Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward. I think it's very worthwhile and I support him, and I appreciate him bringing the amendment forward.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Is this an across-the-board cut of the other agencies?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the amendments propose a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendments are not in order under section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress which states, ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease of such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.'' The amendments propose a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section. I ask for a ruling.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, here the gentleman goes again. He is attempting to cut without specifying where the cuts come from. There's no tough choices identified in the amendment. All it says is just to reduce the appropriations by $280 million, exempting DOD and Postal Service. But across-the-board cuts is a way for us to escape responsibility for making choices that people elected us to do, and this amendment does not specify where the cuts come from or who is to make the cuts. I guess he would leave it up to the bureaucrats to decide where to cut, but that's what we were elected to do, Mr. Chairman, and so I oppose the amendment. I sympathize with the desire to cut more spending, but I want it done in a judicious and specific way. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Thank you for yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman offering this much-needed amendment. Almost immediately after taking office, Mr. Chairman, the administration put a bull's-eye on Appalachian coal from every angle, including from the OSM. As a representative of Appalachian Kentucky, like Ohio where the gentleman is from, we're losing thousands of jobs because of these policies. And now, by its own admission, the OSM and the U.S. Department of the Interior are placing 7,000 mining jobs across the country on the chopping block, representing 9 percent of the industry, by reopening the long-settled stream protection rule. And so I congratulate the gentleman for bringing this to our attention with this amendment. A report that was leaked by OSM indicates amending this rule will cause coal production to drop drastically or remain stagnant in 22 States. So it comes as no surprise to me that officials from Kentucky, West Virginia, Utah, Wisconsin, Texas, and others have blasted this proposal as nonsensical and difficult to follow. Mr. Johnson has the right idea with this amendment, which would prohibit OSM from moving forward with this rule during this fiscal year. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Less than 50, 18 of which, I think, are subject to a point of order.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Before the gentleman yields back, Mr. Chairman, I think all of us understands how important it is that we finish this bill tonight. Therefore, the shorter we can make our speeches, the better off we all are. So we hope to ask each one of you, as you offer your amendments and the rebuttals, to be brief, understanding that the rest of us would like to leave here just as quickly as we can.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 1 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to applicable previous orders of the House, each amendment otherwise debatable for 10 minutes instead be debatable for 6 minutes.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Mr. Chairman, let us work. Give us the jobs. Give us the jobs. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, it is time to vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Let me associate myself with the remarks of my friend in thanking John Blazey for his long tenure and service here in this great body. Best wishes for the future. To all the rest of you, I think you've done yourselves proud this week. I think the House distinguished itself, and I thank you, especially this terrific staff that made all of this happen.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I am in opposition to this amendment, Madam Chairman. The House Republican package that we have before us already represents the largest reduction in discretionary spending in the history of the Nation. It is a historic package with much needed spending cuts and reductions that meet and exceed the pledged goal of cutting $100 billion. In this package, there is $106 billion in cut spending, including the termination of 150 programs. These reductions were tough, thoughtful, and were made by the people who know those programs best. They went through the budget line by line, cutting or eliminating programs that don't work or that we can no longer afford. The subcommittee chairs, the staff, and our Members worked around the clock to make it happen. They did the hard work of getting deep into the weeds, making the best possible choices of exactly where and how to make these cuts. In contrast, rather than make careful decisions on specific programs, the Jordan amendment hits everything indiscriminately and in a heavy- handed way. We were elected to make choices, not run on automatic pilot.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment attempts to create a legislative formula for spending. I ask for a ruling.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. They can't go above 46,000?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. There are 62,000. So there will be some reductions; am I correct?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. We've heard your statement. We're up to 62,000 now and it's way too much. Let me ask the chairman: Is there a cap now reinstated in this bill for TSA employees? I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding, and thank him for the great work he's doing chairing this subcommittee in the House. As Chairman Alderholt has said, SAFER was originally authorized for the purpose of increasing the number of new firefighters in local communities, a hand up, not a handout. SAFER was not intended to rehire or retain firefighters, and certainly was not intended to serve as an operating subsidy for what is unquestionably a municipal local responsibility. The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act contains very specific requirements that local communities have to meet in order to obtain funds. However, the Democrats waived many of these requirements in fiscal 2009 and then again in 2010. When initially proposed by the Democrats in 2009, then Chairman Price, my friend, acknowledged that these waivers were just a short- term, temporary effort that would expire at the end of fiscal 2010. Yet, here we are today, debating the continuation of a subsidy that our country simply cannot afford. Under these costly waivers, there are no controls, no salary limits, no local commitments. These proposed waivers totally undermine the original purpose and intent of the SAFER program by forcing the taxpayers to subsidize the everyday operating expenses of local first responders, taking over, in essence, the funding of the local firemen. Given our Nation's dire fiscal situation, we must take a stand that it is not the Federal Government's job to bail out every municipal budget or to serve as the fire marshal for every city and town across the country. I want to thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding. And I strongly urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and vote ``no'' on this amendment.