Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am compelled again to talk about New York. All of us here are sympathetic, understanding, we want to help; but I feel compelled to lay out some facts that have not been laid out here. The fiscal year 2003 bill, we gave $800 million in that bill for the high-threat, high- density urban area grants and the discretion of the Secretary. $100 million of that was in the omnibus; $700 million was in the supplemental. However, that money has not been spent. There is $800 million laying there. Why? Because the grant application deadline for that first $100 million just ended on June 16, a couple of weeks ago, and has not been processed. The application deadline for the $700 million that was in the supplemental is not up until July 7. We have not processed the applications yet. Those moneys will be going out there, to New York and the other cities. In addition to that, what I am saying is, I guess, have a little patience. Number two, when the President's request came up to us for fiscal year 2004, there was no request for high threat, high-density urban grant moneys. Zero. The subcommittee worked on it, and we put in $500 million. Now people call that a cut. Boy, that is a strange use of the word. We increased it $500 million. If the Secretary thinks we ought to change that, then he needs to send us a budget supplemental and amend his request and we will consider it. However, all of the other grant programs, and there are six or seven of them, there are basic formula grants, there are law enforcement terrorism prevention grants, there are critical infrastructure grants, there are firefighter assistance grants, there are emergency management performance grants, there are emergency operations centers grants, all of which New York is eligible to apply for. We increased those funds over what the President wanted us to by $1 billion. So that now there is $4.04 billion available in those grant programs immediately. I would guess just by the odds and by the importance of New York that when you apply for those grants with the increased numbers there, all of these grants, you are probably going to wind up with more money than you got this year. But, please, have patience and understand that the rest of the country is interested in this as well. We want to help you, but I ask for your patience and understanding.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I would rather that we let the TSA absorb these cuts that we already have in place, which will cut 10,600 screeners by the end of 2004. Let us do that before we take further steps. We can assess it at that time. If we still have a problem, I would be supportive of the gentleman's amendment. But for the moment, I think we have done just about enough.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly, very reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment. The gentleman is a good Member, and he has expressed heartfelt thoughts here. And, goodness knows, I have expressed very serious and long-standing reservations about the number of screeners that TSA has deployed in airports throughout the country. But in the bill before us we already reduce the number of screeners by another 4,600 in fiscal 2004, and that is on top of the 6,000 screeners that will be laid off between now and September of this year. That would be a reduction from current levels, roughly, of some 10,600 less than we have now. In the 2002 bill, when it was in Transportation, we capped the number of screeners at 45,000. This cut the gentleman would make would take us well below that cap. This further reduction of $20 million from the screener fund would require them to lay off another 500 to 1,000 screeners on top of what I just mentioned. That would take us well below the 45,000 level that we had set now for the 2 or 3 years in the Congress as the maximum level at TSA. The monies the gentleman would take from TSA he would give to the first responders, and heavens knows we want to give them all we can, but in this bill, as the gentleman mentioned, we are already $1 billion for first responders above what the President requested, and some $200 million plus above what the current level of spending for first responders is. So I just think that it would be unwise to adopt this amendment, as much as I sympathize with the gentleman's philosophy in offering it.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

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, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment by the gentleman who has been working very hard on the issue. Originally, this program permitted those certified as low-risk travelers to cross the Mexican border on an expedited basis for 1 year. However, in order to accommodate the unexpected increases in enrollment in that program following 9-11, Customs and Border Protection in February 2003 extended the enrollment period to 2 years. That had the effect of benefiting both participants in the program and the government by reducing paperwork and made the annual enrollment fee a biennial fee. But current enrollees had their eligibility automatically extended for 2 years from the date of their last enrollment and the applications backlog that was being blamed for increased waits at the border has been greatly reduced. So I do not think the problem is as bad as it perhaps was at the outset. Number two, we took $333 million in the 2003 wartime supplemental and gave that to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. We have not received their spend plans on how they intend to use those funds. The Department, however, could, I would remind the gentleman, could use a portion of the supplemental to support the SENTRI expansion. They do have some discretion. Number three, and the gentleman alluded to this. We have already cut the funds for the Department's administration by 25 percent. The moneys he would take with this amendment would come out of administration. We have already cut them past the bone almost. Additional reductions could reduce the basic departmental administration programs and impair their ability to fulfill management of the entire agency. For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment and would urge Members to reject it.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman that just spoke made some comments that I feel must be responded to. It is not really relevant to this amendment, but I will try to make it so, and that is whether or not we are providing enough funding for our State and local responders. I hear it every day. We hear it every day. Most people are uninformed or misinformed about how much money is going out there. In this bill we provide over $4 billion, and added to the moneys that we put in the 2002 bill and the 2003 bill, we will have appropriated some $20.8 billion just for State and local first responders. The money is going out in different sorts of grants. There are eight or 10 different sorts of grants, one of which goes to the high-threat urban areas such as New York, Washington, L.A., other places, and those go out at the discretion and in the decision of the Secretary. Last year, the current year 2003, we provided $800 million for just the high-threat/high-density urban areas. The administration in the 2004 request did not request any funds in that account. We put $500 million back in that account, and that is in the bill as we speak. However, in the other grant accounts we have increased the grants for State and local first responders by over $1 billion. We do not hear that talked about, but it is there. There is over $1 billion more in those grant programs this year and next year than this year, $203 million above what we gave this year and $1 billion over what the President requested. So I want to ask where is the beef? Where is the beef? Those moneys are going out under competitive and discretionary grant programs to our States. Under this bill our States are required by law to give that money, 80 percent of it, to the locals within 60 days. The States have got to set up their own machinery for processing these applications. They have not done that yet. New York's application was almost tardy. We are just now getting the applications. And yet then we are saying you are not giving us the money. The money is there when you qualify and will be there during this year, but we have increased the amounts of money that go to State and local first responders $203 million above what they have now and $1 billion more than was requested by the President. If the administration wants to submit a change in their budget request that changes these grants in some fashion, I am sure they will send us the supplement to their budget and we will give it due consideration. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure that Members understand the State and local first responder grant moneys are there more than last year, $1 billion more than the President requested. If the States will get their committees together and do their paperwork and apply for these moneys, they will be there, and if there are any delays in the pipeline, it is mainly because the States and localities have not applied for the money. So Mr. Chairman, I rest my case.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman is correct, but I think in due course of time, perhaps before the bill finally reaches the President, we will have found out more.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Only in a general sense. The presence of high-risk infrastructure, the urban intensity of the region, we leave it to the discretion of the Secretary, as I think we should, rather than some formula. As the gentleman knows, we have been working together.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and gentlewoman for this colloquy and applaud the fight they have led for New York, which is one of the reasons we enacted a total of $800 million for high-threat, high-density urban areas in fiscal year 2003. Of that $800 million, New York received $186 million to assist first responders with the increased security costs associated with the war in Iraq and Operation Liberty Shield. I am aware of the concerns the formula has generated. I assure my colleagues I appreciate the degree to which New York is a target and the expenses New York faces. I am also aware of those rural areas that rely on the basic formula grants to fulfill their first responder requirements. I believe any reform to the formula must ensure that these rural areas are not abandoned. I will work closely with the gentlewoman and the gentleman as the bill progresses to conference on these and other matters.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), another hard-working member of our subcommittee.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the hard working member of our subcommittee.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very valuable member of our subcommittee, who has contributed much to this bill. (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I could not let the gentleman's statement go unanswered. We cannot talk in this forum about all that we are doing at our ports in searching container freight and other freight. I would be happy to talk to any Member privately about it, but we cannot talk about all that we are doing in a public forum because it is sensitive information. However, the Customs and Border Protection Agency tells me that they are inspecting 100 percent of all high-risk cargo based on collecting advanced information such as manifests, intelligence, and targeting systems. I have had the experience of going to some of those ports myself and watching the operation. Watching as we use the equipment on these containers that we do search and then the ones that we physically search. The 2003 spending bill had monies in it for a thing called the Container Security Initiative, essentially operating at about 20 megaports and several smaller ports all over the world. The idea is to push the perimeter of defense off of our shores. We all know if a bad container gets to us, it is too late. If you catch it only when it comes to your port, it is too late. So we have moved offshore to 20 megaports now, places like Rotterdam, Singapore, and the like, and inspecting and searching and securing containers before they ever sail for America. Mr. Chairman, the bill provides $62 million to expand that to 30 megaports around the world and especially those in very sensitive parts of the world. Now we already have in place $165 million from the wartime supplemental that we passed for additional inspectors, agents, technology and $129 million for additional inspection technology in this bill. Those monies will be used to push the border out to these 30 foreign seaports through the Container Security Initiative, but there is also $12 million for government-private partnerships to tighten security in private facilities and $3 million to continue what is called the Operation Safe Commerce to make smart containers and our supply chain even more secure. I want Members to know that we are focusing exactly on what the gentleman has talked about, and that is container freight. There are more than 17 million containers a year, there is 17 million a year; 7 million comes by sea, 12 million by land across our borders with Mexico and Canada. It is a huge problem to deal with. However, if we stop and search physically every single container regardless of whether or not it looks to be suspicious for some reason, we would absolutely shut down commerce in the world. So much of our commerce depends on the container freight business. I think we are going about it the sensible way. I am convinced after having visited several ports, spending a lot of time with the folks that are doing this, looking at the machinery and the results and how they go about doing it, that we are doing as good as we can in the span of time that we have had. Obviously it is going to get better. We are going to keep pushing at it. That is the reason we have loaded this bill down with money for that very purpose. I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to us so we can discuss it.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very distinguished and very helpful member of our subcommittee who contributed greatly to this bill. (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I certainly will.