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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The committee, as I said before in general debate, provided $3.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security activities related to the war effort. This amendment would add another substantial amount of money to that figure, which at this moment in time is not necessary. This bill, this supplemental bill we are talking about is only for a 3-month period of time. We will have plenty of time after that to look to the future, but for this 3-month window of time, I say to the Members, this money is adequate. Could we spend more? Of course, we can shovel money out the door, but we have tried to be reasonable and somewhat restrained in what we throw out the window here at this point in time. This is a 3-month expenditure we are talking about. Taking some of the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) specifics, for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, this is money for our local responders. We provide $2.2 billion. His amendment would add another 300, but I would point out to the Members that there is already almost $1 billion of money presently allocated that is unspent, laying there waiting for our communities to ask for that money. And, number two, the 2004 budget request adds another $3.6 billion that likely will be appropriated and will be available beginning this October 1. Now, the Coast Guard: We provide $630 million. His amendment would add $100 million more to hire 2,000 more people. We cannot bring 2,000 people on board that fast. The 2004 budget request includes funds for hiring new people and, undoubtedly, we will approve that. But for this 3-month period of time, this is unrealistic. Now, for the Transportation Security Administration, we provide $390 million. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would add $250 million for port security grants. But the Coast Guard has $40 million in this supplemental to complete the port vulnerability assessments. We do not know what the ports need until we assess them, and that is what the Coast Guard is doing just this minute. They are going to come back and tell us what we will need for fiscal 2004 and we will provide it for them. They are going to tell us what we will need for the next 10 years. And the estimated cost over 10 years is $4.4 billion to harden the ports, and we will do that over the period of time. We cannot do it all at once. The amendment provides another $150 million for firefighter assistance grants for which there was no request. We have already provided $1.1 billion in fiscal 2002 and 2003. And as I said, most of that money has not yet been passed out to the communities. Mr. Chairman, I am just saying to my colleagues that there is plenty of money in the first responder pipeline for this 3-month period of time about which this bill addresses itself. The amendment would provide $350 million for interoperable communications equipment between first responders. There was no request for that money. There is a need for interoperability, no doubt about it, but we have first got to develop regional and national standards before we spend zillions of dollars trying to communicate with each other. This has to be done on a regional basis. And the regionalization of that system is in the works even as we speak, but not quite yet ready. The committee, I think, has adequately funded homeland security activities that were war related for this 3-month period of time. There is only 5 months left in the fiscal year to spend additional monies. There is plenty of money in the pipeline for our first responders. There is plenty of money in the bill for port security, including extending our port assessment to the 20 megaports in the other parts of the world from which we receive most of our shipments. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations who just spoke, for having the foresight and vision and leadership to have taken on this very difficult chore of reorganizing the House to deal with homeland security. It was his leadership that created this new subcommittee that brought together authorities from other subcommittees into one place, and it is the right thing to do and he took the leadership to make it happen; and the other body then followed suit, followed the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. We are fortunate to have him in the position that he is in. Now, Mr. Chairman, this bill has plenty of money for homeland security. Could we spend more money? Yes, of course, we could. Are there fire departments and police departments and EMT departments out there that could use more money? Absolutely. Is there a role for the Federal Government in helping them meet their expenses? Yes. What is that role? Our role is to assist them to train and to have equipment and the like to help protect the Nation from threats. But of course, their main responsibility is to protect their hometown and their home State and, of course, we cannot and should not pay their entire budget. Yet some would have us do that. Some would have us turn the homeland security funding mechanisms into another revenue sharing, so that States and localities could get huge sums of money without any real policy connection to a Federal role, and we must guard against that. But in this bill, Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of money for homeland security. There is plenty of money backed up in previous years that has not yet been spent that localities can have access to. But in this bill, there is $2.2 billion that is destined for our States and localities when they apply for it, for monies to go to their first responders; $2.2 billion to different grant programs that they can apply to the Secretary for, and those monies will be granted to the States and localities; and 80 percent of the money has to go to the local departments and not be funneled off by the States. So we think it is a substantial sum of money that will satisfy the need for the moment. We may see the need in short order for something else, but for the moment we think this is sufficient. There is also $1.5 billion for the Secretary to use on the Federal level for such things as cargo and portal radiation monitors. These are in our Nation's seaports and our land ports to protect us from cargo containers that might contain nuclear materials or biological or chemical weapons. There is $193 million for just that. There is $100 million for additional staffing along the northern border with our neighbors in Canada. There is $35 million more for container security initiatives so that we can keep track of, find and keep track of container cargo that might be damaging. There is $235 million in this bill to help our local airports modify their premises to accommodate these huge x-ray machines that are checking our baggage. There is $85 million to help reimburse our local law enforcement and State law enforcement officers and National Guardsmen who have been providing increased security at the airports and other critical transportation sites. Most of this money is going to our localities, as it should. There is $40 million for the Transportation Security Administration's port security efforts, and there is $30 million for nonaviation surface transportation security initiatives. There is $185 million for the Immigration Service for overtime, and air and marine interdiction and detention and removal of people who should not be here. Now, do the States and localities need more? Well, of course their budgets are tight. But I would point out to my colleagues that we still have $291 million of 2002 monies still available. There is $291 million yet unspent that we provided in fiscal year 02 that the States and localities have not even applied for. There is $566 million that we provided for State and local grants in the 03 omnibus bill. All of those monies are yet unspent. In the current supplemental, there is $2.2 billion that is destined for our localities, and in the 04 fiscal year that we are holding hearings on right now, and that bill will be passed sometime hopefully this summer, there is another several hundreds of millions of dollars. All told, that is a combined total of $19 billion-plus over the 02-04 period, monies that are destined for localities, most of which has not even been applied for. So there is plenty of money in the pipeline for our States and localities. Sure, we would like to have more money perhaps one of these days, but for the moment we have plenty of money for our States and localities to apply for if they wish.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated civil servant and all around great American, Mr. Ron Keeney. After 37 years with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Huntington, WV, he is retiring and embarking on a new stage of life. I want to express my deepest gratitude for his many contributions. Ron Keeney has led a distinguished career and played a critical role in improving the lives and living conditions of thousands of people in my home district in Southern and Eastern Kentucky. Ron has been instrumental in getting a number of important flood control projects off the ground in my region and he shares my belief that we must carefully balance economic development with the needs of our rich natural environment. Through his efforts, the Huntington District has become an integral component of our region's PRIDE program, which is helping clean up our waterways and streams. I want to thank Ron for sharing my vision of how federal-local partnerships can bridge gaps, streamline the process, and make real contributions to people's daily lives. Ron is also widely respected within the Army Corp of Engineers. Beyond measure, Ron has improved the Huntington District's programmatic, oversight, planning, and fiscal performance. He has also proven invaluable as the District's key civilian decision-maker witih regard to strategic management of its major civil-works, environmental, and other programs and projects, including work for other Federal agencies. The list of awards bestowed upon Ron speaks volumes about his job performance, knowledge, and skills. During his career, he has received more than 30 outstanding/exceptional performance ratings. He also received the May 1999, Silver de Fleury Medal, the 1994 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planner of the Year, and the 1994 and 1985 LRD Planner of the Year Award. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank Ron Keeney for the time and effort he has put into the lives of others. Although his time with the Corps of Engineers is drawing to a close, I know the people of the Huntington District will continue to benefit from his contributions for many years to come. I want to wish him and his family all the best for this next stage of life.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr Speaker, I rise today to commend the staff of the Middlesboro Social Security Office for their strong, effective, and compassionate service to the people of Kentucky. Social Security plays an important role in the lives of more Americans than any other federal program. Whether providing a Social Security number for a newborn baby, mailing a check to a retired worker, or helping a disabled individual receive benefits, the Social Security Administration touches the lives of just about everyone. The field office in Middlesboro, Kentucky, is a shining example for this massive agency. Under the leadership of Steve Schneider, the staff in Middlesboro consistently goes beyond the call of duty to provide valuable benefits to the people of Kentucky. Because of their unwavering commitment to helping others, the Social Security Administration recognized the Middlesboro Office as the Best Level II Field Office in the Atlanta Region for fiscal year 2002. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank the staff at the Middlesboro Social Security Office for their hard work and dedication to serving the people of Kentucky. These fine Americans are an inspiration to us all, and I salute them for their commitment to helping others.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker I rise today to commend the staff of the Somerset Social Security Office for their strong, effective, and compassionate service to the people of Kentucky. Social Security plays an important role in the lives of more Americans than any other federal program. Whether providing a Social Security number for a newborn baby, mailing a check to a retired worker, or helping a disabled individual receive benefits, the Social Security Administration touches the lives of just about everyone. The field office in my hometown of Somerset, Kentucky, is a shining example for this massive agency. Under the leadership of W.D. Dalton, the staff in Somerset consistently goes beyond the call of duty to provide valuable benefits to the people of Kentucky. Because of their unwavering commitment to helping others, the Social Security Administration recognized the Somerset Office as the Best Level II Field Office in the Atlanta Region for fiscal year 2002. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank the staff at the Somerset Social Security Office for their hard work and dedication to serving the people of Kentucky. These fine Americans are an inspiration to us all, and I salute them for their commitment to helping others.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, a most joyous occasion has taken place for me that I want to share with you and my friends. On December 23, 2002, my oldest son and his wife became the parents of my first grandson. Brendan Anthony Rogers became the only Rogers boy to be born in my parents' family and therefore the bearer of the name into the future. Brendan's parents, Anthony and Mindy, live in my hometown, Somerst, Kentucky. Brendan's grandmother, my first wife, Shirley, passed away in 1995. She would be very proud, as am I, of this handsome, lively little guy. Mr. Speaker, in the midst of the weighty issues with which we are faced in this body, my announcement of this bundle of joy is indeed a respite. However, for me, Brendan's arrival is, in itself, a weighty matter because he brings to me a sense of immortality, and I know all my colleagues can identify with that. Mr. Speaker, I ask of you and all our colleagues, that you join me in wishing to Brendan Anthony Rogers, as he embarks on life, Godspeed!

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, here they are. While the gentleman is reading, I will proceed. Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent conference report. It has significant benefits for homeland security and transportation activities in this country. I would like to take a minute, if I could, to highlight some of the aspects of the bill that I have just referred to. Homeland security. We include $5.2 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, slightly more than the House figure, but it is $400 million more than what the President's asking in next fiscal year 2004. So TSA is going to have to slim down over the next few months to hit the President's target. They will also have to begin addressing security needs outside the aviation sector, and the bill funds several programs in port security and land security and other areas to help provide that focus. Within this $5.2 billion for transportation security, we have $440 million to procure more of the airport bomb detection systems and install them with inline systems with baggage handling systems at the airports so we can get these systems out of the lobbies of our airports. There is $100 million to reimburse the airlines to armor the cockpit doors to prevent another 9-11, and there is $8 million for commercial pilots to receive firearms training so that they can carry the weapons into the cockpit. There is $150 million for port security grants and $10 million more for port security research and development. There is $35 million to improve the security of commercial trucking and intercity passenger buses. And then the Coast Guard, very important to our homeland security, we include $4.3 billion for their operating needs. That is higher than either the House level or the Senate-passed level as we went into conference. We increased them above either one of our levels and well above the administration request. It includes significant new funding for homeland security activities, including new maritime safety and security teams at the Nation's larger ports and upgraded infrared sensors so the Coast Guard can patrol more effectively after dark. Now, in transportation we include $31.8 billion for Federal-aid highways. That is $8.6 billion above the administration's request and $4.1 billion above the level guaranteed in authorizing legislation. Let me repeat that. We are above the level stipulated in the authorization. According to the Federal Highway Administration, under this bill every State will receive more formula highway money in 2003 than they got in 2002. The conferees deserve a lot of credit for placing such a high priority on highway spending. This will be a significant boost for the economy and a huge boost for communities around the country who are mired in traffic congestion problems. The bill also includes high-priority projects in response to the thousands of requests we had from Members of this body. No one knows the needs of our districts better than the Members of this House who are elected from those districts, and we have tried to be as responsive to those requests as we could. Mr. Speaker, we should all be pleased about the Amtrak provisions of this bill. For the first time in at least a decade, this bill forces some real reforms on Amtrak. It allows the Secretary of Transportation to take a much more active and authoritative role. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, there are 10 of them. Would the gentleman like to read them?

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and let me say at the outset how much we appreciate the work of our great chairman. This has been a long, tortuous path that he has had to lead us through. He has got us here against all odds, and we owe a great debt of gratitude to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for the fine work that he has done in bringing this bill to us. The gentleman who spoke just before the chairman, we have got to be sure that we come here with clean hands when we speak. Yes, this bill is big and we would like to have had it in a different form here, but we had to work with what we had to work with. The gentleman from Arizona who says he is against the bill because he does not like all the spending in it, well, he requested 10 items in the defense bill. I do not know whether they were granted or not, but he requested spending in the sum of $160 million, and now he says he is against the bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated public servant, family man, friend, and all around great Kentuckian, Judge Sid Stewart. After 17 years of tirelessly serving as County Judge/Executive of Morgan County, Kentucky, he is retiring from public office. I want to express my deepest gratitude for his many contributions. A native of Eastern Kentucky, Judge Stewart grew up on a hillside farm in Knott County. As a youth, he labored alongside his father in the log woods and lumber industry. Never one to shy away from hard work, he used his knowledge of the lumber industry to pay his way through college. After graduating from Morehead State University, he went on to lead a successful professional career that has included working as a Juvenile Probation Officer, Assistant Director of the Northeast Kentucky Area Development Council, Executive Director of Gateway Community Services, and President of a construction company. He also served as a member of a number of civic and professional boards and was a member of the Morgan County School Board for four years. Sworn into office on January 6, 1986, Sid Stewart has worked tirelessly to improve the lives of the people in Morgan County. As a lifelong resident of Eastern Kentucky, he has a personal interest in the well being and prosperity of the region and understands the challenges and needs facing the residents of the area. During his time in office, Judge Stewart has focused his efforts on lifting up the people of his community. He has worked with local, state and federal officials on a variety of initiatives aiming to boost the local economy, create new jobs and enhance public services. Without the determination and vision of Judge Stewart, these initiatives would not be possible. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I want to thank my friend Judge Stewart for the time and effort he has put into the lives of others. Although his time in public office is drawing to a close, I know the people of Morgan County will continue to benefit from his contributions for many years to come.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a military veteran, dedicated public servant, and all around great Kentuckian, Brigadier General James E. Bickford, U.S. Army (Retired). I want to express my deepest gratitude for his many contributions to the people of our state and this great nation. General Bickford is a highly decorated military veteran who has spent most of his life serving our country. Commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army as a young man, his duties took him all over the world, including Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Throughout his military career, General Bickford received a host of service awards and decorations, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, and the Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Cluster. He was the man in charge of logistics for the Persian Gulf War and I had the pleasure of attending the ceremony in Washington, DC this spring as he was inducted into the Defense Logistics Agency Hall of Fame. In addition to his reputation as a strong and effective military leader, General Bickford is widely known for his compassion and commitment to helping others. Born in West Virginia and raised in the hills of Harlan County, Kentucky, he is especially interested in the well being and prosperity of Appalachia. Upon completion of his military service, he found his heart calling him back to Kentucky. He was appointed Secretary of the Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet in December of 1995, and has worked tirelessly ever since to protect and enhance the natural resources of the Bluegrass State. Let me publicly state for the Record that we are absolutely delighted that General Bickford and his lovely wife, Shirley, decided to come back home. It is through his service to Kentucky that I have had the great fortune of getting to know General Bickford. Our paths first crossed in 1997, when we were both invited to speak to a group in Louisville, Kentucky. Although we had never met, our speeches were stunningly similar and our goal was the same--to tackle the daunting task of cleaning up Southern and Eastern Kentucky. As natives of the 5th Congressional District, we both knew that the environmental problems in our region were extensive and could only, if at all, be remedied through a coordinated federal, state and local effort. After our first meeting, we pulled our resources together-- those of the Kentucky State Government and the United States Government--and got to work. Right away we began asking local mayors, judges and area development districts to join forces in our effort to clean up the region. Then we asked the public to help. Thus was formed the PRIDE program, which stands for Personal Responsibility in a Desirable Environment. The response has been overwhelming. Thousands are involved in improving their home region, thanks to General Bickford's dedication and leadership. Through our federal, state, and local partnership, we have made significant strides in cleaning up our rivers and streams, helping our counties address sewage and trash problems, and educating our children about the importance of a clean environment. As a lifelong resident of Southern and Eastern Kentucky, words cannot describe how wonderful it is to see our region being reborn. Because of the success of the PRIDE program, and modeled after it, we are now implementing initiatives to enhance tourism, improve our economy and bring new jobs to the 5th Congressional District. These initiatives would not be possible without the efforts of General Bickford. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend General Bickford for the time, energy, and devotion he has invested in making our world a better place. I am especially grateful for his unwavering commitment to the PRIDE program and the people of the 5th District of Kentucky. There is no doubt in my mind that we will continue to benefit from his profound contributions for many years to come.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 114, authorizing the President to employ the use of our Armed Forces against Iraq, and urge its adoption by this Chamber. For the past 2 days, the House of Representatives has had under consideration one of the most serious resolutions it is capable of adopting and, like my colleagues, I take it very seriously. Some have argued that this resolution is not necessary, that Iraq poses no immediate danger to the United States or any other nation, and that we should not employ military force against a sadistic terrorist regime that displays not the slightest regard for human life. Mr. Speaker, I disagree. For the past 10 years, Saddam Hussein had developed and stockpiled chemical and biological weapons and continued to construct facilities capable of producing nuclear weapons. Evidence of this and other destructive activities on the part of Saddam Hussein is overwhelming. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of our Nation's safety and that of our neighbors and allies we cannot ignore this problem any longer. Either Saddam Hussein gives the U.N. weapons inspectors full, un-fettered, and unconditional access to all Iraqi facilities or the United States will take action to disarm him. I applaud President Bush, who has prudently and methodically made a strong case for why the United States has the moral and political authority to take action against Iraq, if necessary. Mr. Speaker, we are at the end of the line and words and international declarations will no longer do against a dictator who has nothing but contempt for the freedom-loving world and his own people. In addition to its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated the Persian Gulf War cease-fire agreement, snubbed numerous U.N. resolutions, brutalized and killed his own people, plotted to assassinate a former U.S. President, and has aided and harbored members of terrorists cells, including al-Qaida. Clearly, we must act. Mr. Speaker, the foremost responsibility of government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. We demand safety and security in our neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces; we should expect the same in the international community as well. Although I remain hopeful that this conflict with Iraq can be resolved peacefully, I am prepared, for the sake of our Nation's security, to employ force. This resolution is not, as some have stated, a ``blank check'' for the President. Congress has and will continue to maintain its constitutional prerogatives if armed conflict with Iraq should ensue, but as a nation, we have the right to take action. Thus, I urge the adoption of House Joint Resolution 114.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply tries to use the template, the model, of the Nation's drug interdiction program which is coordinated in two different places, in Key West, Florida, for the east side, South America, and the Caribbean, and Alameda, California, for the West Coast, Mexico and South America. These centers are under no one's command. These are voluntary, governmental agencies that cooperate together in those centers under a memorandum of understanding. It is not controlled by anyone. Yet in those centers, and I recommend that Members visit them, we see the Nation's military, our civilian agencies, our intelligence agencies, in a boiler-room operation, all working 24 hours a day, 7 seven days a week, receiving intelligence from all sorts of places, and then acting on it with whatever resource may be available from whatever agency of the government that may be on the scene. Now, they recognize posse comitatus; military is only used offshore. If there is a domestic or civilian aspect of what they do, they turn to the proper domestic civilian authorities, the sheriffs, the police departments, and so on. So there is a high recognition of posse comitatus there. This amendment requires if the secretary sets up such an operation, that he must model it after those models that I mentioned, which recognize posse comitatus. Number two, the underlying bill in the manager's amendment reaffirmed that we are operating under posse comitatus. That we cannot violate in the bill posse comitatus. All civil liberties are completely protected under this amendment. The amendment grants no new authorities or powers to the components of the proposed task force, recognizing the existing Posse Comitatus Act. Number two, we wrote this amendment so it is even permissive. We do not direct the Secretary to do this. He may if he chooses; but if he does, he must recognize posse comitatus. If Members believe that the war against foreign terrorism must be coordinated, then Members should be for this. There is no better model that we have than what exists in Key West and Alameda, which can easily be transferred if the secretary deems necessary to the fight against foreign terrorism. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns of the gentlemen who have expressed interest. It is too bad we had to debate this last night at 12:30 or 1 in the morning. We had 5 minutes, and it was too bad that the gentleman was busy in his home district in Pennsylvania. If the gentleman has questions about it, I will be happy to answer by whatever means the gentleman deems necessary.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This provision has been vetted by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House, the Committee on Armed Services of the House, the Select Committee on Homeland Security under the leadership of the majority leader, and we have changed it accordingly at their suggestions. Number two, the majority leader's amendment tomorrow, his manager's amendment, will reaffirm the posse comitatus belief that we have in this country, the law, in fact. But most importantly, the joint task forces in Alameda and Key West only use Defense Department assets outside of the U.S. border. There are not going to be any soldiers roaming the streets of this country, for gosh sakes. We do it just exactly like the task forces now do on the drug war using the DOD assets outside of the U.S. border in keeping with title X posse comitatus restrictions. If they have an internal problem, they turn to the National Guard under State control if there is a need for it, but relying upon domestic law enforcement forces that we have in place now.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First I want to thank the majority leader for working with us and our staff on this amendment. He worked well into the night with us yesterday, last night, getting this together, and I believe it has been thoroughly vetted by both sides of the aisle by the appropriate authorizing committees. This is a simple amendment. It grants permissive authority to the new Homeland Security Secretary for the creation of a Joint Interagency Homeland Security Task Force completely at the discretion of the new Secretary, in no way impeding his flexibility or authority in running the new Department. It does not grant any new authorities or powers to the cooperating components of the task force not already authorized by the Congress, and the task force, if created, is suggested to be modeled in the language of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, after the existing joint interagency task forces for drug interdiction currently operating as we speak in two places, Key West, Florida, for the East, and Alameda, California for the West. Mr. Chairman, the reason I suggest this type of a boiler room operation in the war on terrorism is the fact that these existing task forces for drug interdiction are efficient, they are lean, they are highly successful operations on the war on drugs, and while the task of protecting the homeland is vastly more complicated and different than any single drug mission, these centers are appropriate templates for how the various elements of our government should and can work together in a lean, mean machine war room. These centers coordinate every aspect of the counterdrug operation, from intelligence-gathering, detection and monitoring, to the actual seizure and apprehension of those involved. These existing JIATF centers promote security cooperation and interagency efficiency. That is the exact kind of a concept we should be implementing in our defense of the homeland, a combination of military, civilian, and intelligence agencies, working together in the same place. Given the inextricable link between terrorist activity and illegal drugs, these existing centers already have firsthand knowledge and expertise in homeland defense and could prove to be a very valuable tool to the new Secretary as a template for the war on terrorism. We have taken great care, Mr. Chairman, to craft the language in such a way that it will not be perceived as expanding the powers of the Secretary beyond what is already envisioned in the bill. Both the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on the Judiciary have made helpful comments on our original draft. We have incorporated their changes in this language, and I appreciate their help as well. Mr. Chairman, in closing, this amendment is simple. It seeks to establish a functioning interagency task force within the new Department, where coordination among the various agencies of the government, the various components who remain under their own control, and we simply draw as we need something for the particular task at hand from all agencies of the government. The amendment in no way impedes the authority of the new Secretary from carrying out his or her core mission. It is merely a suggestion for another important, I think, and useful tool in the Department's arsenal. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, this bill contains $3.85 billion to continue operations and activities of the Transportation Security Administration for the remainder of fiscal year 2002. I am pleased to report that this is the same level as approved by the House in its version of the supplemental. The Senate wanted almost $1 billion more for this start-up agency compared to the House level, with no limit on staffing, and we held the line against that proposal. Members should know that we have upheld the position of the House in this agreement, and it is adequate. The Department of Transportation has raised objections to specific security items in this bill. What are they objecting to? They are objecting to funds for airport modifications to ensure the timely installation of explosive detection systems, an additional $225 million, for a total of $738 million. This will lessen the likelihood of chaos later this year when bomb detection machines are delivered and installed in airports. They are objecting to grants to improve port security, an issue of great vulnerability, $125 million. They are objecting to systems for air marshals to communicate with the pilots and officials on the ground, $15 million. They are objecting to funds to address airport terminal security, a critical issue, since the attack on El Al in Los Angeles a few weeks ago, $17 million. And they are objecting to funds for immediate replacement of the outdated metal detectors at all commercial airports, $23 million. With additions like these, we have improved upon the administration's request in modest ways, and provided the means for TSA to work smarter. The bill also caps TSA's full-time permanent staffing to no more than 45,000 people. My subcommittee's review of the TSA plan points to well over 12,000 positions that should be reevaluated. In fact, in a recent hearing, the head of the agency gave me his commitment to eliminate many of these positions such as ``ticket checkers'' and ``customer service representatives.'' TSA is building a huge bureaucracy, and this bill helps bring that process under control. The Secretary of Transportation testified earlier today that TSA needs every penny of the amount they requested. I respectfully disagree. The agency is so far behind in its own hiring goals, there should be little doubt that fewer resources are needed to get them through fiscal year 2002. OMB even offered up some of this money. Maybe they know the agency has not been the best steward of the monies we have already provided for this year, several billions of dollars, offering law enforcement personnel salaries that are higher than necessary, allowing excessive overhead charges on the existing screener contracts, and not monitoring those charges and refusing to move out quickly on new technology, such as metal detectors, which would reduce the staffing need dramatically at the check-out points at airports. Just this morning, the DOT Inspector General testified that ``Controls over the existing security screener contracts were lacking, and that improvements were drastically needed.'' Until they straighten out these problems, they do not need more money. This bill provides adequate funding for TSA to get through the next 10 weeks. It deletes unnecessary funds and encourages them to look much more carefully at how they are spending our money. We will not give them money for salaries that are outside the norm for similar Federal activities. We will not give them money for wasteful overhead charges on Federal contracts, and we will not give them money to hire a standing army of almost 70,000 people to take off your shoes, check your briefcase three times, and perform intensive checks of white- haired grandmothers in wheelchairs and babes in arms. If the Department of Transportation does not understand this by now, this bill should help them get that message.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Overall, this is a good bill. By establishing a demonstration program of limited duration and strict standards, we will be able to assess the benefits and risks of arming commercial airline pilots. The bill does not require pilots to carry guns but gives them the option up to a certain percentage and subject to training. They will be literally the last line of defense for our commercial aviation system. The terrorist attacks of September 11 demonstrated that this is something that should at least be evaluated in a systematic and limited manner. However, I want to draw to the Members' attention one element of the bill that I hope will be addressed in conference with the other body. Section 2 of the bill requires that all costs for the training, supervision, and equipment, meaning guns, under this program shall be borne by the Federal Government. These costs have been estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $47 million over the next 5 years. These funds are not currently in the Transportation Security Administration's budget and could well cause the agency to cancel or defer other critical security activities to finance what is essentially an earmark on future budgets. In addition, training facilities at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which are mandated to be the trainer of these pilots, are stretched thin already; and it is not clear whether the program could go forward immediately because of that. There is a way out of this predicament. In my view, the Federal Government could just as easily specify the standards for this training and equipment, as we do for pilot training, and allow the airlines, who choose to participate in the program, to bear those costs. This is a voluntary program. Airlines who want to participate should bear these costs, rather than expanding the Federal Government even further than we already have. I am concerned, as I know many Members are, over mission creep at the TSA. Many of us want to constrain the size and the scope of that agency and limit mission creep. Deputizing pilots and also paying for their training and firearms, I think, is a step in the direction of mission creep for TSA. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica); the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and others for a good job in the drafting of this legislation, with a couple of minor corrections that I hope can be made as we go along. I hope as we proceed through the process that the managers of the bill will work to limit the direct Federal responsibility for the program and focus more on oversight of what I consider to be industry responsibilities.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's thoughts, and he is correct. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. We are right now, as the gentleman knows, in the process of gearing up for the 2003 appropriations bills. In fact, I just got off the phone with the Secretary of Transportation about this bill and the 2003 bills coming up. In fact, we hope to mark up the 2003 bills in a few days, even, which will give us the chance to take a second look and see what is needed down the pike in 2003 without having to address that at this particular moment in time. So I appreciate the gentleman's idea about the need for more funds in homeland security TSA next year, but I do not think we need it now. I would hope that we would not pass this motion and tie the hands of the gentlemen as they negotiate with the other body. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this motion up because it gives us a chance to talk about the issue, but I would hope that it would not pass, because I do not want to tie the chairman and the ranking member's hands when they go to do battle with the other body.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me speak briefly to the motion that is before us insofar as it relates to parts of the supplemental that are not the military branch part; specifically, the Transportation Security Administration, which our subcommittee deals with. The House-passed bill includes some $3.8 billion in the supplemental for the TSA. We have yet to receive from the TSA the justifications for those figures. Yet the Senate bill, if we go along with this motion, if this motion passes and we have to go to the higher figure in the Senate bill, some $4.7 billion, we have no justifications for it. I cannot show to my colleagues the documents that say, this is what we actually have to have. In the House-passed bill, we already gave more than was requested for several items. For example, we said, here is $20 million. Replace all of the magnetometers in 429 airports in the country, because the new state-of-the-art magnetometers will save the need for a lot of hand wands that are now searching you as you go through. The new machines will do that work for us. It will save many of us taking our shoes off as we go through the airport and having somebody, a federally paid employee, carry your shoes to be searched. Those requests were not in the administration request. Yet, we put it in there, because we think it will save money down the pike. But we have yet to receive the justifications for the monies that we included in the House-passed version of the bill, which is significantly less for TSA than the Senate figures. If this motion should pass and we have to go to the higher levels in the Senate bill, then who knows how many employees they are going to hire. At first they said, we need 33,000 people. A few weeks later they said, no, it is going to be more like 60,000. By the time we had our hearing, they were up to 73,000. We said, whoa, let us stand back and talk about this. So we put a level in our House-passed bill that they cannot exceed in terms of the numbers of employees of TSA during the remainder of this fiscal year, 45,000 people, max. If we have to go to the higher Senate figure, then that personnel level is out the window. We think it is wise to have some discipline, I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), on that hiring process during the remainder of this fiscal year that is covered by the supplemental. In addition, we also put in the bill monies to allow the air marshals that are flying in the planes to be able to communicate independently to ground stations. That was not requested, and yet we think it is a very important thing at a modest cost. So I think there are a lot of items in the House-passed bill that perhaps would be negated if we were to have to go to the higher levels on the Senate bill.