Mike Rogers

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the gentleman from Arizona's amendment to cut funding for the USDA grant for Wood Utilization Research. For the past 15 years, Michigan State University and other universities have used grants for Wood Utilization Research to strengthen and improve the United States wood product industry. Jointly, these universities have addressed major problems in all of the forest regions of the United States. This collaboration has provided important advances that have helped to make our wood product industry more competitive around the globe, and our forests healthier here at home. Specifically, grant funding has been used to expand sustainable, environmentally sound forest practices and develop renewable wood-based materials. The United States wood products industry is fragmented and composed of many small firms whose only access to advanced technology is through government or university laboratories. A major benefit of the USDA Wood Utilization grant has been the flexibility of universities to rapidly respond to critical regional or national research needs. In addition, the availability of grant funding has leveraged additional funds from state and private sources. Michigan State University, located in Michigan's 8th District, continues to be a leader in this vital research. Today, they are performing research on wood materials that will shape the future of this industry for years to come. Projects include the conversion of wood residuals into biofuels, the development of environmentally safe preservative systems to lengthen the life of wood products (thus lessening the demand for harvest), the creation of wood materials that can substitute petroleum-based plastics, and the utilization of trees killed by emerald ash borer. Many of these projects will help reduce our nation's dependence on foreign sources of petroleum, create manufacturing and research jobs, and further strengthen our wood product industry. Mr. Chairman, this research grant is critically important not only for Michigan State University and my district, but clearly for the United States wood product industry and our national energy needs. I thank the Committee for funding the grant, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I think the thing that surprises me the most on this is the lack of honesty on this bill, and I think to the credit of many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, I don't think you've been told what's in this bill. This isn't about poor, uninsured children. My dad used to say, if a salesman comes to you and talks about the needs of his kids before he talks about the quality of his product, beware; you're getting sold a bill of goods. That's exactly what has happened today and in the previous days and why they don't want to talk about the bill, why they don't want amendments. Why? It's the single largest cut in Medicare's program history. You are cutting Medicare to millions of seniors. I wouldn't want to talk about it either. And what else are you doing? You're cutting stroke victims when they're in in-patient rehab. Stroke victims, our seniors, are going to cut that. Doctors, you're cutting doctors. You're cutting oxygen equipment and wheelchair services to seniors. You're cutting seniors' home health care. You're cutting hospital payments. You're cutting skilled nursing care for the sickest seniors in nursing homes. You're cutting dialysis services for kidney cancer patients. You're cutting imaging services for cancer and cardiac patients. You're telling businesses we're going to make it more expensive for you to give health care to the working poor. You are doing that in this bill. I bet many of you don't even know that. You are also telling seniors, by the way, once we slash the largest in history amount of money out of Medicare, your part B premiums are going up. We're going to make it more expensive for you. Less doctors taking Medicare patients, higher small business costs, higher Medicare premiums, not one dollar for the 700,000 under 200 percent of poverty who need our help. Shame on you. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, a letter recently from the NAACP says: We strongly support maintaining adequate funding for the Medicare Advantage program that serves as a critical funding for accessing health care services, particularly for low-income and minority Medicare beneficiaries. Talk about what's in the bill. Don't use children as your shield. This is the single largest cut to Medicare in the program's history. Absolutely, it is, and let me tell you what you are cutting. Read the bill. You're cutting stroke victims from inpatient rehab. You're cutting doctors. You're cutting oxygen equipment and wheelchair services to seniors. You're cutting seniors' home health care, cutting hospital payments, cutting skilled nursing care for the sickest seniors in nursing homes. You're cutting dialysis services for kidney cancer patients. You're cutting imaging services for cancer and cardiac patients. The list goes on. You're telling seniors once we slash the Medicare Advantage payments, we're going to push you on to part B, and guess what, your premiums are going up. We can work this out. This was a Republican-generated idea when it started, SCHIP, to include those 200 percent or below of children in poverty, and I will tell you that there's not one thing that helps those kids under 200 percent of poverty, and you will get more of illegal immigrants at the expense of seniors. This is a bad bill. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly today to point out something that I think is incredibly important. The ag work that you have all done is important, and agriculture is certainly an important part of our American economy. And our ability to feed ourselves is critical to our national security. But we also have another national security issue of which we cannot get the attention that it so deserves. After 9/11, we put together these commissions, the 9/11 Commission, to say, Hey, what went wrong? We decided we would merge a whole department together and call it the Department of Homeland Security to best meet the needs and safety and security of the homeland. We did all of these things in preparation for what we knew was likely to occur, and that is certainly another attempt by terrorists to attack the United States of America. And one of the things that we did through all of that is said we have to give law enforcement, our intelligence services, every tool that we can find to make America safe, because we have asked a lot of them. We have said we want you to go to the most dangerous places in the world and find bad guys and stop terrorist plots against the homeland. We told our FBI to work long hours and weekends, spending a lot of time away from their families, to make sure that no terrorist plot is successful in the United States of America. But today, we allow more conversations between known terrorists overseas talking to known or unknown terrorists overseas to go unheard because of a quirk in the law. We have been asking day after day, week after week, month after month, please, for the safety and security of the United States of America, let's have the courage to fix this law so we can protect America. Right now and today, there is a terrorist conversation happening overseas that we are not allowing our law enforcement, our intelligence services, to monitor. Overseas, with non-United States citizens. I was an FBI agent for about 6 years, and I understand and appreciate the probable cause standard of which we engage to American citizens, and it is right that we do that. It is right that it is difficult to get a warrant to intercept their conversations because that is who we are in America and we should cherish it for our citizens. But to tell them that we expect them to stop terrorist attacks against America, and we allow all of these known conversations to go unlistened to at a time when we know that they are heightening up to do something is irresponsible, if not criminal. This is important what you talk about. This is more important. We should not leave this Chamber today, tomorrow, or at the end of the week without fixing this critical national security problem to the United States of America. It is wrong. We have soldiers in harm's way. We have intelligence officials in harm's way. We have domestic law enforcement in harm's way. Let's stand with them today, defeat this rule, fix this problem, and move on to the other important issues of the day. It is that important. And don't kid ourselves. We cannot kid ourselves, Madam Speaker. This is that serious. You know, when a very distinguished member of the Cabinet stands up and says ``I have a gut feeling,'' that is not a gut feeling. It is based on a whole series of pieces of information that doesn't say when or where or what, but it says something is happening. There is a ramp-up. There is lots of activity; there is lots of chatter. Something is going on, and yet we stand here blinded. We can't hear. We are not allowing them to see where the trouble is next brewing. It is wrong. We need to fix it. We should stand in unanimity today and defeat the previous question so that we can fix this problem and move on and keep America safe.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this certainly seems to me a change in policy. This is a straight transfer. Now, the other two amendments I understand we may have something to chat about, but this is a straight dollar transfer. We have reduced one account and increased another account. It is a straight transfer and should be considered made in order.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, to my distinguished colleagues, I certainly understand the efforts to fence off issues when it comes to the census, and I think there are some issues of which we can find a level of importance to take a very small amount of money, make that census more efficient, and do some great good for the United States of America. Think about some of the goods that we have had coming to the United States of America from China that have been counterfeited, adulterated, contaminated just recently: pet food, toothpaste, bottled water, auto parts. There is an assessment that just counterfeit auto parts coming out of China alone cost American jobs to the tune of $750,000. A couple of years ago, in 2004, the Department of Commerce's Trade Agreement Compliance Center was created, and it was designed to specifically and solely go after Chinese unfair trading practices. And if we are going to have free trade, it must be fair trade. The deficit with China in 2006 was $230 billion, and it is getting bigger. But think of the products that they are selling. Think of the products that they are working into the system. Think of the unfairness to American workers who are playing by the rules, producing products that are safe and legal and in compliance with intellectual property. So you think about what they are doing: currency manipulation to unjustly compete against American jobs that robs us of jobs unfairly in the trade world, certainly not appropriate. Counterfeiting not only of auto parts that we have just seen, but the things they have done with pet food and toothpaste and bottled water. The chemicals used on some food products that they brought in a few years ago. Michigan apples is an example where they used a pesticide that we don't allow in the United States because it is dangerous to public health. All of those things have happened and will continue to happen if we don't step up and make a serious statement about our commitment to stop unfair trade practices by China and stop counterfeit parts that are robbing jobs and products that may, in fact, take the lives of Americans. This is serious business. We ask for just $6 million. It will double the Office of Compliance where these trade cops will look specifically at Chinese trade violations. I can't think of anything more important for us to do given the recent cases that are coming out of China. And only with vigorous and well-funded trade monitoring and enforcement can we provide a level playing field and allow U.S. manufacturers to compete around the world. In order to deliver the promises of free trade, we need to guarantee fair trade. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of three amendments, and what we are trying to do here today is solve a couple of very real problems for average FBI agents who, in my day, were called brick agents. These are the folks who are doing the real work, working organized crime or collecting intelligence on foreign spies or doing counterterrorism work here in the United States, trying to save and prevent any hazards from happening in our homeland, doing violent crime or chasing gangsters or involved in the public corruption that is pervasive in so many of our cities around the United States. They're doing great work, and these are very talented people, and we don't really pay them a lot of money. We ask a lot of them. We tell them to move around a lot. We send them to very high-cost cities, New York City, and think what about we do. We have an agent who's been in, say, 7, 8, 9, 10 years, he makes about $89,000 as a supervisor of other FBI agents, and he's in Alabama. You can do pretty well at that standard. And then we tell him or her, because his or her talents are needed in New York City, You're going to go. So you pack up your family and you show up in one of the world's most expensive cities, and for that, we give you $3,000. So he or she goes from living pretty decently in a place like Alabama on $89,000 to a high-cost city making $92,000, and the hardship begins. It's wrong that we treat some of our frontline defenders in homeland defense in this way. So, last summer, we sat down and tried to work with the FBI director to get a couple of things accomplished. One was a housing allowance. Other agencies in the city of New York have housing allowances for their agents and their officers who serve there because they recognize the need for, A, constant moving; and B, in high-cost areas, you need a little extra help just to get by. Some of these agents have 3-hour commutes to go into work, 3-hour commutes, work a very long day, longer than most Americans; then they have a 3-hour commute to go home. It's pretty tough on their family life. It's tough on their finances, and it's wrong that we ask these agents to suffer under that kind of financial difficulty. We should and could do better. So, last summer, we agreed with the FBI director, of which we have public statements to the effect, that we would try a pilot housing project here in Washington, D.C., another high-cost area. It's hard to attract FBI agents to come back to Washington, D.C., because of the high cost that is uncompensated. So we agreed that we would try a pilot project here to see if we couldn't work out the kinks. Now, the FBI has agreed to this program. They said it's the right thing to do. They will try a pilot project. If it works here, we'll see where else it can go. So we take a very small amount of money, about half of 1 percent from the $2 billion plus going to NOAA, and we say we're just going to redirect a little of this money into something that we know can make a difference for those who are defending the United States of America and doing some of the hardest work that is out there. So, if we do this amendment, I won't have to do an amendment later on that specifically outlines how we would do a housing project for FBI agents across America. And think of those high-cost cities like Los Angeles or Miami or Chicago, New York City, places in New Jersey, Atlantic City, the cost of housing is ridiculous. And they're not well- compensated to begin with, and to ask that extra burden isn't right. So we're going to do two things. We're going to do that. Hopefully, if we do this, I will be able to withdraw my second amendment on the FBI housing allowance. And secondly, they have something called an up- or-out policy of which, by the way, I oppose, but I worked with the director to protect the pensions of those FBI agents that have been impacted by this up-or-out policy. And by the way, the FBI, after this agreement last summer, sent an internal communications and said basically, hey, we're going to do this for you. For those of you who are impacted, and these are supervisors who have served well for their country and their community and the Bureau who had to step down from being a supervisor because they didn't want to be forced to move to a high-cost city in Washington, D.C., to further their career. Maybe their kids were in school, maybe they had to make other considerations. So they were forced not because of their lack of good work but because they were just serving in that capacity for 5 years. And those who were close to retirement, it significantly impacted their retirement, their pensions, and it's wrong. There's a small number of agents that we can fix with this proposal that takes care of those agents who have served us all well. While we were sleeping, they were working. While we were in the safety of our barbecues, they were in danger protecting this country. We owe it to them to have these two fixed. It's agreed to by the FBI director. It's agreed to by the FBI. We just need to get some language in to accomplish that. I would urge support of this amendment. Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee, I hope we can work this issue out. This is language that was agreed last year by both parties to take care of two, I think, very important fixes for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We have a segment of agents who are being punished, for lack of a better term, for not choosing to come back to Washington, DC. They have served their countries ably. They have served their tours as brick agents and worked the streets, and kicked in doors, and arrested drug dealers and mobsters, and gone after terrorists, and done all that hard work that we ask them to do every single day. Unselfishly, so, they have done it. Through that course, they have decided to be supervisors and pick an area of expertise. In this particular case, they have picked a supervisory specialty that might be white collar crime, or it might be organized crime, or it might be counterterrorism or it might be foreign counterintelligence. That expertise allows them to lead these agents to better investigations. In a new policy implemented by the FBI Director, these fairly senior agents, it asked them to step aside if they chose not to come back to Washington, D.C. Some of them had their kids in high school. You can imagine being in Des Moines, Iowa, close to home, and you have got 18 or 19 years of Federal service, maybe they are former military before that. They have got lots of Federal service, looking to move on in a few years. That is a hard choice for them to make. In doing so, it cost them that added benefit to their pension for serving in a leadership capacity in the FBI. So what we simply did is last summer worked out some language with the FBI Director that said we were not going to let these 200 or so agents be punished by this new policy. They deserved to have that pension at the rate of service which they have ably given their country. Again, this language was agreed to by both parties last year, but because this was a continuing resolution and it was dropped in conference, we did not have that opportunity to get this fixed. The second part of that, which I can talk to in the second amendment, is also about a housing allowance that would allow agents, for the first time, like other Federal agencies working in major cities across the United States, to enjoy a housing allowance in these very high-cost areas, so that we can keep, retain and really say thank you to the hardest working FBI agents who are working to protect the homeland. With that, I would hope that the chairman and I could work this through and try to find some conclusion to what we have already agreed to needs to get fixed for these people, who, by the way, have already been told their pensions will be fixed, and yet to this date have not. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just for the purpose of a very short colloquy, I think we established the two issues here that we are trying to get resolved, and I would again just ask the chairman if he would have that willingness to work with us and see if we couldn't find some language acceptable to the chairman to correct these two egregious items. These agents certainly shouldn't bear the brunt of any disagreement.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I understand. I think a little under a 3 percent cut for counting versus our ability to go after what we know we have found. Contaminated pet food; contaminated toothpaste, which people consume, which is certainly a public health hazard; and auto parts that rob our manufacturers of important jobs must take priority. It obviously hasn't worked the way we want it. We should step up in a big way. A $230 billion trade deficit. This is the right investment.

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

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. So it is not nearly as terrible.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. Mr. Chairman, I thought this amendment was in order. But, in that vein, I thought I heard the chairman say that he would be willing to work with us maybe in conference and we could find some language that might be acceptable to the chairman where we could kind of conclude this deal that I think we all have agreed to in the past, that maybe we can work out that language in the conference. Mr. Chairman, I just thank the gentleman for his willingness to sit down and work with us.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, in the report accompanying H.R. 2641, the subcommittee commends the nuclear physics research community for its efforts to rescope the next generation rare isotope research facility in light of the current fiscal constraints. However, the report contends that ``the rare isotope beams will involve modifications to existing accelerators rather than the construction of a new rare isotope accelerator, RIA.'' As you know, National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory, located at Michigan State University, is the leading rare isotope facility in the United States and needs an upgrade to stay on the leading edge of rare isotope science. Michigan State's upgrade proposal includes the reuse of several major components of the existing NSCL. However, it does not intent to use its existing cyclotron accelerators, as they would not be suitable for the beam strengths contemplated by the new facility. As a result, if one were to interpret this language literally, Michigan State would not be eligible for any potential DOE funded facility since it is not proposing ``modifications to existing accelerators.'' Mr. Chairman, I am assuming this is a problem created by ambiguous wording and does not represent a substantive shift in the position of the subcommittee. Would you concur with my assumption, sir?

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his work on this issue. You have given me a whole renewed look at Notre Dame University.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to share my concerns with Section 703 of the FY 2008 Defense Authorization Bill, H.R. 1585. This provision would allow the Secretary to exclude prescription drugs that our soldiers and their families rely on to treat diabetes, asthma, cholesterol and hypertension from the TRICARE uniform formulary. This provision would create a fundamental change in the TRICARE pharmacy benefit program. Currently our military personnel have access to all drugs, even non-formulary drugs, but with a substantially higher co-pay. This provision could exclude altogether access to important lifesaving treatments and medicines. This provision is indirectly a price control. It places a ceiling on prices that can be negotiated. The GAO and CBO previously have said that when price controls are expanded, it could have the effect of raising prices for other programs. The provision could have the unintended consequence of affecting the prices paid by the Veterans Administration, which could impact veterans' access to medicine. Price controls are also harmful to innovation, which could impede the discoveries of cures and treatments for the illnesses suffered by our soldiers, veterans and their families. I urge my colleagues to strike this provision in conference to ensure that our soldiers and their families have access to the treatments that will allow them to continue to live healthy and productive lives.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution I noticed on May 21, 2007.

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.