Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

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 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. 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. LOTT. I would not expect it to be any other way from the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield for a question from the Senator from Minnesota.

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. 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. LOTT. We have had them all. We have had them all.

Mr. LOTT. I will yield.

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. LOTT. The question is, how do we do it.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. LOTT. Yes; I am glad to yield for a question only.

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 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. 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. 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.

Mr. LOTT. If I could take another question, then I will go back to the Senator from North Dakota.

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. LOTT. Only for a question.

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. 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. LOTT. If I could----