Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this is a stripped-down version of the disaster supplemental. It is $983.6 million purely for disaster relief activities. It fully funds all the anticipated Federal disaster relief activities for the balance of this year. The administration, you recollect, had requested $1.55 billion for these activities, but a portion of that request was for fiscal year 2004 activities; and because we anticipate that we will be able to complete the 2004 appropriations bill before October 1, it is not necessary to include 2004 moneys in this 2003 supplemental. All fiscal year 2004 program requirements can be accommodated in the regular 2004 bill. Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding in the Midwest and South have taken their toll on the disaster relief fund. Combined with severe snow and ice storms this past winter and the Columbia shuttle recovery efforts, this fund will be depleted within the next 2 weeks. As of July 21, the balance in the disaster relief fund was $89 million. FEMA is currently spending at $5.7 million a day; and as expenses for Hurricane Claudette come in, obligations will jump to $6.3 million a day. That means the fund will be gone on or about August 4. FEMA has done all they can to hold expenses down. They have put all nonessential projects on hold, including all reconstruction and mitigation projects. In total, $400 million in spending is on hold. The only activities being supported by FEMA are emergency and essential services such as debris removal, individual assistance, shelter, and medical care. To date for fiscal 2003 there have been 32 major disasters declared, 15 emergencies and 18 fire management events. We are at the height of the wildfire and hurricane seasons, and an active hurricane season is predicted. FEMA estimates that they will need about $10 million a day to support Federal disaster relief effort for the months of August and September. The proposed $983.6 million in this bill assumes that FEMA will fully fund these efforts as well as resume work on mitigation, repair and reconstruction projects. It also assumes there will be a zero balance in the fund on September 30. I urge support for this supplemental. It is streamlined. It is stripped down to its bare essentials. Without it, FEMA funds will dry up August 4, leaving communities and individuals without Federal assistance and laying off personnel.

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

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, that is something I will yield to the big chairman on. I am not conversant with the details of it.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, unanticipated disasters. There is no way obviously to accurately predict what Mother Nature is going to do. This is not a huge amount of money, as it goes, for disaster relief. It is simply replenishing or allowing that fund to be able to exist until we can get through the next 2 months.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Over half the material is outside the protection of the main building?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) for a very good, solid, comprehensive, evenhanded bill to address our energy and infrastructure needs for fiscal year 2004. Mr. Chairman, as you know, since September 11 the Federal Government has undergone its most comprehensive reshuffling since World War II with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. As such, we have realized that a terrorist attack, nuclear or otherwise, could come not from a foreign state, but from our own backyard, using unconventional means to disrupt the lives of peaceful citizens. Mr. Chairman, how many places in this country do we store spent nuclear fuel, and where and how is this nuclear spent fuel being stored?

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, would the chairman of the subcommittee engage in a short colloquy with this Member?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. So, as it stands, probably until 2010 this highly radioactive material is sitting there exposed at most of the power plants in the country, outside the nuclear reactor building, waiting to be transported to Yucca Mountain. Is that correct?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. From my perspective on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations, I strongly support quickly moving toward these dual- use, thick-walled containers which can be used for storage and transportation to Yucca Mountain, and, in the meantime, give us maximum protection from the attack on that material causing great possible harm. This would reduce the potentially catastrophic effects of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant. I look forward to working with the chairman on this issue and congratulate the gentleman on a great bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. What I am most concerned about from my perspective is the storage of material at the nuclear power plant pending Yucca Mountain shipment, the years we are having that material laying there exposed to perhaps an attack. By the way, each one of these nuclear plants is within 20 miles of an airport. Would these dual-use casks that the gentleman refers to, would they be impervious to such an attack?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. So the cask you are talking about would serve two purposes, be dual use: one, it would safely protect the material while we are waiting around for Yucca to be finished; and, two, you would not need to change it into another container to ship it out there.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. When the gentleman talks about dual-use casks, could the gentleman tell me what he means by that?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Given the volume of the material we are dealing with and the volatility of that material and its being subject to being attacked, is there a better way to address the issue of storage between now and 2010 and then proper shipment to Yucca Mountain?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as we wrap up debate on this bill, this historic bill, the very first appropriations bill that this Congress has taken up to fund the new Department of Homeland Security, truly a historic day, I want to say just briefly how much I appreciate all of the help that the members of the subcommittee gave to us as we crafted this bill in a bipartisan way, and for all of the Members who have conducted the debate today, I think, in a very high-minded way. I want to especially thank my colleague, my ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), who has been of immense help as we constructed the bill, and all the members of the subcommittee and of the full committee. I want to especially single out the vice chairman of the subcommittee, the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), who was helpful in the drafting of this bill, but also, most importantly, had the courage back in the wintertime to have the Subcommittee on Homeland Security created in the full committee. It was courageous. The other body followed suit. Otherwise, this Department would be appropriated by seven or eight different subcommittees on the House and Senate side. So I want to thank Chairman Young for doing a great job and having the courage to be a leader. And lastly, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the very excellent staff that we have had the good fortune to work with for only 3\1/2\ months since this subcommittee has existed. Just a short time, but this staff pulled together a bill from whole cloth and nurtured it through the process, and we owe a lot to this excellent staff on both sides of the aisle who put this very first bill together. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to thank these people for doing a great job.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI which states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI which states in part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment imposes additional duties and, therefore, violates the rule. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. TSA currently screens cargo based on the Known Shipper Program and identifies potentially troublesome cargo by additional screening. By law, they are required to ensure adequate cargo security measures, but not 100 percent screening of air cargo. In essence, this amendment would stop airlines from loading cargo onto passenger aircraft until TSA can screen or inspect each individual piece. Now, in the bill, we already provide $50 million for the security of air cargo. This funding will do the following: It will develop an air cargo security program for domestic and foreign air cargo carriers. It will promote the development and implementation of a risk-based freight screening system that will identify pieces of cargo that require closer scrutiny and participation in the Known Shipper Program, including linkages with other databases to verify shipper information that is provided. We provide for development of state-of-the-art detection technologies that will screen cargo and also research and test devices that exist now and procedures to be applied to air cargo. Right now, Mr. Chairman, it is not humanly possible to inspect every piece of cargo that goes onto the aircraft. TSA does not have the staff or technologies in place to do that. For example, airport screeners screen passengers and baggage using explosive detection and trace machines. These machines are not certified to screen cargo, nor can they handle the large pallets that cargo is typically shipped in. In these cases, the pallets would need to be broken apart and screened by hand. That is very time-consuming and labor intensive. In addition, in many cases cargo is sorted and prepared onto pallets at airport warehouses nowhere near the airports; and to implement this amendment, the cargo would need to be screened at these off-site locations. According to an analysis prepared by Battelle just prior to 9-11, 100 percent screening of all cargo on passenger carriers would require at least $500 million in the first year alone. That includes procurement of equipment, installation, training, and staffing. It would require 7,800 employees, which would include 6,600 screeners and 1,100 supervisors. If we adopt this amendment, TSA would need to hire a substantial number of new staff to inspect cargo and install new technologies at all of these warehouses. Even if there was sufficient funding in the bill, which there is not, it is not logistically possible to have all of these screeners and technologies in place by the beginning of the fiscal year. TSA is currently in compliance with the Transportation Security Act, which requires TSA to provide adequate security measures for air cargo. The law does not require every piece to be screened or inspected, as this amendment would. We do not require every piece of cargo that goes onto a ship be screened when it is loaded onto a ship or before it is off- loaded. Instead, DHS targets what cargo pieces need to be more closely inspected based on intelligence and innovations such as the advanced manifests that we now require. By adopting this amendment, TSA would have to refuse to allow airlines to transport any cargo until all of it can be screened, and I would point out that the money-strapped airlines would be sorely tried trying to do this, and it would greatly impact their bottom line. Currently, the only cargo airlines can ship on passenger planes is from a known shipper. They cannot, for example, ship any mail above 16 ounces because the shippers may not be known. So, Mr. Chairman, I understand the obvious meaning of the amendment. I appreciate the concern the gentleman has. We have tried to address that in the bill with $50 million to begin to address the problem. To adopt this kind of a drop-dead provision would mean chaos in the airlines. It would not substantially increase the security that is now ongoing in loading cargo onto planes. The Known Shipper Program is reliable. It is working, and while we spend the $50 million this coming year to begin to try to get the machines and technology in place to be able to screen, as we do, container freight in most cases, this money should be sufficient for that purpose. So I would urge defeat of the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is correct. In addition to that, as we have previously said, the subcommittee increased the amount of money for all of the grant programs of which there are seven, for firefighter grants and for infrastructure grants, emergency management grants, formula grants to States and cities and the like. All those grant programs, we increased by $1 billion above what the President wanted and $203 million more than the 2003 levels. So all of the States that have these high-density urban areas that would be eligible for the high-density grants will also be eligible for very larger pots of money that everyone else is trying to share with, and yet this amendment would take from that moneys and put it into the high-density/high-urban areas. We have gone through this in our subcommittee and in our full committee and we have labored with it and wrestled with it with the gentleman and in a bipartisan fashion from big cities and small, big States and small, and this was the best we could do. We think it is a fair way to do it. And to take the moneys from one area now and give it to another would open us up to an ugliness that I do not think we need to see in this battle.