasters like the 
fiascoes we have had 11 times since 1981 of Government shutdowns that 
also cause people pain and suffering and loss of their jobs and income. 
So, yes, I feel that sympathy. I have been through it. I have been 
through hurricanes, tornadoes, freezes, droughts----

  Mr. SARBANES. That is the other question.
  Mr. LOTT. Ice on the trees, endless amounts, and we have always been 
sympathetic to each other, and we are this time. We are this time. We 
are going to provide the disaster assistance the people in the affected 
States need. We are going to do it.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield? Can we do it today?
  Mr. LOTT. The question is, how do we do it.
  Mr. CONRAD. Can we do it today?
  Mr. LOTT. I hope so. I would like to do that. But we can do it one or 
two ways. We can do sort of the new portion, the emergency portion, or 
we can work out an agreement on the bigger package. And I am ready to 
do either one of those. I think we can do it once we make up our minds 
to do it.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for one further question?
  Mr. LOTT. I will yield.
  Mr. SARBANES. I recall the Senator's own State was struck with a 
disaster.
  Mr. LOTT. We have had them all. We have had them all.
  Mr. SARBANES. We had a major hurricane, and I remember voting to send 
disaster relief to the Senator's State in order to meet that situation. 
I don't recall it being caught up in these kinds of delays.
  Mr. LOTT. Well, understand once again----
  Mr. SARBANES. In personal disaster relief.
  Mr. LOTT. There seems to be an abundance of selective memory around 
here. I remember--in fact, I have been through how that disaster 
legislation has worked. In fact, I was a staff member one time on the 
biggest one of all where we did not have FEMA. We did not have existing 
law. In fact, if you go back and look at the history of what has led to 
FEMA, it was in legislation we drafted in 1969. The disaster occurred 
August 18, as I recall it was, something like that, and we had to rely 
on the Corps of Engineers and people, volunteers to come in and help 
us. It was weeks, weeks before we got the legislation and, in fact, got 
many of the programs to help us. In fact, we did not have a lot of the 
programs that are now on the books.
  I am not saying that that is good. I think we have learned from that 
experience.
  Mr. SARBANES. I hope so.
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad we have been through that, and now we are going 
to provide, as we always have, the assistance that is needed to the 
people in America who cannot help themselves.
  There is one thing that worries me about part of this bill. There is 
a lot of spending in here that does not relate to these disasters. It 
has just sort of been added as it's gone along, and I am not putting 
that just on Democrats either. A lot of these projects, if I go down 
the list, I can trace them back to some of my colleagues. But we are 
going to get this done. We can do the emergency stuff, and we can do 
the bigger package.
  But right now everybody is trying to find a way to prevail or to 
claim victory or to get the PR victory, and I am not--I did not say 
you. I said we. And when we decide, once we make up our minds we are 
going to get this done, short term or long term, we are going to find a 
way to do it. But the fact is, as has always been the case--and it will 
be this time--the people who have been hurt and hit with these 
disasters in a variety of States are going to get the help they need.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for one final question?
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield for a question from the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the majority leader. Let me see if I 
understand what the majority leader said, and I think I do. I expect it 
to be a friendly question.
  Mr. LOTT. I would not expect it to be any other way from the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The majority leader keeps saying he is determined to 
get this assistance to the people and he is determined to try and get 
this done this week. Have I heard that correctly?
  Mr. LOTT. I would like very much to be able to do that. It is going 
to take more than just me though. But that is my desire.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand. But the reason I ask the majority leader 
this, since he is the majority leader, is that--and I put this in the 
form of a question. Is the majority leader aware--and I believe you are 
because I think that, agree or disagree on issues, you are very adept 
at sort of understanding the mood of people in Mississippi or for that 
matter in the country--is the majority leader aware that the people in 
our States are just getting sick and tired of it all and they do not 
understand all the debate about census and all the debate about 
continuing resolution and all the rest; they do not mind our having 
separate debate on that and they understand there are disagreements. 
They do not understand why we just cannot get a clean disaster relief 
bill to them.

  Can the majority leader commit to us that that is what we will do 
this week, get a clean disaster relief bill that will provide the 
assistance to people that need it and we will get it done this week? 
Can the majority leader make that commitment?
  Mr. LOTT. I say again I would like that to happen. I am hopeful, and 
I believe we can get a clean bill through this week but it will not be 
$8.6 billion. It would be only--the only chance we have to do that, 
what you are suggesting at this point, would be the truly emergency 
portions of the bill.
  Now, we may also get an agreement on the bigger package and language 
that would be attached to it, but based on what I have experienced 
during the last 4 days, I think that is going to take a little longer.
  Keep in mind now, I have not been up in Minneapolis, MN, or the delta 
of

[[Page S5474]]

Mississippi and not thinking about this. I have been on the phone. I 
have been probing. I have suggested a variety of ways to solve these 
problems. I did it on Friday. I did it on Monday. I did it last night. 
I am trying to find a way to solve this problem, and I am open to 
suggestions with regard to the census language, for instance. I confess 
this openly here because I am not ashamed of it at all. I went to the 
Democratic leader, and I said I think you see what our concerns are. Is 
there some language that you all could live with?
  This is not insignificant. When you talk about changing the way the 
census is done, this is not without major implications. We do have 
language in the Constitution with regard to the census. I talked to the 
Secretary of Commerce this very morning. I am not sitting over in a 
corner just trying to outlast you guys. I have talked to FEMA, the head 
of FEMA. I have talked to the Secretary of Commerce. I have talked to 
the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States. I have talked 
to the President of the United States, the Democratic leadership, the 
Speaker of the House.
  This morning I was talking to the Secretary of Commerce. I said one 
of the things--or he suggested one of the things we might do would be 
to set up a process where there could be a quick judicial determination 
of this constitutional question.
  That is important. And census is important for more than just how you 
count. It is also important from the standpoint of how many 
representatives a State has--very important. It also has a great impact 
on how you get Federal funds. I have towns in my State of Mississippi, 
and I know it is true in Minnesota, that because of the census count, 
either undercounting or not proper counting programs, that are not 
eligible as far as some of our Federal programs, some of the Federal 
grants and loans, and so this is very important for a long time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Last question.
  Mr. LOTT. Sure. I will be glad to yield further for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will not hold the floor any longer. I just want to 
say to the majority leader I am a little troubled by the very lengthy 
explanation on the census count only because again I think the question 
that we have put to the majority leader is why not take that issue, 
around which there is disagreement, and debate it separately and why 
not take the issue of appropriations bills and the continuing 
resolution and debate it separately? But that is what we do not agree 
on. That is controversial. We can have an honest debate. Why link it to 
what should be a disaster relief bill----
  Mr. LOTT. I have an answer.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Providing assistance to people in our States?
  Mr. LOTT. I have two answers to that question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Does the majority leader understand that in our 
States----
  Mr. LOTT. I have two answers.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. People do not care a lot about what the majority 
leader is talking about; they have got a whole lot of pain they are 
dealing with. We want to get help to them. Can we get the commitment to 
get help to them?
  Mr. LOTT. As a matter of fact, I have two answers. I have suggested 
to you today, to the leader on your side of the aisle and the Senators 
from North Dakota, there is a way we can get the emergency funding and 
do it quickly if we make up our minds and are determined to do that 
while we continue to work on the solutions here.
  But the other point with regard to the census, the reason why I make 
the explanation is to show once again an abundance--we can solve this. 
We can solve this problem, but there is a reason why we have to do it 
now. The die is being cast; the Census Bureau and the Department of 
Commerce have indicated we are going to do this. And if we wait until 
October to deal with this issue, we are going to be in a position of 
having to reverse something that is already set in place. They are 
getting ready to do it. So we do not have the luxury of saying, well, 
we will pick up on this in July or September or October. It would be a 
fait accompli by then.

  So that is a consideration. But we will continue to work on that, and 
we will find--I think we can find a way to do this this afternoon.
  Does the Senator from North Dakota wish to ask another question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes. I do not want something the Senator said a moment 
ago to stand here and be misinterpreted. The Senator indicated 
potential existed--in the past some kind of emergency provision--that 
it would not be $8.6 billion. I want to make clear--I assume you do not 
mean, as some have suggested on the other side, that, well, if we come 
back to disaster relief, the folks who are waiting for that relief are 
going to get a whole lot less relief because we are going to cut it. 
That has been the implication by some.
  Now, we have had agreement on the disaster package in this 
legislation. There has been no disagreement. Republicans and Democrats 
have agreed. We have put it in. It is done except it has not gotten 
through to the President for his signature. But I assume the Senator 
from Mississippi supports the full complement of disaster relief that 
is in the bill and is not in any way saying that he would at some point 
revisit and diminish the amount of disaster relief in the bill. Could 
you clear that up?
  Mr. LOTT. I am not here to negotiate the exact amount. I think we 
have to work with the committee.
  Mr. DORGAN. That is not what I am asking.
  Mr. LOTT. Well, I am trying to answer the question. I am not going to 
say here that it is going to be--I do not know, for instance, what the 
exact amount is, what the total amount is that would be alleged to, or 
would be needed for the disaster assistance, so how can I say what the 
number would finally be? But I am prepared to say this, that there is a 
difference between the total amount that is requested over a period of 
months and years for disaster and those parts of it that are urgent, 
that need to be addressed now, and that is the part I am really focused 
on. But I am not prepared to say it would be even limited just to that. 
I think we need to look at what is really needed right now and in the 
short term or in the foreseeable future and go with that number. I 
think we have to talk--are you on the appropriations committee?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes. I was part of the conference.
  Mr. LOTT. You would certainly be involved in that process.
  Mr. DORGAN. But the Senator supported, when the bill passed the 
Senate the Senator supported the conference report that had this 
package of disaster assistance in it. I just do not want someone to 
misinterpret--maybe I am putting words in your mouth, but I do not want 
someone to misinterpret when you say, well, there may not be $8.6 
billion. My assumption is that you support and others in the Senate 
support the quantity of disaster aid that was decided upon by the 
conference committee. Is that not correct?
  Mr. LOTT. I also supported, I believe it was about $1 billion right 
before the Memorial Day recess.
  Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. And I realize the situation is different now. But I do not 
know, I do not know how much different it is. I have supported a lower 
figure. I supported a higher figure.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. Now, look, again, this bill is $8.6 billion and it has got 
a lot more in it than just disaster aid. It has some disaster relief 
that is not emergency and not needed for months and even years.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for one additional question. I 
appreciate the majority leader's indulgence.
  I am more concerned than I was before I left my chair.
  My assumption has been that we negotiated a disaster relief package. 
It is significant. It is important. And it is vitally needed by the 
areas in my part of the country but many others around America as well, 
and I hope very much that there is no one here who seriously entertains 
backing away from that commitment.
  In any event, one of the reasons that I ask this question is the 
piece that the Senator from Mississippi provided as samples of 
nonemergency spending in the supplemental included, for example, $694 
million for the highway trust

[[Page S5475]]

fund. And let me just describe something. Maybe the Senator does not 
understand this, but we have, for example, in North Dakota right now a 
highway called Highway 57. It is a link to the Spirit Lake Indian 
Nation. It is now under water, incidentally. That Indian nation is 
virtually isolated out there, and there are young kids who need 
doctors' attention and medical help who at this point have to go far 
around in order to get it. Their lives are at risk. Commerce stops. 
Emergency medical assistance is not available. And so we need to deal 
with these emergency road needs, for example, in Devils Lake which has 
been flooded every year.
  Mr. LOTT. If I can respond to that, it is interesting the Senator 
would raise that. As a matter of fact, I believe that one of the things 
that will probably be indicated as urgent disaster need would be in the 
transportation area which is different from the $694 million that is in 
the bill, and let me just emphasize this. The President in that area 
asked I think for about $300 million, but along the way that figure 
grew to almost $1 billion. I have seen this figure I believe that is 
there, $694 million. I think that has to do with ISTEA and the 
allocation formula and that there is a separate emergency 
transportation item that we might consider. It may not be accurate, but 
that is the impression I have. That $694 million is for funds all over 
the country not related to the disaster.
  Mr. DORGAN. I would say to the Senator that I have visited with the 
Department of Transportation Secretary and others, and they are 
awaiting this disaster bill in order to unlock the money necessary to 
deal with these critical road problems in the one area I have 
mentioned, which is Devils Lake, where an entire Indian tribe is 
isolated out there because the roads are inundated with water. But let 
me go back to the point I originally made today to the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  I urge you to consider this afternoon doing the following, which 
would very simply and quickly unlock this issue. There are two major 
stumbling blocks to having the President sign this disaster bill. One 
is the attachment of the anti-Government-shutdown provision and the 
second is the census issue. Let us, as the Senator from Minnesota and 
others have suggested, set them aside, debate them separately. We will 
not stand in the way of debating and voting on those issues. And let's 
take the other bill that has been crafted by a bipartisan majority, 
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House, and I was on the 
conference committee, let us take that to the floor, vote it out, send 
it, and get it signed and get disaster relief. We could do that this 
afternoon.
  I just don't understand why that is not possible today. Maybe the 
Senator from Mississippi can tell me why that is practically 
impossible. I would think it would be the easiest and most immediate 
solution to getting disaster aid to disaster victims.
  Mr. LOTT. As a matter of fact, one of the things that amazes me is 
the President of the United States would veto a disaster bill because 
he doesn't want language in there that says we won't have a Government 
shutdown. As a matter of fact, if we can get this problem worked out 
now, it will avoid a problem we are surely going to have in October, 
where, once again, like we do almost every year, we have these fun and 
games where there is a threat of various departments or agencies or 
Government shutdowns that has been used by Democrats and Republicans--
most effectively, by the Democrats. And all I am saying is, you know, 
we could work this out. I have suggested some language that I believe 
most of you could live with, and we ought to go ahead and do that and 
get this issue resolved and move on.
  Of course, obviously, the purpose here would be to separate these 
things out where the President could veto them, if he wanted to, and 
not resolve the problem. Why move these on down the line toward another 
disaster--as I have already pointed out, a manmade disaster--at the end 
of the fiscal year?

                          ____________________