Martin Sabo

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. What is this language in the bill today? I read it, and it seems to me we are writing into law something about 31.8, that appears to be a smoke screen to make people feel good, then there is an exception for it which indicates and takes us back to a highway obligation limit to 21.7.

Mr. SABO. This is confusing. I know that there is disagreement between House and Senate bills, but from all the interpretations of what we have been doing, I think it is clear that no one can dispute that if we want to spend money that has impact on jobs, maintaining or creating jobs, the best money spent is on existing programs, where plans are made, where States are ready to spend it. Am I wrong?

Mr. SABO. In our previous continuing resolutions we were told we had an obligation limit of $31.8 billion.

Mr. SABO. No, this year.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I am wondering if my friend from Wisconsin would answer a question. I am very curious about this explanation that we cannot act on appropriations bills because there is no conference agreement on a budget resolution. As our friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) indicated, we passed two final bills today. Is that not right? How could we do that?

Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SABO. And so this bill goes contrary to what we have done in our first couple of CRs and actually writes into the CR that we are reducing funding for highways next year.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, do we have a number of bills that have been passed out of committee available for floor action?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I will have another question for the gentleman. I read this continuing resolution, and there is something that bewilders me. As we all know, our economy is fragile and there is always a dispute about what we can or should do at the Federal level to help speed up the economy. Clearly, one of the areas in this country where we have major problems is our transportation and infrastructure. Am I right that this year we are having highway obligation limit of about $31.8 billion?

Mr. SABO. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. Yes.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let us be clear. We have appropriated every dollar asked for for equipment. We have appropriated more dollars than asked for for installation. We have approved thousands of employees for this agency, very few who have been hired. They clearly have the ability to manage the personnel to put them where they are needed. There may or may not be a reason for this amendment, but the reason there is delay does not relate to money. It relates to management.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues in honoring my friend, Congressman Tony P. Hall, a tireless advocate for hunger relief programs and improving international human rights conditions. Congressman Hall's 30 plus years of service to the people of Ohio is indicative of the dedication he holds for improving the lives of all Americans. No one compares to Tony when it comes to his experience and knowledge on human rights, child welfare and survival, and global development. It has been a distinct privilege to serve in the House with him for the past 23 years. Mr. Hall and I hold a special bond, not only did we both begin our service in the House in January 1979, but we also have experience serving in our state's legislatures. In the beginning, we were able to draw on these similarities the trappings and pitfalls facing new members of Congress, and then use this knowledge to grow as public servants and legislators. Tony will soon be embarking on a new adventure. He'll bring his lifelong devotion to easing hunger across the globe and improving food security to Rome, Italy as he assumes the position of United States ambassador to the United Nations food and agriculture organizations. I think it is safe to say that we can send no one who would better represent the United States in these important institutions. So, Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I extend my sincerest thanks to my friend, Congressman Tony Hall, and wish he and Mrs. Hall all the best as they embark on this new journey.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and want to thank Mr. Lewis and Mr. Murtha for their fine work, particularly on the provisions related to the Army Crusader artillery program. The gentlemen have been fair and responsive to my concerns that the Administration acted hastily in recommending cancellation of the Crusader program. I am also grateful for the hard work of the staff--especially Greg Dahlberg, Bill Gnacek, Kevin Roper, Paul Juola and Letitia White--who helped the Subcommittee sort through these complex issues and produce a good bill. Mr. Chairman, over the past two months, I have become increasingly convinced that the administration is wrong in asking Congress to terminate Crusader. I believe there is too much risk. No one can argue that U.S. Army artillery is seriously outdated. Crusader was on-track and on budget to give us a fast, accurate, world- class artillery system to support and protect American soldiers in combat--by 2008. Mr. Chairman, let me stress that date--2008. In military procurement terms, that is practically tomorrow. It puzzles me that we are at this point. Clearly, we must maintain a robust heavy artillery development program. Therefore, I have pressed hard to ensure that this bill gives very clear direction to the Army regarding our intent for the follow-on artillery program. For this challenging task, we give the Army a strict deadline and strong guidance to leverage the best elements of the Crusader program, the breakthrough technologies and the intellectual property, including the technical workforce, as they develop and field the next-generation heavy artillery system. To underscore this point, I want to read from the bill: Immediately upon termination of the Crusader Artillery System program, the Secretary of the Army shall enter into a contract to leverage technologies developed with funds invested in fiscal year 2002 and prior years under the Crusader Artillery System program . . . and other Army development programs in order to develop and field, by 2008, a Non-Line of Sight (NLOS) Objective Force artillery system and Resupply Vehicle variants of the Future Combat System. I think I speak for many when I say that we will be watching their progress closely.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, let me simply congratulate the manager and the Republicans on a well-played game. They played incredibly well. Their defense was good, and they hit the ball hard. We will be back next year, but congratulations for this year.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct. While we have made improvements to transportation security since September 11th, we must do more. This motion directs the House conferees to seek the higher funding levels for transportation security programs. The tragedies of September 11th happened because terrorists were able to enter the cockpits of four airplanes. Unfortunately, the House bill contains only $50 million for cockpit door improvements. The Senate bill contains $251 million for cockpit door improvements, much closer to the Administration's request of $300 million. This motion instructs the House conferees to accept the Senate funding level. Today, the airlines have made some improvements so that cockpit doors cannot be as easily broken into, such as the strengthening of bolts. The President proposed $300 million so that modifications can be made to secure the cockpit door in such a way as to permanently prevent an intruder from entering the cockpit door. The funding included in the Senate bill would be provided to airlines to ensure that all aircraft cockpit doors are modified as quickly as possible. This funding should be included in the conference bill. The House bill provides additional funding for more federal air marshals, where the Senate bill contains no such funding. The Administration has made good progress in increasing the number of federal air marshals, and the House bill would provide for a further increase. It is important to public safety and confidence that we bolster their numbers to the greatest extent possible. This motion would instruct the House conferees to insist on the House funding for more air marshals. The Senate bill also provides additional funding to our nation's airports to meet additional security needs. Since September 11th, the Federal Aviation Administration has imposed additional security requirements on our nation's airports, and rightly so. Increased patrols of ticket counters, baggage claim areas, and screening checkpoints have been mandated, as has increased inspections of controlled access points and the areas outside the airport. Airports have also been required to re-issue all airport identification and verify such identification at all access gates. To meet these additional requirements, the airports have incurred additional costs, primarily for additional law enforcement officers and overtime. The American Association of Airport Executives estimates the cost of these additional requirements to be about $500 million this year. These increased costs come at a time when airports are losing money. The airports estimate the total revenue decrease to be $2 billion in 2002, or 20 percent of estimated revenue. The Senate bill includes $200 million to assist airports in meeting the costs of the increased security requirements mandated by the FAA. This motion instructs the House conferees to accept this funding level. The Senate bill also includes a total of $285 million for the Coast Guard, compared to the House level of $145 million. The higher funding level in the Senate bill is needed so that the Coast Guard may continue its current, increased level of operations, and further expand its port security activities. Since September 11, Coast Guard port security operations have increased substantially. The Coast Guard is now patrolling ports and checking crew lists of those entering our ports. Much more needs to be done to enhance port security, but what the Coast Guard has done is a good start. These current Coast Guard operations should not be reduced; and the funding provided in the Senate bill will ensure that they are not. This motion would instruct the House conferees to accept the Senate's higher funding for the Coast Guard and port security. In closing, let me say that this motion to instruct is the right one. It addresses the security needs of this country and the traveling public. We should do no less.

Mr. SABO

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), a distinguished member of our subcommittee. (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first let me compliment and congratulate the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for his outstanding work for bringing to the House a conference report on the fiscal year 2002 transportation appropriations bill that we should all be proud of and that we should pass. But I would like in particular to compliment the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) for the role he played in making sure that we reached an agreement on the Mexican truck issue that I think satisfied the concerns of all of us who raised the issue and still found a solution that the President would sign. He played an absolutely key and essential role in making that happen. It has been a long journey, and we wondered how it would end at times. When the House acted because of procedural limitations, we adopted an amendment that we knew would have to later be modified. I thought the Senate did some outstanding work in making modifications and expanding on what should be done as it relates to motor carrier safety as we begin to have Mexican trucks come beyond the 20 mile commercial zone. The discussions that went on for an extended period of time finally resulted in a solution that will be signed by the President. At the same time it represents a giant leap forward in assuring the American public that those trucks and those drivers will be safely on our roads. We know we can have no absolute guarantee for any of us when it comes to our highways, but there is a process in place that, properly administered, should assure that the quality of vehicles and the quality of drivers on our highways are the same for those trucks and those drivers as those that exist in our country. So I think that was a major step forward, and the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) played an essential role in making that happen. The bill itself makes necessary investments in our Nation's infrastructure and the safety of all of our modes of transportation. It is a good bill, and let me join the chairman in thanking the staff that has worked so hard and all the Members of the committee that worked so hard to bring this bill to us. But let me in particular thank Bev Feeto of our majority staff, Marge Duske of my personal staff, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Cheryl Tucker, Linda Muir, and Theresa Kohler of the majority staff. All of them do excellent work. This is a good bill and it deserves a big vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), another distinguished member of our subcommittee. (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), one of the distinguished members of the authorizing committee and a good friend. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.