Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, he is absolutely correct. There is, in this general provision, a reference to the $2.7 billion that is contained in the President's request submitted to the Congress, a request that we appropriate that amount. He is right. We are not creating new funding in this provision but trying to spell out what that funding should be used for.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am willing to urge the Senate to accept the amendment. There is clearly a need for funding, and we will have an opportunity to monitor this carefully to be sure that money is not wasted. But clearly, the devastation to timberland and forestry resources is immense. It is indescribable. You have to see it. You can drive along hundreds of miles of forestlands in the region, and it is staggering, the amount of destruction that has occurred. I compliment the Senator and thank him for offering the amendment and assure him of my support and recommendation that we accept it.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, my colleague from Mississippi, for his contribution to this discussion. I think he made a very compelling argument for the fact that we need to provide funds in this bill with direction to proceed to work on a new facility for these veterans. That is the point. That is why included in this bill is a committee recommendation of $176 million. The language specifically suggests that this be used to construct a new, multibuilding, campus-style facility on the site occupied by the former Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, MS. I think that is the key, and that was brought out by my good friend and colleague from Mississippi. That is the point. It is the sense of our committee and those familiar with this facility that it should remain in the Gulfport, MS, area. The mayor of Gulfport came up to see me to talk about his concerns, his interests, and his ideas. I know he talked with Senator Lott and probably other members of our delegation. I want to help him achieve his goal for having the facility rebuilt, using the best measures that we can to be sure we get a good result for the dollars that we invest, and we don't waste money. We don't want to do that. We don't want to just throw a lot of money out there and let the home spend it without any guidance or restraint. I am very committed, though, to the notion that we ought to have a provision with some money and these directions in the bill. I don't think the House has included anything like this. We are going to have to negotiate with the House when we get to conference. I don't know what their ideas would be, but I want to be able to have at least the commitment of the Senate behind our effort to do what is said in this report. It could be $176 million. If the Senator wants to change it to $166 million or $120 million--I don't know what the right number is. But it shows a commitment to proceed with funds available to hire some people to get the work done. This is what Senator Lott's point is. Nothing has been done. We have to get somebody moving, get an architect selected, come together with a plan, and then we will see whether we can fund it. But at least we have enough money in here to show we are serious about rebuilding it, that we are making this investment, and we will monitor the use of the money and try our best to be sure that every dollar is well spent. That is my goal. The Armed Services Committee has oversight responsibility. That is the legislative committee. So they can help monitor and follow the progress as well. But I hope we won't strike the money and just say this is a bad idea and we are not going to do anything else. That is unacceptable. That is totally unacceptable.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I was going to ask the Senator if he knows of any objection. I was advised that there is one Senator who has indicated opposition to the amendment. I am a member of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian. I have a high regard for the work that is done there. Listening to the description of the Senator from North Carolina, I am inclined to support the amendment. But in view of the fact that there is at least one Senator with a contrary view, I think we ought not go forward without giving him an opportunity to come and express his concerns, if he would like to have an opportunity to do so. My hope would be that we could put in a quorum and see if there is a need to discuss it further; otherwise, I suggest that we accept it on a voice vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the Senator's concerns, that he expressed. As I understand the point he makes, it is that we should not create a situation where a shipbuilder can both get disaster funds from the Federal Government and insurance benefits from hurricane coverage and, thereby, be unjustly enriched by getting money from two different sources for one disaster. The language of the general provision, which the Senator purports to amend with this amendment, prevents a shipbuilder from getting double payment, in effect. The Senator's amendment strikes the provision and the language in the provision which guarantees that. I think there is no disagreement between us as to what the outcome ought to be. What we are trying to do is reduce costs to the U.S. Navy and, thereby, to the U.S. taxpayers for future shipbuilding activity by reimbursing the shipbuilder for damages caused by the hurricane, purely and simply. There is no effort to prevent the shipbuilder from recovering what it is entitled to recover from the insurance companies that had coverage in this situation. But the fact is, you could not get insurance coverage for all of the damages done by the hurricane, only some. The policy defines the obligation. The contract, in effect, between the shipbuilder and the insurance company defines what benefits the shipbuilders are entitled to receive. And these contracts are being honored, some maybe not as generously as the shipbuilder would like. But that is something to be reserved between the shipbuilder and the insurance carrier. And if litigation develops and is resorted to as a way to resolve that, so be it; that happens. But what we are seeking to do is to acknowledge that the shipbuilder was impeded by the hurricane from proceeding under contracts that it had with the Navy to hire and make available workers on a reliable, predictable schedule that would ensure the ships' future construction on time under the contract. Some of those costs cannot get reimbursed from the insurance company. There are provisions in the insurance agreements that prohibit the collection of benefits for some of those costs that were caused directly by the hurricane. So what we have attempted to do is to work with the Navy, consult with the shipbuilder, and try to provide authority in this supplemental bill to help control costs of ships, now and in the future, with a possibility of insurance proceeds offsetting Government costs. Or we can exclude this provision, as the Senator is trying to do, and pay the resulting higher costs through higher taxes, more appropriations to help pay the costs to the Navy to pay for the ships. To me, I think this amendment reflects a difference in understanding of what the language of the supplemental seeks to accomplish. We do not disagree with the motivation of the Senator from Oklahoma. We applaud his effort to review carefully and make sure we are not ``wasting'' money in this supplemental, that the taxpayer is benefiting, not a shipbuilder being unjustly or inappropriately enriched. I guarantee you that is not the purpose of the assistance that is provided in this section of the bill, this general provision of the bill. Here is what it seeks to do. And we think it does do this: The general provision adjusts ship contract target costs for the effects of Hurricane Katrina. It provides the U.S. Navy with reimbursement of future shipbuilder insurance receipts. And it makes clear that payments made by the Government to the shipbuilder could not be treated as collateral insurance coverage and could not be used as a reason for insurers not to honor their policy obligations. That is the purpose of the general provision. I challenge anybody to disagree with that purpose as laudable, as important, and as fair to the taxpayers, to the shipbuilder, and to the insurance companies that have coverage. This provision was included because it is clear that the impact for delaying the recapitalization of the shipyards will have long-term negative impacts to the Navy's shipbuilding program by making ships more expensive and taking longer to build. We can provide this authority now to help control the costs of ships, and with the possibility of insurance proceeds offsetting Government costs, or we can exclude this provision and pay for the resulting higher costs of ships. And note this. The estimated cost of this provision is $140 million, to be paid from within the $2.7 billion the President requested in the shipbuilding account. Hear that? The President requested $2.7 billion in his submission in this request. And a 3- to 6-month shipyard recapitalization delay is estimated to cost $300 to $600 million in increased ship costs. This is serious business. You can pay me now or pay me later. I guess that is the way to say it. But the whole point is, we can appropriate this money in this supplemental that the President requested. We have identified the part that is going to be used to pay the costs of this amendment. So in response to Hurricane Katrina and the disaster that resulted to the region, the President requested over $2\1/2\ billion--$1 billion in this supplemental and $1.7 billion in the last supplemental--in the Shipbuilding and Conversion Navy account to address these ordinary costs to replace destroyed or damaged equipment, prepare and recover naval vessels under contract, and, most relevant to this debate, provide for cost adjustments for naval vessels for which funds have been previously appropriated. So what happened is the President's request did not address or take into account all costs associated with Katrina. So a general provision was added to adjust an existing Navy ship contract's target costs for the effects of Hurricane Katrina. It ensures the industry does not receive redundant funding from the Government and insurance companies. But--guess what--the amendment offered by the Senator, my friend, deletes this provision. That should not be done. The focus of this supplemental is to provide disaster relief and recovery for hurricanes, including Katrina. Katrina caused the costs of ships that were already under contract with the Navy to increase. Increased costs were occurring because of the disaster. The provision included in the bill does not impose additional costs. Instead, it directs that all costs be paid from within the $2.7 billion shipbuilding account requested by the President to address the hurricane recovery costs. In my view, the Senate needs to reject the amendment of the Senator. Let's carry forward in this bill this general provision.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I hope that the Senate could accept this on a voice vote. I don't know that we need to have a rollcall vote. It seems to me to be an amendment that should be accepted by the Senate. It calls for the use of--my piece of paper says $50 million, and I heard the Senator say $30 million, or did I hear him wrong?

Mr. COCHRAN. So the bill as reported from our committee was $20 million, and this adds $30 million?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct. It will not result in a double payment, in effect, to the shipbuilder, of course. And any insurance proceeds that offset the Government's costs are excluded specifically from this provision.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, No. 3626 is listed on one list of amendments I have as having been passed. It is pending. It is a community disaster loan limits amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Because of some question as to whether this is cleared on the Democratic side, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a full committee hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the implementation of the Peanut Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a business meeting to consider pending committee business. Agenda Committee Reports: Report of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs titled, ``Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared.'' Legislation: S. 2459, GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act; H.R. 2066, General Services Administration Modernization Act. Nominations: Uttam Dhillon to be Director of the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Mark Acton to be Commissioner, Postal Rate Commission.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``FBI Oversight'' on Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witness List: Panel I: The Honorable Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: The Honorable Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Linda M. Calbom, Director, Financial Management and Assurance, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC; John Gannon, Ph.D, Vice President for Global Analysis, BAE Systems Information Technology, former Staff Director of the House Homeland Security Committee, McLean, VA.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are at a point in the proceedings at the hour of 11 o'clock to vote on cloture on the bill. I urge Senators to support this motion to bring to a close debate on the provisions of the supplemental appropriations bill so that we may proceed to consider other amendments that are pending and dispose of that measure. It is an urgent supplemental. It contains emergency funding for the Department of Defense, the Department of State, as well as disaster assistance for the gulf State regions and elsewhere for natural disaster damages and destruction. Cloture Motion

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Oregon for his comments and his leadership on these issues that are so important to our forestry owners and people throughout the States who depend on incomes from those jobs. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to call up amendments at this point.