general agreement on the procedure of how we're going to try to make this work. we want to pass 12 individual bills through the house and senate and congress in the old-fashioned way. that is our common goal. and we're moving more or less the same bills early on in the house and senate so that we can get into the process of doing conferences, house and senate. most members of the house have never seen such a thing. we have not done this in years. but it's the right way to do it. you know, the number we're marking to in the house and the identical to ost fiscal 2014. that will help us along trying to reach final agreement with the senate on numbers with each ill. we got an early start. we got a common goal.

to pass 12 bills on time. and we've got this determination to get the appropriations train back on track, get back to regular order. i think we will make it. you know, there will be bumps along the way. that is the process. we are not going to have unanimity on hardly anything. that is the way this place is. >> you have always had some difficulty in getting some of the more junior, very conservative republicans to vote for anything. so you've had to look to democrats. are you confident that when they get to the troublesome difficult ills, like the bill that funds the implementation of the affordable care act, that you will be able to get that same balance of getting enough democrats to get it passed or can you do it all with

republicans? >> well, that remains to be seen. we'll do as best we can at the moment when that time comes to see if we can pass all of the bills. the november elections are going to have an impact on what we do this year. we will have to see how that begins to look in september. >> you strike a very positive tone and optimistic. but if you were to look a little bit into the future, do you think you would have to resort to a continuing resolution to fund the government? or are you confident that both the house and the senate in the election year would be able to pass? >> i hope we can pass each bill separately and independently in responsibly.nd

as i have said before, the election this upcoming election this november will probably influence how things play out with appropriations. i do not think that will become apparent until at least september. >> can you give us a percentage of your confidence level? >> to do what? >> that you will not have to pass a continuing resolution? >> it's too hard to predict. i mean, the control of the senate is what we are talking about. i do not know how the different arties over there will see their role in appropriations bills this year. number one, i do not know anything about the senatorial elections. and i have no idea what goes through senators' minds. so at that point in time i can't predict anything.

>> don't you think if the republicans were to take back the senate you have a choice? which would be continue on the path you're on now and wrap pump hing up this year or it into next year and get yourself the prospect of an early fight with the president. you've fought with the president before on appropriations bill. you know the president usually does pretty well in the fights. what is your view in that situation? would you like to wrap things up vision much or what? >> absolutely. and frankly, the fact that we're dealing with the same overall number in the house and senate and that they're almost identical from fiscal 14, that is sort of a leg up. because the dangerouses between 14 and 15 on each bill is going to be fairly small. that i think will give us a little bit of an edge. i just do not know what the

positions of the democrats senators and republican senators and their caucuses will do. >> looking ahead to fiscal 2016, you will no longer have the budget agreement in place. are you working with house bryan or with chairman to perhaps strike another agreement between the house and senate to ease the process after 2015? >> 2016 is a long way off. we have more immediate problems. but the importance of having that early budget resolution that the house and senate agree upon is critical to what we do or can do. so i would hope and pray that the budget committee chairs on both sides will work together to give us that number.

we'll have a new chair of the budget committee on the house side. we just don't know at this point in time what that attitude is going to be. the budget committee is more than a messaging committee as is normally thought of. it is also critical to the functioning of the congress, particularly appropriations. i would hope the budget committees will understand the importance of what they do in setting a common number. and i hope and trust that what we're doing this year, and very smoothly so far, working the process will encourage them to know that we can make things happen if they will just give us a number. >> that's a huge issue looming that needs more than a couple of months, the sequester. the big issue with the sequester obviously is the defense budget.

so the question is how can congress and the house do away with it? it has to do very drastic measures. troop reductions, program reductions. everybody is complaining about it. nothing has been done so far to solve the problem that's coming up. how do you see that resolved? how can you with your committee make sure that the defense department does not have to resort to those very drastic measures? >> that's a critical question. the sequester in 2016. i would hope and trust that the budget committees, house and senate, will recommend to the bodies of the congress a way to deal with sequestration, at the same time a giving us a number to appropriate to. that would prevent that undue harm to particularly the defense

department. suspects>> are you seeing any efforts being done so far, work behind the scenes, to try and figure something out? >> some general talk but no concrete action or plan at this point. >> i was wondering if you might open up a little bit about your relationship with chairwoman mikulski. you seem like a bit of an odd couple, quite frankly. she's a former social worker. you're from a pretty conservative stretch of kentucky but you worked very well together getting the omnibus going. it seems, although i'm not in the room, they have a pretty good relationship. can you talk about that? >> yes. it is a great relationship. i knew her from her house ays. and when she became chairwoman of the senate side, i went over

there and we had a good heart-to-heart talk and found out that we have the same goals. we're going to disagree on a lot of issues because we are a different political faiths. but she is determined to get the train back on track with appropriations, as am i. she understands the process. she's a grownup. nd we've learned -- i've learned what she has to have and she's learned hopefully what i have to have in these bills. and she understands the house because she has been there. she is a great working partner. we enjoy each other's company. we revel in getting things done. our goal of getting the appropriations train back on track is the overriding feature of our friendship and

collaboration. >> you say she's a grownup. it makes me think who's not being a grownup or what sort of behavior is not grownup in this process? >> we'll leave that for another time to talk about. no, she's a pro. she understands what has to be done to make the government work. that is to pass these appropriations bills. to do that you have to understand the other side's perspectives and needs politically to get the bill passed on the floors of both bodies. i would hope to think that i have that same trait, although not quite as great a quantity as does she. but she's a great working partner. >> you got some bad news from the c.b.o. recently, where $4

billion basically just disappeared because of the arcane scorekeeping disagreements involving the fha. all of that money comes out of the domestic side of the ledger. it is almost a 1% percentage point cut. how much has that hitter -- or how much more difficult has that made it to do your job? >> well, it's $4 billion worth of cuts that we have to find a way to accommodate. unfortunately, c.b.o. and o.m.b. on he white house disagree how to score moneys from the housing authority. so we're having to allocate that $4 billion of cuts in various bills. and it's tough. because we are pretty close to

the bone as it is, as it was. so we'll make it one way or another but it's tough. >> what about earmarks? there's talk in the senate, you may have heard, that senator durbin is trying to get old to read and visit ban on earmarks that the speakers engineered. mcconnell were fairly skilled at using earmarks to help your districts and do some innovative things. do you ever think you'll see them return? >> as you know, there's now a ban on earmarks on the house side. and as long as that ban is there, i'll enforce it on our committee. however, there is a lot merit to the idea that members of congress know their

districts better than a bureaucrat in the white house or department or whatever and that we ought to be able to have the u.s. congress with the power of the purse to remedy problems that exist in our districts that is not being taken care of by the regular process. but earmarks that simply redistrict moneys that otherwise brew kratz would spend with no increase in spending makes some sense. as long as it is done in the open air. it should have to originate only in the subcommittees and not eardropped along the way. maybe it should he limited to moneys directed to local or state governments. that would cure most of the problems that existed when earmarks got out of hand.

>> do you think the ban has hurt appropriations because there's no more incentive for people to participate? >> yes, i do. earmarks, directed spending pursuant to article i of the u.s. constitution, giving the power of the purse to congress and appropriations -- when a member requests legitimately some spending problem in his district that needs to be remedied and we include that in the bill, that person has an immediate ownership of the bill. it is helpful. no doubt about that. >> you keep talking about regular order and wanting to get the trains back on track. why does that give you a better product in the end? >> having the train on track? >> yeah, you had the omnibus bill.

you could argue them if you had done 12 individual bills they may not look that much different than the omnibus that's cobbled together. the opportunity for some members to throw political bombs like what happened with immigration or the environment or other hot-button items. why does that process get you a better result in the end? >> i am a firm believer in an open rule on the floor where everyone has a chance to say their peace and amend the bill as they would like to try. i believe in an open process.

getting the train back on track means passing bills or subcommittee, full committee, full conference with the senate and the like in an open fashion. everyone has a chance to become an owner of the bill. it is more process than substance. i think the congress is a place where every member should have a chance to try to foster a bill o his or her liking. f we follow the standard procedure that is always taken lace in the house and senate with these individual bills debated openly and amended if you can but aired completely, if we followed that tried-and-true practice it will also not good in the end. >> if i could ask you about a back-and-forth you had with secretary lew. you are talking about the states that legalized marijuana. under treasury guidelines they can pay taxes, etc. do you see that as a problem? if so, secretary lew said congress needs to establish some sort of policy here.

>> marijuana is illegal under federal law. it is an illegal substance. it's a scheduled drug regulated by the federal government. and yet, the toirge and the administration is turning their backs on enforcing that law and allowing states like colorado and washington state to legalize marijuana even though it is federally a criminal matter. so i have great concern. that the administration is again selectively enforcing the law. >> can you put it in the appropriations process, some sort of language to address it? >> it remains to be seen. >> it sounds like you might. >> it remains to be seen. >> do you see an upside with more revenue from taxing these businesses?

>> i think the expenditures that legalization of marijuana will cause -- law enforcement problems and the like -- greatly outweigh whatever tax benefits ight come from it. secretary lew and treasury, what really was asking him about was approving banking regulations that would allow federal banks -- federally chartered banks -- to do business with drug dealers. when the federal law is plain and simple. it just is a mess. and it's again, selective enforcement of the law. if we're going to legalize marijuana, you are going to have to undo the federal law that

prohibits it, plain and simple. >> time for one or two more questions. another controversial issue, will your committee fund the implementation of the health care law? obamacare? >> most of that funding is mandatory spending. it is not in our purview to raise or increase or do whatever with it. t is mandated by law until the -- law. until that law is changed, that will continue. >> when you first came to congress, you came from a district that needed a lot of economic development. you have turned a lot of attention to prescription drug abuse which is pretty rampant in your area. you do not see that coming 30 years ago. >> no. it is a scourge. it is national.

it is not just us. my district was ground zero of the oxycontin pill abuse of 10 years ago or so until we were able to get the makeup of that pill changed so where it could abused, opped up and oxycontin was killing our young people every day. so with the change of oxycontin's formulation, that helped a lot. i did not foresee this. i do not think anyone did. it has been absolute scourge. it is affecting the whole country. in fact, prescription pill abuse is killing more people than car wrecks in the u.s. most people do not realize that. it is that bad. was greatly chagrined a few weeks ago now when the f.d.a.

approved a new drug on the market called zalhadro which is five times more powerful than vicodin. t is a pure hydrocodone. it is not had any abuse of this hair and features. you can crush it. you can shoot it up. i am afraid people will not realize how strong it is. i am afraid we will have another oxycontin-like wave of abuse come out because of that drug. it is a puzzle. the advisory committee to the f.d.a. voted 11-2 against releasing that drug and jet yet it was released by the f.d.a. that's puzzling. >> are you going to do something about it? >> we're going to try. i have had long conversations of commissioner hamburg of the

f.d.a. about it. the country is alarmed over it. i just hosted in atlanta about 1,100 people from every state dealing with prescription drug abuse. the c.d.c., the drug czar and so on, along with attorney generals and social workers, teachers and he like and the overwhelming fear in that group was this new drug. o i would hope that she would reconsider the decision and reconvene the advisory committee to recore -- reconsider this drug now. especially since that company that makes the drug now says it

won't take them too long to period of time a bill pill that s abuse-deterrent, cannot be crushed. we should at least wait until that time comes. >> chairman rogers, thank you very much for being with us on "newsmakers." andrew, let me begin with you. they are working on this 12 spending bills to fund the federal government. all the different agencies. sound very positive, the process. >> he was sounding a lot of positive things. he didn't really respond when me r rocks zanna tried to push -- roxana tried to push him into areas where he might have some roadblocks. i thought it was interesting that he said election will have a lot to do with this. they will not get everything done on this timetable. but i did think it was interesting that he wants it

over this year, no matter what >> politics aside. >> yes. i do not think he wants to sit on his hands for a few more months waiting for the dynamic of possibly the republicans taking over the senate to take over these bills. >> we talked about his relationship with his counterpart in the senate, chairwoman mikulski. is it true she is not playing politics? >> she definitely tries not to. but they both have telegraphed their really good intentions and hope for a regular process. but there's a bigger machine standing in front of them. the politics and the midterm elections are something that cannot be discounted in this process at all. since last chairman

year, pleaded for a regular process for funding the government properly. they were in the minority. chairman rogers was a minority in his party and so was she. >> you look at the election. you look at what senate democrats, you pointed to the senate democrats. do you foresee fights on equal pay, minimum wage? things that we hear the president and democrats talking about? >> no, i don't. i think senator mikulski goes way back with majority leader harry reid and probably even intimidates him a little bit. he can be scary. she has a guarantee of four weeks of floor time. she wants to do it the old-fashioned way, have amendments. the type of amendments he talked about are not germane under

senate rule. it is a matter of having the chair rule them out of order. but there will be a temptation for some of the bomb throwers, particularly on the republican side of the aisle to take advantage of the opportunity to amend the bill. there's this sort of groundswell of discontent because senator reid shuts down the process and the house filibusters and it's not very productive. he gives them the opportunity to let the system work. who knows how it will turn out? >> on the republican side, it you asked about the funding of the affordable care act. do the fights come up again? do we see that again? a filibuster by senator ted cruz? >> i would probably expect that. yes. do not discount the fact that his home state senator mitch mcconnell is up for reelection this year. the minority leader. that plays a lot into how the dynamic of the senate will work.

>> in the end, how do you see this going down? >> what is probably going to happen is you will get some number of bills that are relatively bipartisan through and you will have others that are left behind, like the one that funds obamacare. the question is, and he's a very smart man and she's a very smart woman -- how do you take that question and get it across the finish line? what they've had in the past is mething that's very popular, be part of the train that pulls the troublesome rail cars along. >> you said she is a guarantee of four weeks. when is that taking place? >> i think she'll get a couple weeks in june and july. >> we wait and see what happens there. roxana tiron, andrew taylor, thank you both. appreciate it.