[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5490-S5491]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   EXCESS SPENDING IN DISASTER RELIEF

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I claim the time we had to talk about how 
to get this job done. We have talked for some time about the need. Now 
the question is, how do we now find a vehicle to get that done? That is 
what we ought to be spending our time talking about.
  Let me yield to my friend, the Senator from Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.

[[Page S5491]]

  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for yielding.
  In my view, we have had a longstanding problem in the Congress with 
emergency appropriations, supplemental appropriations, or so-called 
disaster bills. The problem has been--and truly there has been a 
disaster such as in North Dakota and Minnesota with the Red River 
flooding, and that is legitimate. But then built on top of that is a 
lot of spending that has nothing to do with the emergency nature of 
this piece of legislation.
  I went on ahead and supported this supplemental appropriations bill 
even though I had some concerns about the amount of spending that was 
in the bill. In my view, the truly emergency provisions that are in 
there run in the dollar range from $2.5 to $4 billion. The bill is an 
$8.6 billion bill.
  The only thing that made me go ahead and support this particular 
piece of legislation is a provision in there that said that we would 
not shut down the Federal Government. I felt it was an appropriate 
bill. I did not particularly like all the spending that was in there, 
but I wanted to get something moving ahead so that we could take care 
of the needs of the people in North Dakota and Minnesota.
  Mr. President, I am disappointed that the President chose to put 
politics ahead of people. I kept this need to take care of those people 
in mind, even though I was not entirely happy with the bill. I am 
disappointed he took such a narrow view. By vetoing the 1997 
supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill, he has actually 
delayed its progress after the Congress has moved ahead. This bill 
would have provided funding for future disaster relief needs and 
ensured that we would not face a disaster of another Government 
shutdown.
  Now, the majority was accused by the minority of being ``hard headed 
and cold hearted'' for not submitting the bill to the President sooner. 
I cannot imagine how outraged they must be now that the President has 
vetoed the bill. I hope that those who promised to tie up the Senate 
until this bill is passed are now willing to fight just as hard to 
override this veto, thereby providing funding for disaster relief and 
ensuring that there will not be another Government shutdown.
  Let's be clear, this bill is not about holding up money for the flood 
victims, as some have suggested. Flood victims are currently receiving 
disaster relief from FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. To 
date, FEMA has already allocated over $150 million to victims of the 
flood. Almost $40 million in housing assistance checks have been issued 
to more than 21,000 flood victims. In addition, the Small Business 
Administration has approved more than $75 million in disaster loans.
  In short, the flood victims are being cared for. This bill 
replenishes funds for FEMA and ensures stability for future disaster 
funding.
  Just as importantly, this bill is about preventing another disaster, 
the manmade disaster of a Government shutdown. This seems to be nothing 
more than a political move by the President designed to ensure that he 
can shut down the Government again, just as he did before when we were 
trying to balance the budget.
  This is the same strategy we have seen from the President before. He 
impedes, stalls, and ultimately vetoes any compromise we reach, playing 
political games with public safety, and the productivity of our Federal 
employees. He then tries to get political mileage out of it by blaming 
the majority in Congress. When an agreement is finally reached, I have 
no doubt he will take credit for that, too.
  I find it ironic that the President said during his State of the 
Union Address that the Federal Government should never be shut down 
again.
  Why, then, does he now veto a bill that does exactly that: Ensure 
that the Government won't be shut down again? The continuing resolution 
portion of this bill has ensured that Congress and the President will 
be allowed to continue budget negotiations in good faith without 
harming the taxpayers or Federal employees and their families.
  The President needs to put partisan politics aside and focus on what 
is good for our country.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, might I ask, are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________