Hal Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. There is nearly $5 billion in the grant funds for State and local communities for first responders. It has been there for a couple of years. I don't know why we don't insist that the authorizers in this body write the rules so that these communities can get their hands on that money and use it for the purposes for which it was intended. The money is laying there. I don't know why we are continuing to pour billions more into it when the hopper is full already. Let's fix the system and unclog the pipe that drains the hopper.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I join in his frustration. This dispute about how the majority party is hiding earmarks so that the body cannot inspect them, is preventing us from discussing the merits of this bill, which, by and large, is an excellent bill, except for it's overspending. And I'll have an amendment at the end of the bill to address that issue. So there's really two issues we're talking about here; one is the earmark mess that we're in, and secondly, is the overspending in the bill. The President has threatened to veto this bill if it exceeds a 7 percent increase. The bill now contains a 13.6 percent increase in spending. That's too much. We really don't need that much money. We do need, I think, a 7 percent increase, which is double inflation. That would take care of the needs that Homeland Security has. And so at the end of the bill, I will be offering an amendment to give Members a chance to vote to slice 5.7 percent, across the board, off of the spending in this bill, leaving a 7.2 percent increase that has been requested of us by the executives. And so, I would hope that Members would bear that in mind. At the end of the bill, you're going to have a chance to exercise fiscal responsibility. That's what we stand for. Fiscal responsibility. So I would urge Members to hold their fire until that time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman would yield. At the end of the bill, we will have to see what amendments have passed, and then we will look at that and see whether or not that would fit into our across the board cut, and if it might be modified to that extent.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I have a question: Shouldn't all items in an appropriations bill, whether it be for an agency or for directed spending by a Member of Congress, should that not be voted on by the entire body, and shouldn't we have an opportunity to inspect as a body all spending in an appropriations bill, including earmarks?

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, at the end of the bill, Mr. Chairman, I can't do it now and I would like to have done it at the outset of the debate, under our rules, it can only be offered at the end of the discussion. But at the end of the bill I will be asking Members of this body to reduce the increase for homeland security from its 16 percent level to 7.1 percent, which is the President's request; and, number two, thereby avoiding a veto. I desperately want this body to pass a responsible funding level for the Department of Homeland Security and not have it vetoed. There is a veto threat there. If you want to prolong this agony over the bill, we need to pass a responsible funding level for the Department, which I think the President's proposal is responsible and even generous. But this Department, like all other departments in the government, is still subject to fiscal responsibility. I am for a strong homeland defense, like all the rest of you, and for a number of years I chaired this subcommittee and I think we have done a good job of holding spending in line. But this increase is not needed. It is wasteful and it must be controlled. And the overall cutting amendment that I will offer at the end of the debate will be the responsible way to do it. And I would hope the gentleman and all of his colleagues in the body would support that when the time comes

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, and I would like to ask the gentleman a question, or ask his comment. At the end of the bill, in the general provisions, I'll be offering an amendment to cut, across the board, 5.7 percent of the entire bill, across the board. Even with that so-called ``cut'' in the increase, it will still be a 7.1 percent increase over current spending, taking the budget request that came to us from OMB. Would the gentleman feel compelled to support that type of an approach?

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hard-working member of our committee.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), a member of the authorizing committee for homeland security in the House.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), one of the hardest working members of our subcommittee.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Border and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Homeland Security authorization committee, Mr. Souder from Indiana. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me start, Mr. Chairman, by commending the subcommittee chairman on putting together a thoughtful bill, his first as the chairman of this important subcommittee. I must also recognize the chairman's continuation of this subcommittee's bipartisan tradition as well as to state how much I appreciate the chairman's willingness to listen to the concerns on this side of the aisle and accommodate us as much as possible. I would, however, like to briefly say a few words about some specific items of concern. First, fiscal responsibility. The 302(b) allocation for the Department of Homeland Security is $36.25 billion. That is $2.1 billion above what was requested of us and amounts to a 13.6 percent increase above fiscal 2007. And that doesn't even include the billions in one-time emergency funding that has been added to the DHS budget over the last year, including the $1.05 billion in unrequested funding just approved in the supplemental last month. If you include that figure in the increase, it is almost a 17 percent increase over the current year. By comparison, the budget request would give the Department a 7.2 percent increase, and I think that recommendation is more than sufficient, even generous, for the Department. The public is demanding accountability and fiscal responsibility, and I don't think we can exclude any Federal agency from fiscal discipline, even the Department of Homeland Security. More money and more government do not equal more security. Therefore, I will offer an amendment later today to limit the budget to a more than generous and responsible 7.2 percent increase over current spending. I am hopeful my colleagues will support that effort. And when I use the term ``responsible,'' Mr. Chairman, I am also stating that we must ensure DHS has sufficient resources to carry out legislative direction. The bill includes a bold mandate for ICE to contact every correctional facility in the country, over 5,000 of them, at least once a month to identify incarcerated aliens and initiate deportation proceedings against them. That is a laudable goal, and I support the policy and the goal. But, Mr. Chairman, it is going to be very, very difficult to do mechanically and it is unfunded. We are going to be asking the States and localities to pay, assumedly, for the review of who is in their jails. Number two, they don't have the authority nor the capability to determine whether or not Joe Blow in cell 18 is an undocumented alien or not. It's not their job, and they don't have the capability to do that. So I don't know what will be the result of this mandate. It is unfunded, and it is going to be very difficult to put in practice. The Department already surveys routinely the most probable jails where the most probable criminal aliens are being held anyway. Despite the requirement for ICE to report on the resources needed to carry out this unfunded mandate, I am concerned that the bill presupposes ICE can simply transfer or reprioritize monies from other sources within their budget, for example, the fugitive apprehension program. They are out there trying to catch the criminals on the streets that are loose. It seems to me they are a bigger danger than those incarcerated in the jails. These enforcement activities involve many duties, duties that include tracking down at-large criminals, investigating smuggling networks, preventing child pornography, preventing the exploit of sensitive national security technology, and taking down employers who are exploiting illegal immigrants to the point of abuse. From which of these critical missions should ICE take monies in order to comb the Nation's jails and correctional facilities, most of which never have any criminal aliens in them anyway? So to suggest that ICE should refocus its resources almost exclusively on jailed illegal aliens at the expense of trying to catch fugitives on the street who are raping and plundering seems to me as short-sighted as it is potentially very dangerous. There must be a balance among ICE's many critical missions. And I am concerned this bill falls short in that regard. I am hopeful the Chairman will work with me and others to develop a more realistic implementation of this policy as we move forward. I have other concerns as well. Any immigration policy starts out with securing the border. If we can't control who crosses our Nation's borders, all other possible immigration initiatives will fail. To address this critical issue, Congress has authorized and appropriated for substantial infrastructure on the southwest border. But the bill contains a number of onerous restrictions on funding for fencing and other tactical infrastructure along our borders until the Department performs certain actions. At first glance, these individual fencing and tactical infrastructure requirements appear to be based upon sound policy. However, added together, they are a series of obstacles that can potentially impede installation of critical border security systems. I fear that securing the border will be greatly deterred. While I am pleased with the continuation of robust planning requirements for SBInet, I am absolutely committed to securing our borders as rapidly as possible. We will work with the Chairman to ensure that DHS accomplishes that critical task on time and on budget. There must be a balance between prudent oversight and timely execution of the Department's border security mission. In addition, Mr. Chairman, the bill removes for the first time the cap on the number of TSA screeners that was put into this bill in 2002, and every year since. That cap was established for very good reasons, reasons that still exist. TSA was created by Congress in 2001. At that time, I chaired the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and we put in this cap because TSA was demonstrating absolutely no discipline in its planning, hiring and use of technology. TSA's mindset was to hire an army of screeners, 70,000 of them, while advancements in research and technology were largely ignored. By requiring in law that TSA could not exceed 45,000 screeners, TSA was forced to refocus its decision-making. They began to place better, cheaper, and more effective technologies and machines in the airport, x-ray machines and the like, and started to slowly clear out the more expensive, manpower-intensive trace detection machines in the lobbies of airports. The screener cap, Mr. Chairman, works. Without it, I am fearful that TSA will go back to its old ways of solving screener problems by simply adding more people, a very short-sighted, costly, and dangerous solution. Given these concerns, I plan to offer an amendment to restore the 45,000 screener cap later today. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the annual expectations we may be setting for State and local grants. These funds are intended to address counterterrorism needs and disaster preparedness, the Homeland Security portion of local first responders' budgets and duties. These agencies are certainly happy, of course, to get these grant funds, and now even expect it. I am concerned that we are transforming the mission and purpose of these grant programs from risk reduction to that of revenue sharing, something it was never intended to be. Rather than just adding billions to these grant programs, as this bill does, what we ought to be doing is working with the authorizing committees to change the way these grant programs are authorized and administered, and lay out specifically what the Federal Government expects for the grants that we do make. Grants to States and local communities are intended to reduce our vulnerabilities and are not immune from fiscal discipline, particularly when you consider that there is nearly $5 billion in unspent first responder grant dollars simply laying there waiting to be spent. We should be working on seeing that the pipeline is unclogged. Why put billions more dollars in the hopper when it's full already, waiting to be drained out the bottom in a clogged pipeline? Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good. There are many provisions and funding recommendations that I agree with. I applaud Chairman Price's efforts to keep the Department on track to produce results, provide strong oversight, and continuing the subcommittee's tradition of strict accountability. I look forward to working with him and the Members of the House and the Senate as the bill moves forward. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of our committee, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The committee mark already includes huge increases in grants for the urban areas, and I am opposed to this further increase. I mean, there is only so much money to go around to all of the cities in the country and all that need help. Just for an example, the urban area grants portion of the bill is increased already over current spending by some $30 million. It is up to $800 million just for the urban area grants. Port security grants, all of which go to the large cities, increases from $210 million to $400 million in the bill already. Rail and transit security grants go from $175 million currently to $400 million. And then the SAFER fire grants, moneys that go to urban area fire departments for personnel costs, goes from $115 million to $230 million, double what it is now. There are huge increases in these grant programs, particularly for the urban areas. I know the gentleman appreciates that. But we just don't have any more to go around unless you take it from another worthy cause. I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, on May 20, 2006, five men lost their lives in a coal mine explosion in Harlan, Kentucky. The number of casualties would have been greater, were it not for the heroic efforts of three mine inspectors who decided to go in and save whomever they could. There were only a few seconds to decide what to do in this situation. There were no second chances. Information was conflicting and incomplete in those rushed minutes late at night on May 20. These three men--Robert Rhea, Arthur Dale Jackson and Kevin Doan--heard enough and chose to descend into the smoke-filled blackness of the Darby Coal Mine. They were driven to help whomever they could, inserting themselves into this hellish furnace not knowing whether there would be additional explosions or structural collapses. The person they rescued, Paul Ledford, had succumbed to the carbon monoxide gases caused by the explosion and was unable to move any further. He was a half-mile down and never would have made it out on his own. We are reminded that coal miners face potential hazards deep underground, everyday, so that we can keep the lights on and appliances running. When tragedy strikes one of our coal mines, we depend on those level-headed, brave individuals who do the best they can at the scene to save lives and manage the disaster. While we sort out the lesson of the Darby mine tragedy, we must also recognize those who had little time to study, deliberate and analyze what to do. They acted. And because they did, someone lived. I commend these three individuals for answering the most important call any of us could ever get--and having the courage that now provides some solace where there would otherwise be none.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me time, and I want to thank the gentlelady and the chairman for ushering this piece of legislation through the committee and on to the floor honoring and acknowledging the contributions of marina owners and operators across this great country. Whether it is fishing one of the 1,000 lakes in Minnesota, cruising the inland waterways of the Sunshine State, or enjoying the 1,200 miles of shoreline along Lake Cumberland in my district, marinas are America's launching point for millions of boats and boaters seeking to enjoy the beautiful rivers, lakes, bays and oceans. These marinas employ nearly 140,000 people at over 13,000 operations nationwide, providing safe harbor and supply depots for boaters. In Kentucky, over 130 marina facilities served over 176,000 registered boats in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, from Fishtrap Lake in the east to Lake Barkley out west. In between in my district is the crown jewel of Kentucky's waterways, Lake Cumberland. Over 5 million visitors a year jet ski, enjoy bass fishing and cruise the 40,000 acres of Lake Cumberland. Lake associated businesses, including the 11 large scale marina operations, generate over $160 million in economic activity for the region. The lake area is famously dubbed the ``Houseboat Capital of the World,'' made famous by the prominence of world class houseboat manufacturing in Wayne, Pulaski and Russell Counties. These 100-foot houseboats are literally floating homes, with hot tubs, roof decks, full size kitchens, waterslides, grills, kitchens and the like. These boats are great venues for fishing trips, reunions or weekend escapes on the waterways across the Nation. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, recognizes the essential role marinas and the men and women who own and operate them play in the United States, providing their communities and visitors a place where friends and families can come together for recreation, rest and relaxation. I thank the committee for bringing this resolution through to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and designation of National Marina Day.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, 12 years ago a landmark painkilling medicine hit the doorstep of doctor's offices and local pharmacies with the promise of less addiction and less likelihood for abuse. This prescription drug provided a sustained-release mechanism with up to 12 hours of pain relief for a sore thumb or a back ache. This drug was billed as a ``safe'' alternative without the painful withdrawal symptoms of other opioids and enjoyed an FDA designation of ``moderate-to-severe'' pain, making it wildly popular among unsuspecting doctors and pharmacists. OxyContin seemed to be the answer for real pain relief. Today, we know these were lies. The manufacturer of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, spent $500 million marketing this deception and deceit. What began in the boardroom of Purdue Pharma executives has spread like wildfire into the living rooms, bathrooms and classrooms of families seeking pain relief. From 1996 to 2001, the number of oxycodone-related deaths nationwide increased 400 percent while the annual number of OxyContin prescriptions increased nearly 20-fold. Over the same time period, OxyContin brought in $2.8 billion in revenue for Purdue Pharma, at one point accounting for 90 percent of the company's sales. Purdue heavily promoted OxyContin to unsuspecting doctors, many of whom had little training in the treatment of serious pain or in recognizing signs of drug abuse in patients. To this profit-making scheme came the unsuspecting victim of eastern Kentucky. The birthplace of bluegrass music and the rich story of Daniel Boone became ground zero in the war against the illegal diversion of prescription drugs. Appalachia Kentucky is home to a proud people, skilled in the crafts and arts, family-oriented and hardworking. It is also home to an aging population, war veterans and retirees, tough foresters and miners, living with above average unemployment and below average access to healthcare and medical information. This was a perfect mix for an epidemic. On a per capita basis, our drugstores, hospitals, and other legal outlets receive more prescription pain-killers than anywhere in the nation. And at one time, my region accounted for 25 percent of all OxyContin overdoses in the country. Meanwhile, the death-toll continued to rise, topping out at nearly 500 Oxy-related deaths nationwide. Lives like Sheriff Sam Catron, one of the finest law enforcement officials in Kentucky I've ever known, who was cut short by the bullet of an OxyContin addict. Today, the President, Chief Legal Officer, and Chief Medical Officer for the Purdue Frederick Company have plead guilty in Federal court to charges of misbranding OxyContin and will pay over $634 million in damages. This is tremendous news. I have railed against the marketing practices of Purdue in the Appropriations Committee for nearly 7 years and I am pleased to see justice served. I applaud the work of the U.S. Attorneys from the Western District of Virginia and the Virginia Attorney General for their work to bring these criminals to justice. This landmark case is a wake-up call for the entire pharmaceutical industry, and a warning that deceptive, destructive marketing practices will not be tolerated. The ill-gotten gains and greed of drug profits will hopefully never again be prioritized over the health-care needs of our citizens. Though this sad chapter has finally closed, we must continue to be ever vigilant against the scourge of illegal drugs in our communities. With wise and robust investments in state-run prescription monitoring programs, law enforcement personnel, substance- abuse counselors, and educators, we can win this war; regain strength in our communities, and save lives.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the committee (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Appropriations, Mr. Young of Florida.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).