Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I welcome my colleague's comments. However, I think the gentleman has a misunderstanding about the content of that provision. The provision in the manager's bill states that no moneys can be diverted from the fee collections. All of the fees have to stay with the Patent Office. It has to be reprogrammed.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman may not be aware, but we have long had a practice on the Appropriations Committee of reprogramming funds within an agency's budget. All of the agencies have problems during the year where they need to change moneys from one particular account to another. That's fine. But they have to come to the Appropriations Committee for a reprogramming request. It's routine, it's considered normal, and it does not require an act of Congress. It's simply the signature of the chairman and the ranking Democrat of the Appropriations Committee, and the moneys are transferred. When the Patent Office collects fees that exceed its appropriated level, that amount of money is placed in a sort of escrow account, just for their purposes, just for their use. If they see the need for more funds, they simply send up another reprogramming request, and the moneys can be transferred from the escrow account to the Patent Office. It's a standard procedure.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding the time and congratulate him and Mr. Farr on producing, I think, a good bill. The bill answers the call from Americans to reduce government spending while still providing for critical programs that keep American agriculture competitive in a global economy. The $125.5 billion in both discretionary and mandatory funding in this bill will help our rural communities to thrive, provide daily nutrition to children and families, and keep our food and drug supply safe. However, we can't spend at the rate we used to. We've hit the debt ceiling. We're borrowing more than 42 cents on every dollar we spend. We're mortgaging our children's futures. We have to rein in spending, even if it may not be the most popular thing to do. Accordingly, Chairman Kingston and his subcommittee did not provide the agencies and programs funded by this bill with carte blanche. This bill trims lower priority services, eliminates duplicative and wasteful programs, and limits funding and increases oversight for agencies that have been less than transparent with taxpayer money. All in all, this bill cuts nearly $5 billion in discretionary spending from the President's request. With this legislation, we are helping to put the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, and the other agencies funded by this bill back on a sustainable budget path that is accountable to the taxpayers of this country. In addition, more than taking the first steps to help balance our budgets, we're taking the necessary steps to increase transparency. Not only does this legislation encourage, but it requires, each and every agency to submit spending plans for every program funded by this bill. This commonsense oversight will go a long way in demonstrating to the American public our commitment to fiscal responsibility. I am confident not only that Chairman Kingston and his subcommittee have made the smart, but necessary, cuts in this bill to help balance our budgets but also that this bill adequately funds important government programs, including ag research, rural health and economic development, and safety net food and nutrition services. I want to commend the chairman, the ranking member, the subcommittee members, and the staff all for their dedicated and thoughtful work on this bill, and I urge support in its final passage.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I want to, at the outset, congratulate him on a great job on this bill. He and his terrific staff have worked long and hard, along with the subcommittee members, to produce, I think, a star of a bill. So, on your maiden voyage, Mr. Chairman, congratulations on a good job. To Mr. Bishop and the minority members of the subcommittee, including my distinguished cohort, Mr. Dicks, the ranking on the full committee, we've all worked together on this, and we appreciate the collegial atmosphere, as Mr. Bishop has said, that has governed this proceeding. I rise in support of this act. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that our Nation's servicemembers, their families and our veterans deserve the greatest quality of care and support for their service and their sacrifices. This bill funds their most pressing needs in a timely manner while also acknowledging the urgent need to rein in Federal spending at a time of historically high and dangerous deficits. This legislation provides $72.5 billion in discretionary funding for military construction projects, veterans' programs and other agencies that support the quality of life of our warfighters, veterans and families. This funding level represents a $615 million cut from last year's level and a $1.2 billion reduction from the budgetary request. The bill fully funds the construction of Department of Defense hospitals and clinics, schools and family housing, providing our military personnel with the resources to effectively advance U.S. missions abroad and the support they need here at home. The bill also protects the health and well-being of our veterans, funding medical care, disability benefits and education benefits. But in addition to adequately funding these programs, the subcommittee also made difficult but responsible choices that eliminate excess spending wherever appropriate. Much of the reduction in this bill comes from savings related to the BRAC process and from rescissions of previous year funding left over from lower-than- estimated construction costs. The bill also includes provisions for strong oversight overspending. Mr. Chairman, cleaning up the way we spend taxpayer dollars will help balance our Nation's budgets, and will show the American taxpayers that we can be trusted with their hard-earned money. We can't restrict cuts to only some areas of government. All agencies and programs must be held accountable to tighter budgets with more stringent supervision. Chairman Culberson and members of this subcommittee have shown great fiscal restraint and a commitment to real savings in reducing the discretionary spending in this bill below the 2011 levels while providing the resources our troops and our vets deserve. So, again, I want to congratulate Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Bishop, all the members of the subcommittee, and my ranking partner, Mr. Dicks, for their great work on this bill. Of course, I want to again say how much we appreciate the work of this fine staff, both on the minority and majority levels. Great work. Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill is an excellent representation of the good work that we can do in Congress when we work together, both as we support our troops and our veterans and as we work in regular order to fund our government responsibly. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, for those who want to be sure that we send away from our borders illegal aliens who are criminals, they surely would understand that the 287(g) program gives us a hugely better opportunity to do that. We've got a few thousand ICE agents, Border Patrol agents, doing a wonderful job, and they are dedicated public servants; but there are so few of them, relatively speaking, to deal with the millions of illegals crossing our borders, many of whom are here in a criminal nature. A few thousand Federal agents. By working with local law enforcement, we can multiply that by hundreds of thousands of enforcers of America's laws, and we can get rid of the criminal aliens in this country. That's what 287(g) empowers localities to do. Now, it is entirely up to the local communities. If they don't want to participate in the 287(g) program and receive funds from the Federal Government to train their local officials on how to enforce the Federal law, it's their choice. They don't have to do it. We don't make them do it. It's purely a local option. Many communities have. However, if they want to and if they decide to seek Federal assistance, it is there for them through this program to help train their local officials. We need to better empower States and localities, and through this program, that's exactly what we do. Everyone admits we are failing to protect our borders. There is a consensus around that. We have not protected America's borders yesterday, today or probably tomorrow. The reason we can't do it is that we are outnumbered, and there is just not the Federal manpower to stop it. If you're going to want to try to stop it, particularly keep criminal aliens out, I don't understand why you would not want to gain some extra help from the local law enforcement officers, properly trained under this program and financed. I don't understand that. In 1996, this section was added as an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act for the express purpose to provide necessary immigration enforcement assistance to State and local law enforcement entities. It authorizes the department to enter into agreements with State and local law enforcement, equipping them through thorough training to perform important immigration enforcement functions. Local law enforcement agencies that are closest to the problem are more threatened by the criminality involved, and have more motivation to try to stop the criminal activity flowing across the border. To date, the ICE agency has trained more than 1,240 State and local officers nationwide pursuant to this program. Since 2006, the 287(g) program has, according to ICE, resulted in the identification of more than 200,300 potentially removable aliens, mostly at local jails. Law enforcement agencies participate in the program in 24 different States: Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Those States say to keep this program in place because it's helping us keep criminal aliens out of our local communities--no longer selling drugs to our kids, no longer engaging in any criminal activity in their communities. So I urge the defeat of this amendment. This program works. It is the only program that has allowed us to engage tens of thousands of local law enforcement officers to help with this consuming problem we have with criminal aliens. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. There is no money for advanced inspection technology body scanners or the staff. It prohibits funds to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to or within the U.S., and in accordance with the House rules, there are no earmarks in this bill. The misleading budget request from the President for DHS included undefined and unspecified administrative savings and relied on $650 million of revenue from fees Congress has not approved. This bill follows both the spirit and the letter of the law that we must make real budget cuts, and that's what we do in this bill.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank Chairman Aderholt for the time; but, more importantly, I thank him for the great work that he has done in perfecting this bill and bringing it to the floor, along with the accolades that have already been said about the staff and the other members of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in support of this bill. When I became chairman of this committee, I promised to return to regular order, open rules, and the completion of as many appropriations bills as possible prior to the August recess; and I intend to stick by that promise. And I appreciate the cooperation of my ranking member, Mr. Dicks, who has been very, very helpful in this process already. I look forward to an open amendment process and lively debate over the next several months. I also vowed, Mr. Chairman, that we would cut spending wherever possible to help balance our budgets. The Appropriations Committee is dedicated to the careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and you will see that in each of the 12 bills we put out this year that will be a hallmark, careful stewardship of money. We have had to make the most of our very limited resources in all areas of government, and that includes the Department of Homeland Security. We began this year with the Homeland Security appropriations bill because we can all agree that our national security is a number one priority. Every day our citizens worry about constant terrorist threats, the security of our air and seaports, and the defense of our borders; but we also face the very real dangers of uncontrolled spending and skyrocketing debt. Americans deserve to live and work in a country that will protect not only their physical safety, but also their economic livelihood. This bill maintains the crucial measures that keep our citizens safe while also reining in out-of-control, dangerous deficit spending, providing $40.6 billion in total emergency spending for the various programs within DHS. This is a decrease of $1.1 billion below last year's level. It funds the critical frontline personnel, operations and programs needed to uphold the highest levels of national security. Within this bill, we have bolstered our immigration and border security efforts, funded the maritime and security activities of the Coast Guard, and boosted security efforts to address air cargo threats. The bill also addresses the President's overtly inadequate request for known disaster relief costs. It can be nearly impossible, in fact it is impossible, to plan for acts of God. But over the past few weeks, Mother Nature has wreaked havoc across our Midwest and South and other parts of the country, demonstrating the need for sufficient disaster relief funding. I'm proud that we have added a billion dollars to the disaster relief fund while completely offsetting this increase by taking unused funding from the Department of Energy. We've significantly reduced or eliminated ineffective and wasteful programs while requiring reforms in underperforming programs through heightened oversight to get the most out of each and every tax dollar. This includes long overdue reform on the State and local grant program under the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has been plagued by inefficiency. These grants often remain in Federal coffers for years to come. Right now, as you've heard, there is a backlog of more than $13 billion in unspent grant funds. Why should we pack a clogged pipe, as Chairman Aderholt has said, at a time when we are strapped for money as we are. This bill reduces funding for that program by $2.1 billion, changing the structure and requiring increased measurement and reporting, and getting the money out of the pipeline and into the hands of our first responders and our local communities and States.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Ohio, who toiled long and hard to bring us the largest spending cut in the history of the country, Speaker John Boehner.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, they have hardly slept in 3 months. And they worked around the clock, on weekends, at 4 o'clock in the morning you would find them still there. It's an amazing performance that they have contributed to this great body. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction and VA Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following. Pursuant to section 8120 of Division A of H.R. 1473 as passed the House on April 14, 2011, Chairman Rogers submits the following explanatory statement:

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 1 minute to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a new Member of this body, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. And I join you in that commitment. That's what we're planning to do. I just want this bill over with.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), chairwoman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I rise today to commend Chairman Ryan in this effort to craft a sustainable and responsible budget proposal. This budget represents a valiant effort to effect real change in the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. This plan couples tangible spending cuts with the entitlement reform necessary to get our budget back into balance starting now and continuing into the long term. This Republican majority understands that we must end the skyrocketing budgets of the last several years, and this budget reiterates our commitment to smart but limited government spending. The resolution includes an annual discretionary spending level of $1.019 trillion for next year, bringing us back to the fiscal year 2006 funding levels for non-security programs. This is a reduction of an additional $31 billion from the level that we just passed in the CR. Based on the experience we've just had in bringing the fiscal year 2011 budget to a close, this will present significant challenges to the Appropriations Committee and the body in the weeks and months ahead. It will not be an easy task, but I know that with the support of House Members, we will rise to that challenge. In addition, while I commend the budget resolution for making such significant strides to rein in spending and address long-term budget challenges, I do have some concerns over various budget process changes that may have unintended consequences. For example, the Appropriations Committee may be faced with challenges related to our emergency authority after May 31, the beginning of the hurricane season, due to limitations on the committee's ability to respond to natural disasters and other emergencies. Along these same lines, there may be challenges related to the committee's flexibility to provide for additional funding--beyond expected needs--for the global war on terror and our military efforts overseas. I look forward to working with Chairman Ryan and the leadership to address these as well as other process concerns as we go forward. These matters aside, I applaud this budget proposal. It will help put us back on a path of sustainable spending, allow for job creation and economic growth, and help us make the right fiscal decisions for our Nation's future. I thank the chairman for the time.