Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, I fully understand that. But I am having some difficulty understanding that those earlier who objected to the use of trust funds for airport security and struck $466 million from the bill that was designed for that purpose, and now supporting the dipping into a trust fund, the new one, for the purpose of airport security. Mr. Chairman, we have got to find the money somewhere. I really am at a loss to understand why those who objected to the use of the trust funds that were earlier stricken did that. We have got to find monies to pay these air marshals to safeguard the cockpit, to pay the screeners under the new scheme. It is going to cost us $54,000 per person, the government. We do not have the money. It was stricken from the bill. Where is the money? Where is the money? The trust funds are sitting there fat. I thought when we passed a tax to create a trust fund and charge users of the airports and the highways for the use of those facilities, I thought those monies would be used for airport security and the other purposes that the trust fund is collected for; and yet those were stricken from this bill. I support the gentleman's amendment because we have to have the money, but it still leaves us several hundred million dollars short.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment. However, I would like this opportunity to just remind Members that what this amendment would do is increase the amounts available from the user fee trust fund for the purposes of airport security which we all want. However, just a few minutes ago there was stricken from this bill monies from the airport trust fund for this very purpose. I am having a little bit of difficulty fathoming the duplicity that we are engaged here in. There was a point of order, two points of order sustained just a few minutes ago that would prevent the Congress spending airport trust funds and highway trust funds for the emergency that we are dealing with here, the aftermath of September 11. Here we are increasing the amount of money coming from a trust fund. I am having a little difficulty, pardon my ignorance, in fathoming the duplicity that is involved this afternoon. If anyone would care to comment on that, I would be happy to yield.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I would be willing to amend the unanimous consent request so that after the gentleman has a 5-minute opening statement, then the 60-minute clock would start to run.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman take approximately 5 minutes?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. My understanding was the agreement was 60 minutes total.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the point of order, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the eloquent statement that he made about the valiant efforts of our men and women in the Coast Guard and the great work that they are doing and have done and will continue to do. This bill, as we all know, is to deal with the funding for activities directly responding to the terrorist attacks of September 11. That is why in the bill we have included almost $145 million for that purpose. Included in that figure, $110 million, new dollars, for Reserve activation, $31 million for increased homeland security capability, and $3.6 million for chemical, biological and radiological strike teams; all of those related, of course, to the activities responding to the terrorist attacks. However, the administration requested an additional $58 million which the committee bill does not include because, in discussions with the Coast Guard, the majority of these dollars were not for the purpose of responding to the terrorist attacks, but to restore moneys which the Coast Guard deleted itself from its fiscal year 2002 budget request, the regular expenses of the Coast Guard. Those moneys we can deal with in the regular appropriations bill or a supplemental if it should be necessary at a later time. But this bill funds the Coast Guard for the activities related to September 11, like the other provisions of this bill. It does not deal with the regular operating funds for fiscal year 2002. That bill will be on the floor momentarily, this week I hope, which will include funds for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2002. I believe that the gentleman from New Jersey will be pleased with that bill. I hope he is. We cannot find all the money that I would like to find for the Coast Guard, but in this bill I have to say that we have done, I think, well by the Coast Guard dealing with the aftermath of September 11. We can deal with the fiscal year 2002 moneys in another bill, hopefully this week. So I reluctantly rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. It is well intentioned and well meant. I commend the gentleman for his enthusiasm for the Coast Guard and the mission that it has been assigned by us to do and which they are carrying out with great success. We salute the men and women of the Coast Guard. We thank them for the tremendous service they are giving our Nation. We want to see that they have the adequate funding that they desperately need. We will do that in the appropriate bills coming before the House in the appropriate order, rather than fund fiscal year 2002 needs in this emergency supplemental bill dealing with the aftermath of September 11. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I rest my case.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, would they also be available for such things as bomb detection machines at the airports?

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman would continue to yield, yes, it is.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, there is a balance at the end of the year in the airport trust account that is unobligated, unspent surplus funds; is that not true?

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, is it not true that there are unobligated, unexpended, surplus, noncommitted funds in the airport trust fund at this moment?

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, then perhaps we need to reduce taxes. If we are not going to use the trust fund monies for trust fund purposes, perhaps we need to reduce that tax; and perhaps we ought to ask the Committee on Ways and Means to address the issue of taxing the traveling public and we are not using the money for that purpose.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, what is happening here is once the sections were stricken earlier, no longer will these expenses that we are talking about for the sky marshals and the screeners and the like be taken from the airport trust fund; it will be taken from the general treasury. The American taxpayers are going to be footing the bill here rather than the trust fund that was created for the purpose. If we are going to have a trust fund for security in the airports, we ought to spend those dollars for that purpose. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman believe in truthful budgeting, or not?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, for a great job on a difficult bill. I have the pleasure of serving on this subcommittee, and of course served as chairman for the last 6 years. I know the difficulty that they faced when they tried to put together these numbers. And also, I thank the staff. We sometimes do not thank them enough; but they spend long hours, weekends included, nighttimes included, that sometimes we do not notice or the world does not notice. I thank the staff for a great job on this bill. Some of the things I particularly like about the bill have been mentioned already, so I will not be repetitive here. I really appreciate the chairman including in this bill the requirement that airlines before they are granted permission to land here must furnish to our authorities before they take off overseas a list of the passengers that are to be brought here on a particular airplane. That will give our authorities the chance at least to be sure that we do not fly in on our own planes terrorists who are bent upon our destruction. I think that is a very important part of this bill. It will fit very nicely with the provisions that we will carry in the Subcommittee on Transportation appropriations bill for the FAA. I appreciate the chance to work closely with the chairman and the ranking member on that particular issue. Mr. Speaker, other things about the bill which I think are handled extremely well is an increase in the Department of Justice. That is important. It is increased by $612 million over the current year's level, and included in that is large increases for the U.S. Attorneys, the Marshals Service, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration. The immigration services is increased dramatically by $841 million, which will help us patrol better on the borders of the Nation. Then not to forget where most law enforcement takes place on the local level, there are nice increases for the State and local law enforcement efforts throughout the country, as I say, where most of the law enforcement takes place, if it takes place at all. I appreciate the heavy increases for funding in the Department of Justice, as well as the Judiciary. There is an increase of $357 million above current levels for our court system, the Federal court system throughout the Nation, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Then in the State Department, the subcommittee provides extra funding for embassy security, protecting Americans who are working overseas in our embassies and consulates, a $462 million increase for the diplomatic and consular programs. And then they fully fund, in fact $232 million above what was requested, the worldwide security upgrade programs at our embassies and consulates. That includes the full $665 million for the capital improvements program. Mr. Speaker, those are some of the highlights of the bill that struck me as being very important. There are others, but I will not take the time of the Members to go into them; but I congratulate again the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). It is a pleasure to work on this subcommittee with gentlemen of this caliber and character and that work together so well in a bipartisan fashion for what is best for our Nation. I want to add my congratulations and thanks to Sally Chadbourne, who will be leaving us at the end of the year. She has been on this subcommittee staff I think almost as long as I have been a Member, and we will not talk about that time at this point in time. She has been a very valued member of the staff and works in a bipartisan fashion. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) said, she has a good sense of humor; but that does not interfere with the serious work that she does for the subcommittee. I urge unanimous support for this great bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have served on this subcommittee for 10 or 12 years at least. I know how difficult it is to balance the needs of the Members of this body and the needs of the Nation, frankly, and these vital programs that this bill covers. I have to tell Members that the maiden voyage that the captain has steered us on this bill has been masterfully done. This is the first bill that Chairman Callahan has had the opportunity to work on. This is a tough bill. You have got the nuclear weapons program, of course, in this bill; all of the energy issues of such vital importance to the Nation at this time. The security issues, of course, this year are very important; and also the work of the Corps of Engineers and all of the programs that Members are so vitally interested in. It is a tough bill to try to weigh all of those interests and find enough funds with which to do the necessary work. I want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member for working together as they do, and have, and working with all the Members in such a nice spirit. I was hopeful in this bill that we could have had some more money for those Krispy Kreme doughnuts, but I do not guess we are going to get that this time. But I want to compliment Chairman Callahan and Ranking Member Visclosky for a great job, salute them on the work that they have done, and wish them well.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Listen, I am the one who I guess broke the story on one of the companies.