Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I would appreciate the gentleman responding and respecting my time, as I respected his. Of course, I did not say that. I would never say something like that. I did not say that it would be minimum wage employees operating expensive equipment. Of course you have to have experts to operate the new CAT scan-type x-ray machines that we are bringing on-line now and paying for in our bills. If you take a tour of the Rome airport, for example, as the ranking member and I did just a while back, and saw the expensive, highly-paid classified workers out of sight beneath the airport searching all baggage, including searched baggage, you know that it must be done by an expert. Of course it must be. I am just saying for the routine things, looking in purses, opening up a briefcase looking for something, you do not have to have a highly paid person doing that. But you do, of course, have to have the highly paid Federal workers that are there with security clearances to receive information from our security agencies to check the person, to see if they are on the watch list, to see if they have been involved in problems overseas somewhere, or here. That is the person that needs to be the expert, and that is what I would advocate that we do. Now, the system as it now is run by the airlines, they have been in the past needing to get by on the cheap, and they have. And no one defends the present system, certainly not me. I have been probably one of the most critical of it there is. But that was done because the airlines have been responsible for security, and their bottom line was important to them, and therefore you had minimum wage employees now doing the screening. Of course that should be done away with. You do not need to pay these people minimum wage. The Federal Government when it takes over the system will be able to hire the people that the requirements of the position will demand and we will pay whatever the rate is. I am sure it will not be minimum wage. But the essential point is we need a Federal takeover of airline security. We need Federal agents on the scene at all times, not only just to run the screening process, but the baggage process, and access to the tarmac, to the airfield. That all needs to be controlled under a Federal mandate. But please give the President some choices, some options here, to do it the best possible way. I hope the gentleman is not telling us that he knows more about this than Secretary Mineta. I do not believe the gentleman will tell us that he knows more about this than people who have devoted their lives to airline security, who are saying to us please give the President options. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do not yield.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman misrepresented what I said. I, of course, would not say it is okay to take a machine gun on an airplane. I resent that inference.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about airline security and the bill coming up tomorrow, since the gentleman would like to talk about it. What are we talking about when you talk about securing an airplane for the safety of the passengers? Well, you are talking about the baggage that is checked, that goes into the hold of the plane; you are talking about the person, the flier; and you are talking about whatever purses or baggage that that person carries into the cabin of the plane. Do you need a security expert to look through a purse? I hardly think so. Do you need a technician that is paid $50,000 a year to look in your briefcase? I do not think so. Do you need a $50,000 a year person to look at an x-ray screen that is looking at your purse or your briefcase as you go through the checkout line? No, I do not think so. What you do need, Mr. Speaker, is a Federal agent there, with the proper authority, to receive information from our security agencies, the CIA, the FBI, the INS, the DEA, all of the Federal agencies that have something to do with learning whether or not you might be dangerous on that airplane. So it is the person that is getting on the plane that is altogether important, and, yes, the Federal Government needs a Federal agent at every checkpoint checking on the person that wants on the airplane. That is the most important thing. An innocent person, a non- terrorist that carries a machine gun onto the plane is no danger, but a terrorist with a box cutting knife is the most dangerous. So it is the person that needs to be checked. Now the Federal security agencies do not have input, are not allowed to have input, frankly, and the FAA is not given the data from these agencies to check whether or not you as you try to enter the plane are in fact a suspected terrorist. That is a problem. That needs to be fixed. The only way to fix that is to have a law enforcement officer who has the proper security clearance to receive information from CIA, FBI, and so on, there on the spot checking the passenger list to be sure you are okay. That is important. That is necessary. But you can hire people to check the bags. That is not a complicated security job. You can get it done more quickly, you can get it done more efficiently, you can get it done for a better expenditure of the Federal taxpayers' dollars, I think, by contracting that out under Federal supervision, under Federal clearances, under Federal regulations and guidelines, so that when the person is hired we know whether or not they have a criminal background, or they will not be hired if they do; that there will be Federal certification required, which is not the case now, before a person is hired for those types of jobs. There would be Federal supervision, Federal training, and dismissal if the person does not fit up to the standards that are required. Under the Civil Service laws of our land, rightfully so, it is very, very, very difficult to discharge, to fire, a person for incompetence. It is practically impossible. I do not want those kinds of rules applying to the person checking to see whether or not a terrorist is entering my airplane. If that person is not doing the job, fire them right on the spot, just as happened last week in New Orleans where a person was allowed on a plane with a gun. The person, the screener, that allowed that to happen was fired instantaneously by the private contractor. Had that person been a Federal employee, they would still be checking at that gate today. So, Mr. Speaker, let us understand what we are talking about here. Yes, we need a Federal takeover of security screening of people and items going on planes. Yes, a Federal takeover, Federal agents on the spot 24 hours a day being sure that people and things going on planes are not dangerous. You can deal with the details of that though much more efficiently and more cheaply, frankly, for the taxpayers by contracting out the small items, the things that can be done by untrained, frankly, untrained personnel. So I hope tomorrow when we have the airline security bill, that we will do what the President wants, what the Secretary of Transportation wants. Norm Mineta we all know. The Secretary of Transportation, Norm Mineta, was a Member of this body. He was chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for a number of years. He is an expert if there is one on airline security. He has advised the President, the President's staff all agrees, the President agrees, the Secretary of Transportation agrees, the FAA agrees, all of them agree that the best way to go is a Federal takeover of airline security, but contract out the mundane details that can be done by just about anybody. So I hope tomorrow we will exercise good judgment, that we will follow the lead of our former colleague in this great body with high respect on both sides of the aisle, Norm Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, and we will follow the lead of our President. And let us not worry. Let us not get in the way of what this country needs to do right now, and that is to defeat the terrorists. And let us not get bogged down in a detail like this, when I think it is a fairly insignificant detail, and let us stay focused on the big picture. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with this motion to instruct. As the gentleman from Minnesota knows, the House-passed bill included reductions in the FAA's operating expenses for their civil aviation security program. We made those reductions out of total frustration at that time with the FAA's delays and mismanagement of airport-airline security. We are beginning to get back on track, but at the time we passed the bill, that was the situation. We wanted to get their attention, using the power of the purse, to compel them to make these long-needed improvements. We read in this morning's edition of the Washington Post the Secretary of Transportation is saying the problems continue even to this day in airport-airline security beyond what we had been promised and told. The House is scheduled tomorrow to debate an airport-airline security bill which would remove those functions of security from the FAA and transfer them to a new agency which has transportation security as a whole as its function, not just airline security but pipelines and trucks, barges, trains, whatever, security for transportation in general. There would be a new agency within the Department of Transportation to which the FAA's heretofore obligations on airport security would be transferred, and the FAA would no longer have those responsibilities nor the need for the funds for that purpose. So in all probability then, after tomorrow when the House acts, the Senate acts, those activities would be handled not by the FAA but by a new agency within the Department of Transportation, hopefully. Given this, I do not believe we will have the problems being described this morning in the future. We should give this new agency within the Department of Transportation a fresh start, not hamstring them with the problems that the FAA has had with airline security; and I wanted to assure my colleague, my helpmate, my soul mate on the floor here, that I will do all I can as chairman of the conference to ensure the highest possible level of funding for transportation security, not necessarily within the FAA. One other note. We all obviously are concerned that the Coast Guard is not getting all the money that they would like to have. They would like to put into a supplemental bill moneys that we could not fund in the regular bill. If we see in this conference items within the Coast Guard's request that relate to security and the need for improved security, we can address that, but I would hope that we would limit our conversation in that regard to the matters that pertain to security and the need for the Coast Guard to improve their security capability. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the motion to instruct. I want to thank the staff and the gentleman from Minnesota and his staff for the cooperation and the hard work that all have shown. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That was under indictment, in fact pled guilty in Philadelphia. So if that company or any other company could qualify under the conditions that we set down, sure. But I have got a feeling, as far as I am concerned, that the standards would prohibit that.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2299) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, 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 thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the bill. I want to commend the leadership of the Speaker; of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of this committee; the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member; and the bipartisan leadership for bringing this bill up and bringing it forward. Mr. Speaker, I have never reflected on the meaning of America's motto before this time, I have to admit. But it says it all, I think, and that motto, of course, is ``E Pluribus Unum,'' Out of Many, One. America is united now as I have not seen in my adult lifetime. It is heartening to see this morning riding into work Americans with flags flying from the windows of their cars and the offices of buildings throughout this city and, I am sure, all across America. In the wake of the despicable attack of September 11, Americans are in mourning. They are angry, but they are resolved to take decisive and severe action against these perpetrators, or those who harbor them. This raw emotion that Americans feel and the anger felt by us all will not easily yield to time, nor should it. Yesterday, the Congress expressed its sorrow and its resolve. Today, we begin to act. In this bill, we give the President the extraordinary authority and resources to provide relief to the victims suffering so severely, to prosecute efforts that will allow retaliation against our enemies to ensure the safety of our people and to instill public confidence in our public facilities and services. Of paramount concern, of course, is the safety and soundness of our aviation system. We must, and we will, work with the President, the Secretary of Transportation, and the FAA to take immediate medium-term and long-term measures that prevent civilians and commercial aircraft from falling prey to terrorists. This will be a complex and expensive task. It will require the cooperation of the Congress, Federal transportation officials, the intelligence community, the airline industry, airports, pilots, controllers, all of us. It will require creative thinking and some dramatic changes. But the aviation system is a critical component of this economy. To ensure its viability, the Congress must be convinced and the public must be satisfied that it is a safe system. We are pleased with the steps that have been taken so far by the Secretary of Transportation, but there are many more steps that should be taken. We have to secure the cockpit, we have to have an armed guard on these planes, and we have to greatly enhance the screening capabilities we have to keep out terrorists from the passenger lists and on the tarmac. So, Mr. Speaker, this bill will go a long way toward that. We have a long ways yet to go, and we will be back here in that respect. But I support this bill, and I commend our leadership for putting it together in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman will yield further, I did not hear an answer to my earlier question. Why can we not just pass a bill on the floor getting these moneys out of the mandatory accounts? Nobody would object to that. I would like an answer. Maybe there is an answer to this. Why not pass a mandatory account subsidization as we have been discussing?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I wonder, if the gentleman will yield further, if the chairman of the authorizing committee would agree. Let us just pass the bill out of mandatory accounts, doing exactly what you are talking about.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me ask the gentleman a question, or anyone here. Is there anything that would prevent the transportation authorization committee recommending to the floor and the floor passing this amount of money as a mandatory account immediately? Is there anything wrong with doing that? Why can we not do that?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, the people of Kentucky tonight join me in paying our respects to the memory of a truly great American. Cawood Ledford died early this morning in his hometown of Harlan, Kentucky, at the age of 75, after fighting a courageous battle against cancer for several months. Cawood Ledford was a distinguished veteran, educator, and radio broadcaster who was the voice of the University of Kentucky Wildcats for nearly four decades. His peers and his fans alike recognized his outstanding talent and amazing dedication. He was born on April 24, 1926, the son of a Harlan coal miner. During World War II he served with the United States Marines and then earned a degree from Centre College in Danville. He returned home to be an English teacher at his alma mater, Hall High School and in 1951 was announcing high school basketball and football games for radio station WHLN in Harlan. Two years later, he joined Lexington radio station WLEX and began calling games for the University of Kentucky. After moving to Louisville in 1956, he continued his affiliation with UK athletics and remained behind the microphone until his retirement following the 1991- 92 basketball season. One hallmark of the broadcasting career of Cawood Ledford was his independence. He never pulled his punches or candy-coated the radio play-by-plan. If the Wildcats weren't playing up to expectations, the radio audience would be the first to know. In an interview with the Associated Press in June of 1991, Cawood Ledford explained that he was always single-minded about his listeners: ``I've always felt that in broadcasting your total allegiance is to the person twisting the dial and giving you the courtesy of listening to you. Sports are the greatest drama in the world because no one knows what's going to happen. And it's your job to paint a word picture for the thousands who would love to be there but can't.'' Cawood Ledford's broadcasting track followed the amazing arc of the University of Kentucky Wildcats. He was the radio voice for 17 NCAA Final Fours, including UK's 1958 and 1978 national championship seasons. In 1987, he was inducted into the Kentucky Athletic Hall of Fame. UK fans can look to the rafters of Rupp Arena in Lexington and see Cawood Ledford's name on a team jersey. He's one of the few non- players to be recognized in this way. In addition to his passion for the University of Kentucky, Cawood Ledford is also part of the history of one of Kentucky's greatest sporting events--the Kentucky Derby. He called the Derby more than 15 times for the CBS Radio Network. His call of the 1964 Kentucky Derby, won in the stretch by Northern Dancer, is still described as one of the great radio broadcasts in the history of American horse racing. Those broadcasters who were able to understand and tap into the power of the human imagination are now considered the titans of radio's ``Golden Age''. With the careful turn of a phrase or the emphasis of a single word, their listeners were as instantly transported to another time or another place. Cawood Ledford, who was picked by his peers numerous times as one of the finest sports announcers in the nation, was blessed with the special gift. Those of us who vividly remember his work will have one special memory. For those brief moments in time when Cawood was on the air, he transported each of us from the mountains and the hollers, the hills and the valleys of Kentucky and put us in the best seat in the house. In our imagination, we would see the plays unfold, feel the drama of the competition and share in the exhilaration of victory or the crushing letdown that accompanied our occasional defeats. A private service will be held in Harlan on Sunday, and a possible public service is also being planned. True to his enduring commitment, Cawood's family has asked that instead of flowers, contributions be sent to the Cawood Ledford Scholarship Fund at the University of Kentucky. On behalf of all Kentuckians the world over, Mr. Speaker, please join me tonight in honoring the memory of this truly distinguished American.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we have one additional speaker.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, let us understand where we are here. I did not vote for NAFTA. I opposed NAFTA, but it passed. It is now the law of the land. It is the treaty between our neighbors and us. This provision is in direct violation of a United States treaty with our neighbors. I am referring to a letter of June 12 from the Secretary of Transportation, who in essence says that this is a clear violation of Mexico's rights under NAFTA; that it would subject the United States to possible trade sanctions estimated to be valued at over $1 billion annually that this would expose us to. The majority of my colleagues in this body voted for NAFTA. It passed. NAFTA says we are going to open the borders up to Mexico and to Canada. This President says January of next year is when we do it. This amendment would prohibit motor carriers from Mexico to enter the United States. Period. You cannot do that. You are in violation of a treaty; in violation of the law; in violation of the majority that passed the treaty through this body. Now, is it worthwhile to do this type of thing? Look, the Motor Carrier Safety Administration, even as we speak, is taking public comments from anybody who wants to comment, including Members of Congress, about what kind of a procedure we should have to check Mexican trucks for safety as they come into the country. The experts are working on the rule even as we speak. Should we not let them finish their work before we, who are not experts on trucking or safety, tell the experts what they should or should not do? Give them a chance. If we do not like what they have come up with this fall, we can change the rule and make it effective. But for goodness sakes, give the experts the chance to do their work. They are making the rule right now. Make comments to the rulemaking body, not to the Congress. We can deal with this at a later time. The administration has a plan. The DOT will be going to Mexico. For those carriers in Mexico who want to run trucks into this country, those carriers will be audited for safety, for their record, for training, for all the things that go into whether or not a safe operation of the truck could be made in the United States by that Mexican carrier. If they pass that test, they would be given a temporary permit to drive. In the meantime, we will be inspecting the dickens out of the trucks crossing the border. If at the end of 18 months that carrier has no record problems, all has gone smoothly, then and only then would they be given, not a conditional permit, but a permanent permit. I think it is a responsible approach. There is money in the bill for that approach. The administration is proceeding. The rulemaking is taking place. Let us not interrupt what they are doing. But please do not vote in this Congress an amendment on to this bill that would be a direct violation of a treaty of the United States of America. Please reject this amendment.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the Traficant amendment is a good one. We accept it.

Mr. ROGERS

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to consider it as time passes, but I was sort of hoping, can we have some more discussion of this? Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's commitment to this project, and her observations about the criteria the subcommittee used in developing its recommendations are accurate. The subcommittee had an enormous number of requests for new light rail transit systems that we simply could not accommodate. We did not have the money. Unfortunately, we had to say ``sorry'' quite a bit this year. I can assure the gentlewoman that should the Senate include funding for the subway in its version of the bill, that we will give it every consideration.