Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the very distinguished chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman who had the courage and the vision at the outset to take the lead in the Congress, both bodies, to create the new Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations, on which the other body then followed through. That is the vision of this leader.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, we agreed to move the firefighter assistance grants, but not the emergency management performance grants over to the Office for Domestic Preparedness. But, and this is a very important but, I would say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), we include language that the fire grants have to continue to be administered ``in a manner identical to the current fiscal year''; and that means grants directly to those local fire departments, not through the States. We continue the peer review process of 300 firefighters from the new recruits to the fire chiefs, gathering to review the 15,000-plus annual applications for those monies; and we include the U.S. Fire Administration during the grant process. We received a letter of support of that from the International Association of Fire Chiefs for the manner in which we moved those firefighter assistance grants over to ODP. So I think we have solved the problem.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is an historic day, consideration of the very first appropriations bill for the new Department of Homeland Security, which was stood up only March of this spring. This subcommittee was only stood up in March of this year, and I am very pleased with the work of our subcommittee, the committee and the Congress in bringing this bill from nowhere, no staff, offices, nothing, all the way through the hearings and to be the very first conference to take place of all 13 bills and the very first considered by the House and on the floor at this moment. It is a record that the Congress can be proud of. It is a record that the administration can be proud of in proposing the Congress respond to the creation at the outset of a new Department of Homeland Security. This conference agreement, Madam Speaker, will provide $29.4 billion for the new Department. That is an increase of $1 billion over what the President requested, and it is $535 million over what we are spending in the current fiscal year. In the interest of time, I do not intend to list specific amounts proposed for the many programs and activities in the Department by the bill, but I do want to take note, Madam Speaker, of the substantial amounts of money that we have provided for homeland defense since the Nation was confronted with the ugly face of terrorism a little more than 2 years ago. I also believe it is important for us to take note of where these funds have gone. Since September 11, 2001, governmentwide, the Congress has provided $75.8 billion for homeland security, including $43.9 billion to date just for the Department of Homeland Security. This bill provides an additional $29.4 billion, bringing the total appropriated since 9/11 to $105.2 billion governmentwide, $73.3 billion of that for just those agencies that now we include in the Department of Homeland Security. This does not include funding, Madam Speaker, that will be provided in the other 12 appropriations bills, which could provide an additional $17.5 billion, but I want to talk just about the Department of Homeland Security and this bill. Since September 11, here is what has been provided by the Congress for the following things: $513 million to secure our critical port facilities, including the $125 million that is in this bill; since September 11, 2001, $388 million for technology, such as radiation detectors for our ports and nonintrusive inspection technologies for cargo screening, including the $125 million in this bill for that purpose. These technologies have been deployed at our busiest land and seaports, including such places as Miami, Los Angeles and Newark. $122 million since 9/11 has been provided for what has been called the Container Security Initiative, CSI, $62 million of that in this bill. CSI targets high-threat cargo before it comes to our ports. It has been fully funded since its inception. It is now in the process of being implemented in nearly all of the major foreign megaports so that we can search those containers before they reach America's shores. Something I am very proud of, Madam Speaker, is the aid that we are providing for our State and local governments, the so-called first responders, our firefighters, our emergency technicians, our police and law enforcement people and the others, $20.5 billion, including the $4.2 billion that is in this bill in assistance to those people. Madam Speaker, when we talk of homeland security, you cannot talk of that subject without talking about our hometown security, and this money is the biggest portion of the monies we appropriate for homeland defense. Transportation security, of course, a continuing concern, but since September 11, 2001, we have provided a total of $15.7 billion, $5.2 billion in this bill, for passenger safety through the Transportation Security Administration, which was transferred to the new Department, including passenger baggage and cargo screening and the Federal Air Marshals program. $1.9 billion, including $400 million in this bill, has been spent on explosive and trace detection systems, including development, procurement and installation. This bill includes an additional $85 million just for air cargo safety, principally cargo shipped on passenger planes. On the subject of cargo security, we dealt with a very difficult issue in conference, and that is air cargo on passenger planes. The House-passed bill included a provision that would have immediately banned airlines from carrying cargo. I would point out that 22 percent of all air cargo is shipped on passenger aircraft. But we modified that provision in the conference and in the conference report that is before us today. In short, we do not prohibit airlines from carrying cargo. That would be an economic disaster for them. It is a $3 billion or $4-billion-a-year business for them, which would have meant, in my judgment, the death of the airlines. And we did not establish artificial deadlines that we knew could not be met. Instead, we faced the problem head on with the reality in mind. We adopted language that directed the Secretary to immediately research, develop, procure and install certified systems that can screen cargo being placed on passenger planes at the earliest possible date. That machinery does not exist today. It has to be developed. No one knows how long that will take, but we direct the Secretary to immediately go at it without any delay and to do it at the earliest possible time. In the meantime, this conference report requires that the Secretary of the Department enhance what is known as the known shipper program which is currently in place that prohibits high-risk cargo from being placed on passenger planes. It requires the Department to immediately issue requests for proposals on potential technologies to screen cargo, it requires the Department to conduct background checks on employees who handle cargo prior to being placed on the aircraft, and it requires the Department to launch a pilot program to use explosive detection machines in select locations to screen high-risk cargo. I know that we will have additional debate on this issue during this debate and on the motion to recommit the bill. In the interim, I would hope that Members would actually read the conference report as it relates to cargo security. I want to read that portion of the bill. It is short and sweet and direct. I do not know how it could be more strong. We tried to find language that would be as directive and as clear as we could make it. Let me quote you the section, 521, from the conference report: ``The Secretary of Homeland Security is directed to research, develop, and procure certified systems to inspect and screen air cargo on passenger aircraft at the earliest date possible. Provided, That until such technology is procured and installed, the Secretary shall take all possible actions to enhance the known shipper program to prohibit high-risk cargo from being transported on passenger aircraft.'' There is language in the statement of managers that backs that up and requires the Secretary to immediately forthwith issue a request for proposals from the industry and the private sector to come forward with proposals to secure that equipment. The best we can do until the equipment is here, Madam Speaker, is to be sure we know who is shipping cargo on passenger planes, and if we do not know who they are, and they do not have a record of being secure, then we search every piece that is going on today, and we encourage the continuance of that. All high- risk cargo is screened for security. Now, Madam Speaker, I want to conclude these remarks by noting that some of our colleagues here believe we should add more money to this bill. I suspect that for some, no matter how much we spend, no matter how much we add in the name of homeland security, it will never be enough. We could spend every penny we could beg, borrow or steal around the world and spend it in the name of homeland security, and it would never please some people. I would just state my firm belief that throwing dollars at homeland security will not necessarily add to our security. What we need is a sensible plan that spends sensible sums of money on the establishment and operation of a comprehensive and complete system for protecting our Nation, and I believe this conference report is such a sensible plan. It provides resources for the legacy functions of agencies transferred to the Department such as Customs inspections, Border Patrol, Immigration, Presidential protection, Secret Service funding, Coast Guard spending for small-boat rescue systems, buoy research and protection, fishing rights enforcement and the like. We continue spending on those things that are not directly related to homeland security. But we continue our commitment, Madam Speaker, to first responders. We support innovative technologies in this bill and capital investments for transportation security, for maritime safety, for the protection of critical infrastructure in the country. In short, Madam Speaker, this conference agreement is a very good step toward a comprehensive plan for homeland security that spends sensible amounts of money. It moves us forward in leaps and bounds as we seek ways to defend the homeland and prevent future terrorist attacks. So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report and to reject any motions to recommit it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the rule, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2555) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hard-working and productive member of this subcommittee. (Mr. Wamp asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I shall not take that time. I cannot believe the gentleman from Massachusetts would stand before the body and make the statements, as he did, without knowing the facts. The 16-ounce package the gentleman held before us and said this is not searched, this is not searched, this is not searched, all packages under 16 ounces are checked by canine teams. And I would trust the canine teams more than the gentleman from Massachusetts on this point.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I had not intended to speak on the rule. I was going to wait and present the material that I have on the debate on the conference report itself, but I cannot let the gentleman's remarks go unresponded to at this point in time. It is just not so that anyone can place cargo on a passenger plane without it being checked and screened. That is incorrect. We have a very sophisticated system in place today that verifies whether or not you are a known and trusted shipper. If you are not so certified by the government after having been investigated and your background checked and all of those procedures, if you are not a known shipper, they will search your packages you put on the passenger plane. The gentleman is incorrect, and I do not want it to be said nor heard around the world that you can get by with the things he said. You cannot. Today you cannot. And yet in this bill, in the conference report, we direct the Secretary to research, procure and install machinery that can x-ray all this cargo going on passenger planes. We do not have the equipment today to do that, and so we rely upon the known shipper program; and if you are not a known shipper, we personally inspect your cargo.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield briefly on that point, I agree with the gentleman, we should do all we can. However, it is inaccurate to say we are only checking 3 percent of these container pieces. We are doing a lot more than that.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman not aware of the container security initiative where we are checking these containers at 24 megaports around the world, even as I speak?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am not characterizing the comment of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). All I am saying is do not be overly alarmed, for goodness sakes. There is a program in place while we get the machinery to actually x- ray the cargo that goes on passenger planes. We do not have it now, and it is going to take some time to develop, but in the meantime we are doing the next best thing, and that is certifying who it is we are receiving cargo from to put on those planes and directing the Secretary to proceed forthwith at the earliest date possible to secure the machinery to make that happen. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2555, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides $29.4 billion for the new Department of Homeland Security. That is an increase of over $1 billion above the amounts proposed by the President, and it is $535 million above the current year's spending. This motion by the gentleman from Minnesota would result in more spending. We could spend all that we could beg, borrow, or steal in the name of homeland security, and it still would not be enough, according to some people. Throwing dollars at this problem of security will not necessarily add to our security. What we need is a sensible plan, spending sensible sums, for a comprehensive and complete system of protection of our people. I think we have such a plan. And I am willing to accept the gentleman's motion and to do my best to meet its goals. But the motion gives me an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the day that changed America, 9-11, to reflect on that awful day, but also to reflect upon how far our Nation has come in protecting us from another such event. The presumption in the motion is that we are not spending enough money to protect our Nation's homeland. I think the question is, is the glass half empty or is it half full? I think it is half full. We are not there yet, but we have come so far. We have come so far in these 2 years in protecting the country. Since September 11 the Congress has provided almost $76 billion for homeland security funding across the entire government. For the 22 agencies that now make up the new Department of Homeland Security, the Congress has provided almost $44 billion through the current year, and then we add in the 2004 bill an additional $29.4 billion, which brings the total to the Department for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 to $73.3 billion. Protecting our borders is the first line of defense against terrorism. We include in the bill $9 billion for border protection and related activities. That is an increase of $400 million over fiscal 2003. Including $2 billion for U.S. Coast Guard homeland security activities. We make innovative technology and capital investments a priority, recognizing that our borders will only be secure when we use a combination of people and technology. But let us talk about the borders just a minute. We have added inspectors, special agents, border patrol agents to these borders, we have added 5,400 new personnel at those borders. That increases the coverage in our ports by 25 percent. In addition to that, we have added 4,100 Coast Guard personnel to protect the ports, to protect the waterways, to increase the intensity and numbers of inspections at ports of entry into the country; 4,100 new Coast Guard people on the job today that were not there before. We will continue, and hear me now, we will continue to inspect 100 percent of all high-threat cargo and high-threat vessels coming into our waters. We cannot discuss in this open forum all that is being done in that respect. We would have to go into a classified briefing to do so, which we have done. I cannot talk about all of those things, but we are inspecting 100 percent of all high-threat cargo and high-threat vessels coming into our waters. We have heard a lot about port security. In this bill we add $100 million, another down payment to secure the critical port facilities. We add that to the $388 million that is already appropriated for port security grants, a total funding level now of $488 million. Radiation detectors, other technology, $263 million for cargo screening and these technologies have been deployed at our busiest land and sea ports including Miami, Los Angeles, Newark. And we include in this bill another $129 million for these technologies, which brings that total to $392 million. It has been said that we need to search these container pieces coming to us offshore before they get here. And that is precisely what the administration proposed and the Congress agreed to. We provide $60 million for a thing called the Customs Container Security Initiative, fully funding that effort since it began. We include $62 million in this bill bringing total funding for that project to $122 million. And with that money, we are now in the process, either in the process or already searching these container pieces at 20 of the mega-ports around the world that ship us 80 percent of our container freight, searching those targets, that high-threat cargo before it ever reaches American ports so that we do not have to do it here. We also place a very high priority on funding our State and local first responders. Homeland security, we have all said, is hometown security. And our hometowns are protected by our local firemen, local police, emergency personnel and the like. We have not shunned them and it is essential that they have the resources to address the needs of our hometowns. We will never forget the heroism on 9-11, of those wonderful first responders, so many of whom unfortunately gave their lives on 9-11. We include $4.4 billion in this bill for those people, law enforcement, fire fighters, emergency personnel. And since September 11, the Congress has provided nearly $21 billion for those State and local governments, for terrorism prevention and preparedness, most of which is going to our local first responders. Almost $21 billion for your firemen, your first responders, your emergency technicians, your policemen, and more is on the way. Science and technology efforts are critical to improving security, increasing the efficiency of what we do and increasing the costs. We include in this bill $900 million for science and technology, including $60 million to design, develop and test anti-missile devices for commercial aircraft, $60 million. Then, of course, transportation security for those who fly. Since September 11, we have provided a total of $10.3 billion for passenger safety through the Transportation Security Administration, including passenger, baggage, and cargo screening. An additional $5.172 billion is included in the fiscal 2004 bill. And since September 11, we have included $1.5 billion on explosive and trace detention systems, including the development, procurement, and installation. We include in this bill $335 million more to buy more of these systems, as well as $50 million for air cargo safety, and $40 million for research on next generation technologies. We come to this question that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has brought to our attention, and that is the safety or security of cargo on passenger planes. I think we all agree with his goal. It is our goal. It has been the goal of this subcommittee since we came into being, it seems like a long time ago, but it was only back in March that the subcommittee came into being. And, frankly, I am very proud of what our subcommittee has done. We have begun a staff. We had to find a place to meet. We had to hold hearings in Department where many of the principals were not yet sworn into office or confirmed, get the budget together, hold hearings, and then finally mark up a bill. And I am very proud to say that we were the first of the 13 appropriations bills brought to the floor and passed through the body, and we are the first to go to conference with the Senate. That is quite a record. I am proud of the members of the subcommittee on both sides of the aisle, and I am especially proud of the staff on both sides of the aisle who have done a remarkable job of pulling all of this together. We included in this bill $50 million for air cargo screening. The Senate bill has 60. I think we can go higher and give the TSA the resources it needs for the development of an air cargo screening program for domestic and foreign cargo carriers and to develop a risk- based screening system, to identify pieces of cargo that require closer scrutiny even while we work at post-haste speed to develop the machinery that does not now exist to absolutely search all pieces going on passenger or cargo planes. Funds are also provided to research and development, new technologies that would make this happen. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the motion to instruct. It is the goals that we share. We share the same goals that the motion elicits. I think we have developed a good bill. I am very proud of the efforts of the Nation since 9-11 to come to grips with a new terror, a new threat to our security. The President has led the effort on both fronts, that is to take the battle to the terrorists on their own turf rather than wait until they come for us here, but at the same time preparing the Nation itself to defend itself against a terrorist who might make it through. Do we have more to do? Absolutely. We have scratched the surface. But we have made a lot of progress and we will continue to make that progress. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2555) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to go to conference on H.R. 2555, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, assuming, and the gentleman is correct about its being in the budget as a request, but where is the reconciliation bill that makes that happen?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, is that two-thirds of the Federal spending that the mandatory accounts account for? Are those accounts adding to the Federal deficit even as we speak?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Has the Committee on the Budget done anything about mandatory spending?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman, what portion of all Federal spending is actually appropriated by the appropriations?