Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding, and thank him for the great work he's doing chairing this subcommittee in the House. As Chairman Alderholt has said, SAFER was originally authorized for the purpose of increasing the number of new firefighters in local communities, a hand up, not a handout. SAFER was not intended to rehire or retain firefighters, and certainly was not intended to serve as an operating subsidy for what is unquestionably a municipal local responsibility. The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act contains very specific requirements that local communities have to meet in order to obtain funds. However, the Democrats waived many of these requirements in fiscal 2009 and then again in 2010. When initially proposed by the Democrats in 2009, then Chairman Price, my friend, acknowledged that these waivers were just a short- term, temporary effort that would expire at the end of fiscal 2010. Yet, here we are today, debating the continuation of a subsidy that our country simply cannot afford. Under these costly waivers, there are no controls, no salary limits, no local commitments. These proposed waivers totally undermine the original purpose and intent of the SAFER program by forcing the taxpayers to subsidize the everyday operating expenses of local first responders, taking over, in essence, the funding of the local firemen. Given our Nation's dire fiscal situation, we must take a stand that it is not the Federal Government's job to bail out every municipal budget or to serve as the fire marshal for every city and town across the country. I want to thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding. And I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. There are 62,000. So there will be some reductions; am I correct?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reserving the right to object, we have tons and tons of amendments to go, ladies and gentlemen. I hope we can expeditiously move.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. We've heard your statement. We're up to 62,000 now and it's way too much. Let me ask the chairman: Is there a cap now reinstated in this bill for TSA employees? I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. They can't go above 46,000?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I withdraw my reservation, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, when we first stood up TSA, I chaired that subcommittee. We put a limit on the number of employees that TSA could have. They first wanted, I think it was, 30,000 people. We said no. Then they went up to 35,000; then they went to 40,000; then they went to 43,000. I said time out. So we put a limit of 44,000 on the number of TSA employees that were allowed. That cap stayed in place until 2006, which is when the other party gained control of this body. The cap came off. Mr. Mica, I don't know the total number. I think it's in the 60s.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the reservation on the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield briefly?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Chairman Mica and Chairman Aderholt, who are working together to rein in this organization, which has almost gone beyond belief, so that we can get some discipline and some savings in this organization. I don't know about you, but at the airports I go through, there are way too many TSA employees just standing around, making conversation with each other. That's okay, but we are overstaffed at TSA. This bill gets us back to being within some degree of reason.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. To the czars, I say, ``Nyet.''

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reserving the right to object, we had an agreement. I thought that this would end the debate, and I would hope that that agreement could be agreed to.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1 attempts to save the American taxpayer on a number of fronts. First, we cut $100 billion from regular government spending. Second, we went a step further for the taxpayer by rescinding the remaining balances of the failed stimulus bill, about $5 billion if we act now. We need to act now to stop any more funds from being spent. The longer we wait, the longer we let the administration shop around with the taxpayers' hard-earned money. Further, we were told that the stimulus bill was the lightning bolt that would put America back to work right away. If these funds haven't been already obligated, when are the people going back to work? Where is the instant impact? Where are the jobs? Unemployment is still over 9 percent in many areas of the country and upwards of 15 percent in other sections. If the funds have not been obligated by now, they probably weren't meant to be in the stimulus package. Let's save the taxpayers $5 billion today and rescind these funds now. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.