Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator for his explanation of his bill and for his initiative in calling attention to the needs of the area of his State in need of special attention from Federal agencies, particularly designing some way to help make sure this kind of disaster does not occur--if it is possible to do that-- with engineering changes or other mitigation efforts, particularly in the Richmond area which was so seriously devastated and damaged recently by flooding. We think the Senator has a good suggestion and we are willing to recommend the Senate adopt this amendment on a voice vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have been advised that the other side wants to look at the amendment. I am happy for anyone who wants to look at the amendment to look at it. It was very coherently explained by the Senator from Virginia. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the point of the Senator is well taken. I hope the Senate will consider his remarks very carefully. We need to move ahead with dispatch. There is no reason why we should consider delaying the consideration of this bill even further.

Mr. COCHRAN. I would be glad to consider the amendment and review it carefully. I wonder if there is an offset in the amendment that would provide some source for making up the funds. We are limited in our allocation of funding under the Budget Act, and we are at the limit. Any amendment that adds spending to the bill without offsetting it against some other account is subject to a point of order under the Budget Act. That was the next part of the process of analyzing this amendment. I hadn't gotten any satisfaction on the answer to that question. Maybe the Senator knows the answer.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the full committee, my friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, for his kind comments about managing this bill. I appreciate his urging also that this bill be completed on Tuesday. We think that can be done. We think with the cooperation of the Senate it will be done. I am now advised the amendment of the Senator from Iowa does contain general legislation, and because of that a point of order might be sustained under rule XVI. Therefore, I raise a point of order under rule XVI that the amendment constitutes general legislation on an appropriations measure and is not in order.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand the amendment proposed by the distinguished Senator from Iowa, it would change the percentage by which mitigation funds are calculated to be due from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Disaster Relief Fund, which we replenished with a supplemental appropriations bill just yesterday with the approval of $2 billion of new money, is an example of the stress that has been placed on this fund because of recent disasters in Florida and elsewhere. To refresh the memory of Senators, the program involves a disaster relief and mitigation funding program. The Disaster Relief Fund provides individual assistance to those who have been displaced from their homes in disasters. It helps pay for food, shelter, and other emergency needs. FEMA--the Federal Emergency Management Agency--administers this program after a disaster. As I understand, approval of the amendment would increase the funds FEMA has to pay out of the Disaster Assistance Fund. I am, frankly, not clear in my own mind exactly how this works, but I am advised this is going to have the net effect of more than doubling the Federal obligation in disaster assistance. Every State that is declared by the President to be eligible for disaster assistance has its damages assessed and becomes eligible for mitigation money. I am told the fund that pays for mitigation benefits is like buying out homes which are in flood-prone areas or building retaining walls to help in the event of the next disaster. These are important efforts to undertake so future disasters will not result in the same kind of damage and will be mitigated or lessened, reduced. The Federal Emergency Management Agency calculates that 7\1/2\ percent over and above the amount of Federal disaster assistance it has provided and gives that money to States. In the past 2 years and in this year's Homeland Security appropriations bill, there is another form of mitigation funding which is available to States called the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund administered by FEMA, to which States can submit competitive applications to receive mitigation funding before a disaster strikes. Any State, regardless of it having been designated a Presidential disaster, can submit a request and have it judged on its merits. We have attempted to balance the various kinds of disaster assistance available to victims and available to States in this bill. We support the President's effort to offer assistance to communities before and after disaster strikes. It allows communities to raise risk awareness to help reduce the Nation's disaster losses through better mitigation planning, and the implementation of plan and cost-effective measures. We think at this point it is not the responsible course of action to double the formula and increase the amount States are going to be permitted and can claim from FEMA and not increasing the amount of money that is available to FEMA to pay out the money. This is language change. It is actually bill language. It is authorizing language on an appropriations bill. It doesn't belong on this bill. It should be considered first by the Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee that has legislative jurisdiction of these programs. I understand that committee has a bill that has been sent over to the House that deals with this issue. We should await the advice and counsel and action of the authorizing committee before we act on this proposal. Because of those reasons, I urge the Senate to reject this amendment. I think it is clearly authorizing language, and it will be my intention--I don't want to cut off the right of any Senator to speak-- to move to table the Harkin amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. But I will refrain from doing so until I am assured that Senators who want to speak on the amendment have a right to do so.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, regular order.

Mr. COCHRAN. A minute, and I will not use my time.

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, Senator Dole has asked me to advise that she is absent from this afternoon's votes due to an emergency visit to her home State of North Carolina. As you know, the remnants of Hurricane Frances devastated a large portion of western North Carolina this week, and Senator Dole felt it was imperative that she make an immediate trip to the State to assess the damages and offer assistance in whatever manner possible. I ask unanimous consent that the Record show that had she been present, Senator Dole would have voted against the Byrd amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, I would. We have thoroughly debated that.

Mr. COCHRAN. I object.

Mr. COCHRAN. How about 30 seconds each?

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I make a point of order against the Dodd amendment on the grounds that it violates the Budget Act, section 302(b) of the Budget Act.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia has an amendment. This may be a good time for him to offer that.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3609

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that we return to the Boxer amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am happy to have that information from the distinguished leader. Previously the Senator from Tennessee offered an amendment. We had set that amendment aside to see if it could be cleared on both sides. We are glad it has been cleared on both sides. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we call up the Alexander amendment.

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

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as I understand the amendment of the distinguished Senator from California, she proposes to add $70 million to a grant program account that provides funds for State and local governments for a variety of purposes. The purposes include a strategy for dealing with homeland security issues, including training and exercises, equipment, including interoperable communications equipment and technical assistance, and may not be used for construction activities. The amount of money in that account in the bill is $2,845,081,000. Her amendment would add $70 million to that amount and earmark that $70 million for interoperable equipment only. Now, just looking at what this does to one State--let's just pick out California, coincidentally--funds have been made available to the State of California under this grant program for State and local governments in excess of $680 million since fiscal year 2002. The State of California can use that money for interoperable communications. They can use it for other things. I do not know exactly what they are using the money for, but I assume they are using some of it for interoperable communications, as they are authorized to do, as they are permitted to do. But what is a concern is to shut down a new management system that is being developed by the Department to make the Department more efficient, to make it operate more effectively, to take all that money, prohibit the use of any of that money, and add it to this other account. It seems to me it is second-guessing the decision made by the full Committee on Appropriations, and our subcommittee in particular. When we analyzed the request from the Department of Homeland Security, there was a request for $102.5 million for a program to develop a new pay system, performance management, managerial training, to modernize the human resource system of the Department of Homeland Security. Our staff conferred closely with the Department, asked questions about what this would do, how important was it, and went through the drill. We also had an opportunity to review our staff's assessment of it. The committee decided to approve $70 million of that $102 million request. The work is now underway. The work is to develop and put this in place. It would be a big mistake at this point to take that $70 million and shift it to another program, where we already provide a substantial amount of money, as I said, $2.8 billion, for these grants to State and local governments, and then to earmark some parts of that just for interoperable communications equipment. The point was to leave these judgments up to State and local entities, not to, as a U.S. Congress person or a Senator, make these decisions for the States. California has plenty of money in this account to buy a lot of interoperable communications equipment if they want it, if they need it. But to make a judgment as to how they should use the money now and earmark certain parts for specific functions is beyond our ability to really make the decisions and make them in a correct way that serves the final goal, the objective of an improved national homeland security program. So we are strongly opposed to the adoption of this amendment. We think it would be a mistake. It may sound good to some, but it does not make any sense to this Senator. The subcommittee has worked closely with the Department to understand the need for the human resources system. It has helped determine the level of spending to allow the Department to move forward with this system. We concluded the funding included in the bill is necessary for the Department to be able to move forward with a pay-for-performance system. I do not have anything else to say about the amendment. It is offset. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we appreciate the distinguished Senator from California----

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator. Amendment No. 3608

Mr. COCHRAN

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