View Full Version : Looking for Trent Lott quote--he wanted an anti-abortion rider on flood relief bill?
Duck Duck Goose
12-17-2002, 11:21 AM
I'm posting this on behalf of a Doper who may or may not come in and say "hi". We had an IM conversation on another MB, she asked me to Google this for her, and I'm stumped. So I'm throwing it open to the Teeming Millions.
I almost posted this in the SDMB Trent Lott threads, but decided that it wasn't of great wide spread interest.
Hubby hates Trent Lott with a purple passion he recalls an event that happened w/in the past decade or so where there was a great natural disaster (we're thinking floods maybe? hurricane? ) something very wide spread at any rate, where Congress was ante-ing up emergency disaster relief funds.
and Trent Lott publically chastized his fellow Republicans for failing to tack on an anti abortion rider.
Hubby desperately wants to find some documentation of that.I looked around, and we were able to establish at least that it wasn't the 1997 flap over the UN dues, where someone tried to tie the payment of them to abortion policy.
he believes it's the midwestern floods, doesn't think that a rider was actually attached, just the Trent was peeved at his constiutents that they didn't even try. So now I'm curious, too. Anyone?
and no, I don't generally do custom work
DDG is looking for help with Google?
I don't get it.
Duck Duck Goose
12-17-2002, 11:23 AM
And, the Midwest floods were in 1993.
Duck Duck Goose
12-17-2002, 11:24 AM
Even I have my limitations. :cool:
12-17-2002, 11:38 AM
This might not be what you're looking for, but last fall Lott and the republicans were trying to block all appropriations until this anti-choice guy Charles Pickering was confirmed to the judiciary.
12-17-2002, 12:03 PM
Are certain he isn't remembering the U.N. dues flap?
Abortion Politics Derails U.S. Multilateral Agenda (http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/docs/lobe.htm)The administration originally hoped to attach both the U.N. and IMF requests to a 1998 supplemental appropriations bill to fund disaster relief and unforeseen military operations, popular measures which routinely speed through Congress with bipartisan support. But, blocked by anti-abortion Republicans, the U.N. appropriation never made it into the supplemental bill, even though Republicans in the Senate, under intense business pressure, permitted the IMF appropriation to go forward.This sounds awfully close to what the Doper's husband was remembering -- a disaster relief bill, and Republicans getting it all tangled up in an anti-abortion rider, right down to the fact that the rider never actually attached.
12-17-2002, 12:10 PM
This talks about their trying to attach stipulations about the census to a flood relief bill in 1997.
This says Bush wanted FEMA to give disaster relief funds to religious groups
This seems to be saying that Clinton wanted the U.N. appropriations bill to be tied to a disaster relief bill? This was probably what your friend's husband was thinking of.
12-17-2002, 01:48 PM
If Lott said it on the Senate floor, you should be able to find it in the Congressional Record (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r103query.html).
12-17-2002, 02:12 PM
Could this be it? CR, page S3562, April 24, 1998:
[This is public domain, so I shall quote at length--SK]
[Mr. Lott:] There is also included in this bill language that maybe nobody is totally happy with but language dealing with the so-called Mexico City issue, which is language that would have some restraints on lobbying other governments and organizations with taxpayers' dollars to promote the changing of laws to provide for abortions or to deal with the abortion issue. It is an issue that we have been tangled with for years. I am not diminishing it by putting it that way, but it is just something that we have been trying to find a fix to. There is no easy answer. You have passionate people on both sides of the issue. And I have clearly been on one side of the issue forever. I don't think that taxpayers' dollars should be used to promote abortion . Does anybody want to question Jesse Helms on this issue? Anybody? No.
[snip... chuckle, chuckle]
So I urge my colleagues to think about it, recognize that you may not like one piece of the three or maybe two of the three, but what is the alternative? Are we never going to reorganize the State Department? Are we never going to deal with the U.N. arrearage issue? Is the abortion issue going to be involved with U.N. arrearage, State Department reorganization, IMF, appropriations bills? How long will this go on this year? This is the solution. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
So I hope the Senate will have a good debate today and will think about it. I don't think anybody is going to be surprised by what is in here. We do not need a lot of pontificating on either side of the aisle. You are for or against State Department reauthorization. You are for or against the U.N. arrearage issue. And you may be for or against the abortion issue. But this is a reasonable solution, and I hope it will pass when we vote on it Tuesday at 2:25.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
You can try to get the .pdf page from GPO using this link (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1998_record&page=S3563&position=all), but I rarely manage to link these pages successfully, and it's slow loading even when I do it correctly.
12-18-2002, 10:12 AM
will the doper in question please sign int
ok, it was me. (and thanks to DDG for the thread)
Yea, we're absolutely certain that it wasn't the UN resolution. It was a specific disaster relief situation, he's semi remembering people in midwest being flooded, something where folks had lost their homes and were waiting disaster relief funds. I'm not certain that it was spoken on the Senate floor.
this may be a hopeless cause, but we're spending the holidays w/certain very conservative relatives, and he wanted to go armed w/specifics.
our many thanks for all/any assistance.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.