Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 176 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 176 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7745-H7782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONSOLIDATED AND FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
adoption of the resolution (H. Res. 467) providing for consideration of
the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2112) making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, on which the yeas
and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 262,
nays 156, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 856]

YEAS--262

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--156

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Filner
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter

[[Page H7746]]

Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--15

Bachmann
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Cardoza
Courtney
Gardner
Giffords
Hirono
Lucas
Manzullo
Napolitano
Paul
Roskam
Schock
Shimkus

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.

{time} 1446

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No.
856 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 467--Rule providing for
consideration of the Conference Report to H.R. 2112--Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food & Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.

personal explanation

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 854, 855, and 856, had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on all the above.

personal explanation

Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall Nos. 854, 855, and 856.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

General Leave

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2112.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
467, agreed to earlier today, I call up the conference report on the
bill (H.R. 2112) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 467, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 14, 2011, at page H743.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I rise today to present the conference report on H.R. 2112, the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012. The
House passed H.R. 2112, the bill making appropriations for the
Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies, on June 16. The bill has since
been amended to include the Commerce-Justice-Science and the
Transportation-HUD appropriations bills as well as a continuing
resolution to keep the rest of the government operating until December
16.
With the help of our ranking member, the gentleman from Washington,
Norm Dicks, we successfully negotiated with our Senate counterparts to
craft this agreement, which is the first appropriations conference
report to hit this floor since 2009. This report is the next step in
meeting the spending targets set by the Budget Control Act, which will
save the taxpayers billions and help continue the effort to bring the
Nation's deficit under control. In fact, this bill keeps us on track to
cut regular discretionary spending by $98 billion compared to the
President's fiscal year 2012 request and some $47 billion below the
fiscal year 2010 level.
When all appropriations work this year is completed, it will be the
second year in a row that we have reduced total discretionary spending,
a remarkable and historic achievement. Yet while we've made significant
cuts, we were also able to fund important priorities, such as food and
drug safety, Federal law enforcement, agricultural and scientific
research, trade, infrastructure, and economic growth. Additionally,
we're helping communities, States, businesses, and families deeply
affected by a record-breaking year of destructive natural disasters and
catastrophes.

{time} 1450

We scrubbed the information from the agencies and were able to reduce
the disaster spending in this bill by $850 million compared to the
Senate-passed bill. These funds are only for disaster assistance and do
not grow the baseline budgets or the scope of the Federal agencies.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is the next step in breaking the status quo
of excess Federal spending that's throwing our budgets out of whack.
Our House conferees thoroughly examined each and every program and
agency to ensure that we are reducing spending wherever possible. In
this bill, this includes terminating wasteful, poorly planned and
controversial programs such as high-speed rail, NOAA's Climate Change
Office, and the Livable Communities program. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we
have terminated 20 programs for a savings of $456 million.
This legislation also reins in executive branch overreach by
including several important policy items. These provisions kill job-
killing regulations that create economic uncertainty and limit
government involvement in issues of life and liberty, including several
provisions protecting human life and the Second Amendment right to keep
and bear arms.
Finally, this legislation includes a continuing resolution that will
keep the remainder of the government operating until December 16,
allowing us an appropriate amount of time, I think, to finish
negotiations on the remaining nine appropriations bills so that we will
have all 12 out of the way, leaving the Appropriations Committee clear
sailing in January to bring to the floor of the House 12 separate
appropriations bills.
I'm very pleased that we were able to reach agreement on this bill.
It has become all too rare a thing in this Congress to come to an
agreement such as this, and I'm proud to say that this conference
report was approved by all but one of the 38 House and Senate conferees
from both parties, which goes to show us we work best when we work
together. While there are no doubt items where Members might disagree
in the bill, there are many achievements in this bill of which we can
be justly proud.
However, we could not have done this without the tremendous help from
our ranking member, Norm Dicks, as well as the dedicated conferees on
both sides of the aisle from both Chambers. Chairman Wolf, Chairman
Kingston, Chairman Latham, Ranking Members Farr, Fattah, and Olver, as
well as our dedicated staff, have worked tirelessly over the last few
weeks to bring this bill to completion, and they have all of our
sincere thanks and appreciation for a job well done.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
I am proud, Mr. Speaker, that your Appropriations Committee is
presenting to you the first Appropriations Conference Report since 2009
and the first conference report of this Congress. Your Appropriations
Committee is working.
In closing, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. It's
vital we pass this bill to prevent a government shutdown, rein in
overzealous regulations, and help put our budgets and our economy on
track.

[[Page H7747]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.001

[[Page H7748]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.002

[[Page H7749]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.003

[[Page H7750]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.004

[[Page H7751]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.005

[[Page H7752]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.006

[[Page H7753]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.007

[[Page H7754]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.008

[[Page H7755]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.009

[[Page H7756]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.010

[[Page H7757]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.011

[[Page H7758]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.012

[[Page H7759]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.013

[[Page H7760]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.014

[[Page H7761]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.015

[[Page H7762]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.016

[[Page H7763]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.017

[[Page H7764]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.018

[[Page H7765]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.019

[[Page H7766]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.020

[[Page H7767]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.021

[[Page H7768]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.022

[[Page H7769]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH17NO11.023

[[Page H7770]]

I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The appropriations bill we will consider today includes within it
three bills: Agriculture; Commerce-Justice-Science; and Transportation-
HUD, along with a clean continuing resolution covering the remaining
nine bills. The CR prevents a government shutdown. It is a simple date
change to December 16. No anomalies are added; everything but the date
is carried forward from the last CR.
The agreement provides disaster relief of $2.3 billion, including the
full amount needed to address the backlog of eligible disaster repairs
for highways, roads, and bridges, and funds to address agricultural
disasters.
The conference report also drops controversial riders on Dodd-Frank
financial reform, women's health, and climate change.
The minibus restores funding that was cut in the initial House bill
to nutrition and food safety programs.
The conference agreement provides $6.6 billion for the Women,
Infants, and Children program, WIC, an increase of $570 million over
the level in the House-passed bill and $36 million above the Senate
level. At this level, WIC can provide for the estimated 700,000 women,
children, and infants that would have been turned away under the
previous bill. The impact of food prices will still need to be
monitored to ensure the program has sufficient funding.
The conference report provides $177 million for the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program, which provides food assistance to
particularly vulnerable low-income elderly, as well as mothers and
young children. At this level, the program will avoid dropping the
100,000 applicants, as would have been required in the House bill.
The conference agreement restores funding to FDA, $334 million over
the House-passed bill, to allow implementation of the Food Safety
Modernization Act, and provides $1 billion for the Food Safety and
Inspection Service, $32 million over the House level, to maintain the
current workforce of meat inspectors.
The agreement restores funding for the COPS programs that were zeroed
out in the House-reported bill. COPS grants enable State and local law
enforcement agencies to hire and retain police officers, provide
equipment to tribal law enforcement agencies, and provide training on
community-oriented policing.
The agreement restores much-needed funding for science and
innovation. The conference agreement provides $7 billion for the
National Science Foundation, an increase of $173 million above the FY11
level and the House-reported bill. While we need to be investing much
more in basic research at NSF, the additional funding in the conference
agreement is an important step in the right direction.
The conference agreement provides $924 million for NOAA's Joint Polar
Satellite System. While still below the request, the conference level
will go farther than either the House or Senate levels in helping to
minimize the anticipated satellite data gaps.
The agreement provides funding for NASA's James Webb Space Telescope,
which the House had zeroed out. The new telescope will be 100 times
more powerful than the Hubble Space Telescope, allowing us to see
images of the first glows after the Big Bang and greatly enhancing our
scientific understanding of the universe.
Finally, the minibus restores funding for transportation and housing
programs. The minibus includes $12 billion more than the House
subcommittee bill for the Federal-aid highway program, consistent with
the annual funding levels assumed in the Surface Transportation
Extension Act. The bill includes $10.5 billion for transit programs,
$2.5 billion more than the earlier bill.
The agreement also includes $1.4 billion for Amtrak capital and
operating grants and deletes onerous language from the House
subcommittee-passed bill that would have eliminated service on 26
short-distance routes, affecting 15 States and more than 9 million
passengers.
The bill includes funding for the TIGER grant program, which will
help advance national and regional transportation projects that will
benefit both passenger and freight mobility as well as create jobs.
This bill will create a lot of jobs.
The conference agreement provides $45 million in funding for housing
counseling assistance. This program provides grant funds to local
nonprofit agencies for reverse mortgage, rental, home pre-purchase and
foreclosure prevention counseling. This program had been eliminated in
2011.
The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is funded at $120 million in the
conference agreement. Choice is a grant program to revitalize public
housing and blighted private housing in mixed-income neighborhoods.
This program provides quality low-income housing, while the vast
majority of these funds create needed construction jobs. The House
subcommittee bill proposed eliminating the program.
The Interagency Council on Homelessness is funded at $3.3 million in
the conference agreement. The agency was also eliminated in the House
subcommittee bill. The Council enhances the Federal response to
homelessness by coordination between agencies, addressing duplicative
programs, and identifying best practices.
The conference agreement provides $75 million for the Veterans
Affairs Supportive Housing program, equal to the President's budget
request. VASH provides long-term housing to homeless veterans. This is
an increase of $25 million over the FY11 level.

{time} 1500

I'm not happy with every single element of this, but I haven't seen a
bill around here yet that is perfect. I also want to say that we did
not get as good a compromise as we hoped on the Legal Services
Corporation. I wish we could do more because there certainly is a
justice gap in this country.
I want to commend the chairman and his staff, both the majority staff
and the minority staff, who I think worked very well together with the
other body in reaching resolutions in a very timely way on these three
bills. And I want to commend the chairman for bringing six bills to the
floor.
Now, I could make the case that we actually did 18 bills because we
had 12 bills in the '11 omnibus, H.R. 1, that took us a whole week, if
you remember, to go through 12 separate bills. So 12 and 6 is 18.
That's a pretty good day for the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. And in that H.R. 1, the fiscal year '11
omnibus bill, as you recollect, we had some 500 amendments.
Mr. DICKS. Everybody got a shot.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Everybody.
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the chairman for his commitment to
regular order and openness, and I hope that next year we can really do
all 12 bills. If we can get them done this year in December, then we
can focus on the 12 bills for next year and hopefully bring them all to
the floor so that Members have a chance to vote. It's important, I
think. And I think the fact that so many people wanted to offer an
amendment indicates that the membership of the House wants to see an
open process. And it's certainly important for the minority, too, to
have an opportunity to offer amendments.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee, a very
hardworking chairman who also happens to be a colleague of mine in the
class of 1980, the so-called Reaganauts, Chairman Frank Wolf.
Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference report, which
includes the fiscal year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act.
I want to thank my colleague and ranking member, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for his support throughout this process. I
also want to thank Senate counterparts, Senators Mikulski and
Hutchison, and I also want to particularly thank Chairman Rogers of the
full committee and Ranking Member Mr. Dicks. This was a very, very open
process. Also I want to thank the CJS subcommittee staff, including
Mike Ringler, Leslie Albright, Stephanie Meyers, Diana Simpson, Colin
Samples and Scott Sammis, as well as Todd

[[Page H7771]]

Culligan in my office, and Darek Newby and Bob Bonner on the minority
staff.
Working together, we were able to produce a conference report that
reduces discretionary spending in line with the Budget Control Act,
while the supercommittee works to control entitlement spending which is
the primary driver of our unsustainable debt and reform the Tax Code.
The final CJS bill before the House is $583 million below--below--
fiscal year 2011 and $4.9 billion, 8.5 percent, below the President's
request.
Since Republicans assumed the majority, we have reduced spending by
more than $11 billion for agencies funded in the CJS appropriations
bill.
At the same time, the bill also provides funding for a variety of
critical national priorities. The conference report fully funds the FBI
at $8.1 billion to protect the Nation from further terrorist attacks.
The bill includes important increases for FBI national security
programs and the investigation of cyberintrusions.
The bill also makes important progress in the fight against the
horrible and pervasive crime of human trafficking. Human trafficking is
spreading through this Nation, and this funding bill will also support
State and local human trafficking task force activities and victim
assistance services. The conference agreement will require--will
require--each U.S. Attorney to establish a human trafficking task
force.
In the Department of Commerce, the conference agreement includes new
initiatives to bring jobs back to America, including a job repatriation
task force and a new grant program to enable U.S. companies to bring
off-shored activities back to economically distressed regions of this
Nation. It is time for these American companies who have gone to China
and Mexico to return home, particularly, I may say, GE, who just moved
their health care facilities from Wisconsin to Beijing. They should
come back to Wisconsin.
The bill also includes important increases for fundamental scientific
research. $7 billion is included for the NSF, an increase of $173
million. NIST research activities receive an increase of over 10
percent--math, science, physics, chemistry and biology, doing the
things that make a difference to create jobs.
Research is a primary driver of innovation, growth and job creation,
and these investments must be preserved, even in times of budgetary
austerity.
The conference agreement includes $17.8 billion for NASA, including
funding above the request for America's next generation space
exploration system and for cutting-edge technology.
In closing, as other countries are challenging U.S. leadership in
space, this conference report includes funding for a comprehensive
independent assessment of NASA's strategic direction and agency
management to chart a future course that is bold and achievable.
I urge support for the bill.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice and Science, Mr. Fattah.
Mr. FATTAH. I thank the ranking member, I thank the chairman of the
full committee, and, most importantly, I thank my colleague, Chairman
Frank Wolf. We've had an opportunity to work through the issues on this
bill, and he has afforded every courtesy to the minority as we have
worked through this. It's been truly a bipartisan effort; and even
though there are things that we would make different final calculations
on, I think that there's nothing else to be said other than that truly
this is a product that reflects both input from the majority and the
minority, and I thank Chairman Wolf and Chairman Rogers for the
courtesies extended.
This is a bill that I believe funds the most important agencies of
our government in terms of securing our citizens, in terms of
innovation and advancement in technology and science, in terms of
dealing with the challenges of severe weather, and dealing with our
oceans and the navigation of crafts throughout our waterways.
This is a bill that is critically important, and I'm happy to join
with others to urge that the House would favorably consider it.
There are a number of things I would want to point out. One is that
the conferees, all of us working together, were able to agree with an
initiative focused on brain research, on neuroscience; and we've been
able to put together a collaborative effort that I think portends a
great deal of progress in terms of addressing brain diseases like
Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, dementia, and also dealing with the
question of wounded warriors. I had a chance to visit the brain
research and repair center over at Bethesda. There's much more work to
be done.
And also for those interested in education, the whole cognitive
development, this is the first-of-its-kind initiative bringing together
all of the important agencies of the Federal Government. I thank
Chairman Wolf and our colleagues and counterparts in the Senate for
their cooperation around this.
Also, we were able to increase our efforts in terms of manufacturing
and advanced manufacturing, creating a new grant program to help
companies bring technology onto the plant floor. Manufacturing has to
be the basis for long-term prosperity and national security for our
country.
The investments in science, the National Science Foundation, there is
no more important agency anywhere in the world; and we were able to
work to fund it at a level that's appropriate, $7 billion. The
investment in NASA, even though $638 million off of last year's number,
when you take out the shuttle costs, it really is a significant
statement around a new set of priorities for NASA, and investing in
particularly space technology at $575 million and the investment in the
Commercial Crew Program, knowing with a certainty that American private
enterprise can help us deal with the ongoing need in terms of lower
orbit travel.
We have a lot to be thankful for in the bill. Most important to me,
even though it's a very small number, are the efforts around youth
mentoring. Our support for the 4,000 Boys and Girls Clubs and the Big
Brothers and Big Sisters and other youth mentoring agencies that are
funded in the Justice Department is a way to divert young people from
ever getting engaged in our criminal justice system, and the funding
for the Second Chance Program, which was renewed in this year's
appropriations.

{time} 1510

There's a lot more that I could say, but I think, needless to say,
what is important now is that we move this process forward. And there
are disappointments--legal services, there will be another day. As my
ranking member said, we're disappointed in the final outcome, but we
remain committed to trying to find ways as we go forward to make sure
people have access to our court system on civil matters.
I want to thank the ranking member, Chairman Rogers, and my colleague
Frank Wolf for his great work on this bill, and all of the staff, both
on the majority and minority side.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa, chairman of the Transportation and HUD portion of
this bill, a very vital part of the bill--the chairman has handled it
very, very well--Chairman Tom Latham.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman for yielding time. And I, first of
all, want to thank him for the great work, but also Ranking Member
Dicks on the full committee; and then a special thank-you to the
ranking member on the subcommittee, Mr. Olver, for all of his hard
work. We've worked together as a team on this bill. And I thank the
staff on the minority and certainly the majority staff for all their
hard work that they put into this.
This is a great day for two different reasons: one, we're going to
get this bill done today; and, number two, it's on the Speaker's
birthday, so this will be his present anyway. But I do rise in support
of the conference report that's before us today, and I urge my
colleagues to support it also. I know it doesn't make everyone happy,
but it represents a compromise, and that's what a conference report
really is all about.
Overall, the THUD division of the agreement contains $55.6 billion in
discretionary, a number that is $19.4 billion below the President's
request--and

[[Page H7772]]

again, $19.4 billion below the President's request.
The agreement provides $39.9 billion for the annual spending for
highways, the number that is contained in the latest extension of the
Surface Transportation Act. This level will provide adequate resources
for our State highway departments to address their needs.
The THUD division contains various commonsense agreements that are
universally important to the Nation. For example, there are increased
funds for FAA certification personnel, the individuals who inspect and
certify new aircraft to ensure safety and airworthiness.
The HUD portion of the THUD agreement contains $37.3 billion--about
$4.7 billion below the President's request. There is sufficient funding
to renew vouchers for those individuals and families who were in the
program last year. The agreement has sufficient funding to keep
veterans' housing on a sound footing, and it also has directive
language that requires HUD to review veterans' housing utilization
rates in Iowa and other rural States and the housing challenges facing
veterans in those areas.
Also, under the HUD title, there are funds set aside for
homeownership programs that help add housing capacity in rural States.
The subject of rural housing capacity has long been a concern in States
like Iowa and a concern to an awful lot of Members here in this
Congress.
Finally, under HUD Community Development, there is $400 million that
can be used for eligible disaster recovery activities in those areas
most impacted by the various disasters of this year. These are funds
that can be used for repair and rebuilding activities.
To me, at this point, one of the most important elements of this
agreement is the funding for highway and community development disaster
repairs. These monies are vitally important for my State and others
along the Missouri River, States that suffered enormous damage when the
Missouri River flood came this past year.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. LATHAM. The conference agreement contains almost $1.7 billion in
emergency disaster money to repair roads and bridges. These funds will
supplement existing Federal, State, and local monies and will be used
for repairs and reconstruction.
There are areas where State roads are still under water; thus the
emergency repair funding for highways in this agreement is vital to
ensuring that Iowa roads and the roads in other States are restored to
good working condition.
Important to the emergency highway repair category and contained in
the agreement is an important waiver that waives the time line of 180
days from the disaster declaration date so that States can receive 100
percent reimbursement.
All in all, this agreement represents the best we could do under the
present circumstances. In the end, we've had to come to make some
compromises, but we also have a number of important victories in this
agreement.
I would urge all Members to support this conference report.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Mr. Olver.
Mr. OLVER. I thank the ranking member for yielding time.
I rise in support of this conference report. As ranking member on the
Transportation and Housing Subcommittee, I first would like to thank
Chairman Tom Latham for working openly with me throughout the process,
and I congratulate him on bringing his first conference report to the
floor. Also, I would like to thank staff--for the majority, the
subcommittee clerk, Dena Baron, and her excellent staff; and for the
minority, Kate Hallahan, Joe Carlile, and Blair Anderson--all for their
diligence and hard work in making this a better bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill contains elements with which I disagree. In
particular, I wish CDBG funding was closer to last year's level, and I
am disappointed that the bill does not provide funding for the High-
Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Program. Both of these programs are
in high demand and would contribute significant value to our
communities if funded properly. However, this bill is a reasonable
compromise that has improved significantly the Transportation-HUD
portion that was marked up in subcommittee.
The agreement ensures that funding for our transportation
infrastructure programs is kept stable, allowing the Federal Aviation
Administration to continue modernization of our air traffic control
system, providing the Federal Highway Administration with funds needed
to maintain our highway network, and providing the Federal Transit
Administration with sufficient funding to continue investments to
expand our regional transit systems.
I am particularly pleased that the bill provides $1.4 billion for
Amtrak and removes destructive language that would have halted service
along 26 routes in 19 States. Annual ridership on those routes has
increased, and a congressionally authorized process is already under
way to reduce the operating costs of these services.
In addition, the bill provides $1.66 billion for the Highway
Administration's Emergency Relief Program in order to eliminate the of
repairs needed as a result of hurricanes, floods, and other natural
disasters, as well as $400 million for emergency CDBG funds. I believe
we have a responsibility to provide assistance to States that have
endured unanticipated natural disasters without conditioning that
assistance on cuts to other programs.
Lastly, I am pleased that this bill reinstates HUD's Housing
Counseling Program by providing $45 million. With foreclosure rates
remaining high, the counseling services provided by this program
continue to be vital for families who are struggling in the current
economy.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good product of a bipartisan process, and
I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia, the chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee, a
very important part of this bill, Mr. Kingston.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank Chairman Rogers for the time. I've enjoyed
working with him and Ranking Member Dicks, and also the ranking member
of our Subcommittee on Agriculture, FDA, and Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, the gentleman from California, Mr. Sam Farr. We've held 11
hearings, and we've had probably about 25 hours worth of debate on the
floor in which over 50 amendments were offered. This bill is a prime
example of what can happen when we get back to regular order.

{time} 1520

It was an open process, passed by the subcommittee, full committee,
and then finally by the House floor. The bill is $350 million below
FY11 in the discretionary portion, and $2.5 billion lower than the
President's request for FY12. It is compliant with the Budget Control
Act, and a step to show both regular order, compromise and moving us
towards a balanced budget.
I also wanted to point out something, Mr. Speaker, that the mandatory
portion of this bill is tremendous. Our discretionary total on
agriculture is $19.77 billion, but the mandatory is $116.9 billion.
School lunch and breakfast and the SNAP program are $98.5 billion
alone. If we do not get control of the mandatory spending, we will
never be able to balance the budget.
So I urge all Members of Congress to be cognizant of that and work in
the important authorizing committees to do some of the reform.
This bill was successful in eliminating a Federal program that goes
back to World War I, the mohair subsidy; and that actually was a
program designed to get more wool for the World War I soldiers'
uniforms. And Ronald Reagan famously said, if you don't believe in
resurrection, try killing a government program. And yet, today, the
mohair program does get eliminated.
We also reduced the BCAP program, which was something that our
committee has been very concerned about the out-of-control spending on
it. We've restrained the CFTC with some important bipartisan language
regarding user exemptions and cost-benefit

[[Page H7773]]

analysis. And we have urged the FDA to stay on its core missions, and
we hope that the authorizing committees will look at medical device and
drug approval time and transparency so that the FDA can work closer
with the providers and the manufacturers rather than in an antagonistic
point of view.
We've balanced school safety, inspection, ag research with the many
demands that are out there. We have worked with Secretary Vilsack, Dr.
Hamburg at FDA, and Mr. Gensler at the CFTC; and we've had an open
process throughout the year.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for this and pass this bill. But I
also wanted to say thank you to the great staff on both sides. Martin
Delgado, head clerk on the majority side; along with Tom O'Brien, Betsy
Bina, Andrew Cooper and Allie Thigpen and Mike Donal; and then on the
minority side, working for Mr. Farr, Martha Foley, Matt Smith, Troy
Phillips and Rochelle Dornatt.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, October 4, 2011.
Hon. Gary Gensler,
Chairman, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Ben S. Bernanke,
Chairman of the Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mary L. Schapiro,
Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Martin J. Gruenberg,
Acting Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen Gensler, Schapiro, Bernanke and Acting
Chairman Gruenberg: As authors of the Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 111-203) (Wall Street Reform
Act), we commend your work implementing Title VII of this
important new law. We have an enormous opportunity to set a
new global standard for the operation of an efficient,
transparent and well-regulated derivatives market. It is in a
spirit of support for your efforts that we write with
suggestions for how to avoid some unintended consequences
that could undermine this objective.
As you know, the existing $600 trillion derivatives market
operates as an integrated global market, despite the
jurisdictional determinations made in Title VII between the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It is our hope that
the two agencies will work closely and collaboratively
together and that the new swap regulations can be sequenced
and implemented in a logical, coordinated manner that
encourages compliance and market competition.
Given the global nature of this market, U.S. regulators
should avoid creating opportunities for international
regulatory arbitrage that could increase systemic risk and
reduce the competitiveness of U.S. firms abroad. Congress
generally limited the territorial scope of Title VII to
activities within the United States. This general rule should
not be swallowed by the law's exceptions, which call for
extraterritorial application only when particular
international activities of U.S. firms have a direct and
significant connection with or effect on U.S. commerce, or
are designed to evade U.S. rules. We are concerned that the
proposed imposition of margin requirements, in addition to
provisions related to clearing, trading, registration, and
the treatment of foreign subsidiaries of U.S. institutions,
all raise questions consistent with Congressional intent
regarding Title VII.
Moreover, U.S. regulators should work with other
international regulators to seek broad harmonization of
appropriately tough and effective standards. This can be
accomplished by an appropriate staging of the adoption or
implementation of our rules abroad. Should current
harmonization efforts ultimately fail or prove a race to the
bottom that would undermine effective regulation, the U.S.
would of course reserve the right to proceed to extend the
application of its standards to overseas operations.
In addition, as you proceed through the rule-making
process, we urge you to respect Congress' intent to protect
the ability of end users and pension plans to use swaps in a
cost-effective manner. In particular, Congress recognized the
need to allow pension funds, states, municipalities and other
``special entities'' to continue to use swaps by expressly
rejecting the imposition of a fiduciary duty for swap dealers
that is legally incompatible with their legitimate role as
market-makers. The withdrawal of the Department of Labor's
rules on a fiduciary duty under ERISA gives the agencies an
opportunity to work together to prevent such adverse results.
We urge you to work to revise the proposed rules in a way
that avoids unintended consequences.
As one of the first countries to propose new financial
rules following the 2008 crisis, the world is closely
watching what we do. As you revise and finalize the proposed
rules, we look forward to working together to support your
important work in a way that keeps our financial markets the
envy of the world.
Sincerely,
Senator Tim Johnson,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
Congressman Barney Frank,
Ranking Member, U.S. House Committee on Financial Services.
____

Dover/Sherborn Public Schools,

Dover, MA, April 13, 2011.
To Whom It May Concern: As a School Food & Nutrition I
support the thrust of the proposed rule. We do need to reduce
sodium and fat levels and provide more fruits and vegetables
to our students and provide minimum and maximum calorie
levels in meals.
At the same time I have concerns regarding their ability to
meet the requirements of the proposed rule, especially as the
impacts of the regulations are theoretical at this point,
having never been piloted or studied in ``real world'' School
Food Authorities (SFAs). I am concerned that the timeframes
within the rule are ambitious given the significant changes
which will have to be made to school menus that will, at the
same time, meet the rule's requirements, while also retaining
student participation.
We all share the goal of having all students participate in
school lunch programs, and that nothing is done to overtly
identify those students who are receiving free or reduced
price meals. I have concerns that, while well intended, the
revised meal standards themselves run the risk of
unintentionally identifying free and reduced price recipients
if paid students are inclined to opt for a la carte choices
if the revised paid meal is not acceptable. I am also
concerned that there may be unintended consequences of these
revisions, including children going off campus for less
nutritious foods, or bringing brown bag lunches from home
that research has shown are less nutritious than school
meals.
My Districts been working to increase the use of lower
sodium and lower fat foods, as well as working to increase
whole grain products in school lunches. Our experience has
taught us that making these changes takes time. Revising meal
standards often means that new food products have to be
developed, and this development takes time. When new food
products are introduced at a gradual rate, the likelihood of
student and parent acceptance is enhanced. This also provides
time for operational adjustments and staff retraining. If new
food products and food preparations are introduced at a too
rapid rate, our ability to work with and educate students
regarding the changes, and to make them part of the process
is more difficult. Rapid change can cause participation rates
to drop, complaints from students and parents regarding the
changing nature of meals to increase, costs to rise more
rapidly than can be prudently managed, and the integrity and
acceptability of the school food program may be called into
question. Recent record high food price increases exceed the
cost projections in the proposed rule and is of great concern
in a schools attempt to implement these proposed meal pattern
revisions. These price increases are also likely to reduce
the volume of USDA Foods received by schools, further
complicating the management of school meal programs.
It is worth noting that a substantial lead time was
provided when the Department updated the WIC Food Package.
The WIC Food Package is far more limited than the school meal
package, and all of the items contained in the WIC package
were commercially available twenty months prior to the
mandatory implication of the changed package. The Department
received 46,502 comment letters regarding the WIC Food
Package modification, and gave twenty months to implement the
rule. We understand that substantially more comments are
anticipated to be received regarding the proposed school meal
pattern rule. Yet the Department currently plans less time
before implementing the rule, with less time for school food
program operators to prepare for what will be significant
changes. The revision of school meal patterns is certainly a
worthwhile and necessary undertaking, but it is far more
complex, impacting more operators and recipients. Menus,
recipes and products will have to be reformulated. New
products will have to be developed and tested for student
acceptability. Procurement specifications and related
documents will have to be changed. Staff will need to be
retrained. Logistical changes will have to be made within
front of the house and back of the house operations. This
level of change was not the case with the revisions in the
WIC package.
For these reasons, I believe it would be prudent to
consider delaying the mandatory implementation of the rule
until school year 2013-14. The Department could encourage
that the revised meal patterns be implemented voluntarily
prior to that date, and incentivize the early implementation
with the additional reimbursement provided by the Act, just
as the Department urged earlier voluntary compliance with the
revised WIC food package. SNA also recommends that offer vs.
serve be mandated, not discretionary, as part of the final
rule when implemented. Mandating the taking of food items
will result in plate waste, unnecessary costs creating a
perception of wasteful spending in the program, and
compromise program integrity.
I think it would prove valuable to our programs that, as
was the case with the WIC Meal Package Revision, the rule
should be issued as an interim final rule with a comment
period following its implementation.

[[Page H7774]]

An interim final rule would allow the monitoring of the
practical consequences and benefits of the revised meal
pattern and afford an opportunity to make appropriate
modifications should any be warranted.
I do not support states imposing more restrictive meal
components and nutritional requirements, and strongly urge
the Department to assist us in ensuring consistent national
meal standards. State standards that exceed federal standards
are often not based on science, increase school meal costs
without compensation, complicate administration of this
national program, and make it more difficult for industry to
provide acceptable products at reasonable prices.
We will expand upon these points throughout the specific
comments that follow.

Fruits and Vegetables

I consistently supported the increased consumption of a
variety of fruits and vegetables by children in the school
lunch and school breakfast programs. I also support those
requirements outlined in the proposed regulation recognizing
the availability and utilization of fruits and vegetables in
all forms (i.e. fresh, frozen without sugar, dried or canned
in fruit juice, water or light syrups). I am skeptical that
children will have sufficient time to consume the higher
volumes of fruit and vegetables required by the proposed
rule. SFAs are concerned that the consequence will be higher
food costs for food items that may not be consumed. Requiring
children to take a fruit or vegetable serving rather than
providing a true offer vs. serve option has the potential to
increase plate waste, and convey the wrong impression
regarding the acceptability and quality of school meals.

Fruits and Vegetables at Lunch

I support the requirement for vegetables to come from a
variety of sources such as dark green, orange and legumes and
support all fruits and vegetables as recognized components of
the reimbursable meal. However, I believe that consumption of
an array of fruits and vegetables should be encouraged, not
prescribed. Instead, the proposed rule should be amended to
encourage SFAs to vary vegetable selections for healthier
school meals, as is currently done in the HealthierUS School
Challenge. In addition I support the following requirements
as set forth in the proposed regulation:
Disallowing snack-type fruit or vegetables, such as fruit
leathers, fruit strips and fruit drops;
Dried fruit counting as two times the volume;
``Fresh'' leafy greens counted at \1/2\ volume (1 cup = \1/
2\ cup).
Specific Recommendations and Concerns:
Crediting of Fruit and Grain Components--SFAs support the
recognition of fruit and grain components in items such as
crisps and cobblers using volume as the measure.
Crediting Salad Bars and Self-Serve Foods-- The final rule
needs to provide direction for the Crediting of food served
at Salad Bars and Self-Serve areas. While FNS has issued
policy memos regarding Salad Bars in the National School
Lunch Program (including SP 02-2010--Revised, January 21,
2011), the crediting of foods served at Salad Bars and Self-
Serve areas is not expressly addressed within the proposed
rule.
Crediting of Tomato Paste--SFAs support continuing current
tomato paste crediting as outlined in the Food Buying Guide
for Child Nutrition Programs at pages 2-3: ``Vegetable and
fruit concentrates are allowed to be credited on an ``as if
single-strength reconstituted basis'' rather than on the
actual volume as served:'' SNA does not support basing the
crediting of tomato paste based on volume served.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Farr.
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to thank my co-chair, the chair of the committee who we just
heard from, Mr. Kingston. We get along very well, and it's wonderful to
work with him.
But I'd also like to thank the chair of the committee, Mr. Rogers,
and the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, for letting us do our work in a
professional manner, a professional and intellectual manner, which I
think is the way we want to have political compromise. You allowed us
to do that work, and I think that this report is a good report, and
that's why I'm asking my colleagues to support it.
I didn't vote for the original bill; but this conference report is
much better, and that's why I urge its support. There are many good
things about this bill, especially in comparison to the version that
originally passed the House last summer.
I was very pleased that we were able to go to the Senate level for
the Food and Drug Administration, which is an increase of about $334
million over the House bill because to increase the funding of FDA's
important work on medical countermeasures, that is very important.
Medical countermeasures is critical to America's ability to face down
biological, radiological, and other similar widespread public health
threats. Without it, we'd be vulnerable to germ warfare. That's why I
advocate its robust funding.
I might add, this isn't just science fiction that we see in movies.
This is real, and this program is really vital to our future security.
In the USDA, the Department of Agriculture, particularly in the
domestic food programs, remember, this is the biggest program in
America that deals with the War on Poverty. And it's very good what
we've done in here. This prevents hunger, improves nutrition, and grows
healthier people in this country.
This conference report actually provides $36 million more than the
Senate level for the WIC, the Women, Infants and Children program. It
increases $570 million over the House bill for low-weight babies and
for those kinds of programs that will grow healthier babies, healthier
people in this country.
Then there's the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which we
used to call food stamps. Many people may not realize it, but the SNAP
program serves 15 percent of our fellow Americans during these
difficult times. Fifteen percent of Americans. Over 40 million
Americans are now depending on food stamps. That number is up by 7
million people over the last year. Why? Because the economy's downturn
has created a lot of hardship for families. That's why the funding
level of the SNAP program is so very, very important and why I'm happy
that the funding level is a lot more than it was in the original House
bill. This is also good news for the working class and distressed
families of the United States.
Then we have a program in the Commodities Supplemental Food Program,
which is also the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program. We've
also funded that at a higher level. This is good news because it helps
particularly the elderly who have suffered a debilitating life event
like a tornado or flood or disaster and they need access to food and
nutrition outside of the regular system. I'm so glad we're able to beef
up these domestic programs for food assistance.
Then we have the international programs that help our international
allies who need food assistance in the Food for Peace program. There's
the well-known McGovern-Dole program, which provides donations of
agricultural commodities and financial technical assistance for feeding
and nutrition projects in low-income countries, countries that suffer
from the culture of poverty, which could lead to all kinds of
distressed, and certainly even to where we have to send in troops to
bail out these countries. So this is a good prevention.
The conference report gave a lot more than what was in the original
House level. There's a lot of good in this conference report. But,
frankly, I have to say that there's one part that I'm really
disappointed with. Under the Dodd-Frank program, we tasked to construct
regulations to protect consumers. The President asked for enough money
to get the new review process up and running.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. FARR. Thank you very much for yielding.
And we didn't give it enough money to do that. And then in the last
thing, we dropped some crazy part into this program, which I think has
gotten a lot of negative attention this week and deserves it, and that
is that we, without any discussion or going to the rule, it pre-
determines that the new regulations on tomato paste and tomato puree
and sodium can be part of the school nutrition program. They didn't
consult with us. That's wrong, and that shouldn't be done.
But it's a good compromise bill. It's good. It means food for
Americans; it means certainty for our farmers. It means help for the
hungry around the world. I ask my colleagues to support it.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a very
distinguished member of our committee, Oklahoma's Mr. Cole.
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
There are certainly Members on this floor that are a lot more
knowledgeable about this particular piece of legislation than I am. I
don't serve on any

[[Page H7775]]

of the relevant subcommittees on appropriations. And so they're going
to talk about it in more depth and detail than I ever could.
But I tell you what--and certainly I would be the first to say that
we do not have a perfect process. I would have preferred individual
bills. I think most of us on the Appropriations Committee would. And we
didn't cut as much money as I would have liked to have cut.
Having said those things, I want to really congratulate our chairman
and our ranking member for beginning the process of restoring us to
regular order. And I want to commend them for bringing in a bill that
spent less money than we spent last year, that has important elements
in it that protect gun rights and gun ownership; and that, frankly, is
a very serious effort to deal in a very responsible way with a large
portion of our government and, at the same time, attack our larger
physical problems.
Now, we're going to hear a lot of Members over the course of the
debate that think that the bill spent too much money, and others that
think that it spent too little money, and others that tell us that it's
not perfect in every detail. I would just remind those individuals on
both sides of the aisle, we are the House of Representatives. We're not
the House of Commons.

{time} 1530

Some of our Members sometimes seem to think that all legislative and
all executive authority resides here. It doesn't. Our Framers set up a
very different system, and we deal with a United States Senate that's
controlled by a different political party. And we obviously have a
President, our President, but a President of a different political
persuasion than the majority of this House, and that necessitates
compromise. That necessitates some give-and-take.
I think the process that has been worked, if you will, by the
chairman and by the ranking member and by the various subcommittee
chairmen and their ranking member counterparts has been a good and
productive effort at compromise. And it's achieved real results, and it
deserves real, and will have, real and genuine bipartisan support.
So I urge the passage of this important piece of legislation. I thank
the chairman. I thank the committees for their hard work. And let's get
back to the business of governing the greatest country on the planet.
We made a good step here today.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Financial
Services Committee, Mr. Frank.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
I urge Members to vote for this bill, although my enthusiasm is
tempered. As I contemplate this bill, I think of the words of a former
great Member of this body, a former Speaker of the House from my home
State, the late John McCormack, who, not wanting to offend House rules,
referred to one of his colleagues as someone whom he held in ``minimum
high regard.'' That's essentially what I think about this bill.
I thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for the good work
he did on an important provision that means a lot to public housing in
Massachusetts involving federalization. I appreciate the increase in
the FHA being maintained so the people who live in the areas I
represent and in California and elsewhere are not discriminated
against. So, for that, I am grateful.
But there is a serious flaw in the bill in two areas, or there are
two serious flaws in one area each.
The HUD budget is good in that federalization but severely lacking. I
regret the fact that we will be spending more on community development
and building important institutions in Afghanistan than we are in
America.
And even more important is the issue that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr) mentioned. It is incredible to me that my
Republican colleagues brought out of their subcommittee a bill that
would give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission less money this
year in the coming year than it got this year. Now, the Senate was able
to bring it back up to level funding.
Understand, we are talking about derivative regulation. We're talking
about AIG. We are talking about a dangerously unregulated operation. We
are talking about the thing that has us concerned now about the extent
to which there may be a contagion from Europe to America because of
derivatives, credit default drops issued by American banks. I think we
have a handle on this, but we would do better if we had the bill fully
implemented. You can read today in The New York Times about the role of
the CFTC trying to straighten out the MF problem.
It is extraordinary that we give the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission a new responsibility. Because of prior foolish moves by this
Congress and a President, we had not regulated swaps, a very important
new form of derivative. They are a dangerous instrument, and they need
to be regulated. And this is a wholly new responsibility for the CFTC.
And the members of the Appropriations Committee on the Republican side
would have given it, if they had their way, less by a significant
amount for the next year than this year. We got it up to even.
But let's be very clear: People who do not want to give the CFTC any
additional money are basically telling the American people that they
think it was just fine what AIG did. It was just fine that we have
these unregulated derivatives, that people were able to accumulate
debts far beyond what they could pay.
The CFTC was also given, under our legislation, a specific mandate to
deal with speculation. I know there were some on the Republican side
who think speculation has nothing to do with oil prices and it has
nothing to do with food prices, and I think the evidence is clearly to
the contrary. People who can tell me that these ups and downs in the
oil market are purely because of supply and demand, I await for them to
describe to me when Santa Claus arrives.
The fact is that regulating derivatives is an essential part of
preventing the problems that we ran into a few years ago and we are now
trying to prevent. And level funding the CFTC--and level funding only
because our Senate colleagues insisted on overcoming a Republican
effort here to give it less money in the current coming year than in
the current year--is a terrible act of irresponsibility.
I hope that we will be able soon to remedy this. But I fear that what
you do with this, Mr. Speaker, in this legislation is to open us up to
the kind of irresponsible, unregulated financial behavior that led to
the greatest crisis we have had in so many years.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas, a member of the conference committee, Mr. Carter.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a proud member of this conference
committee and of this committee.
The Constitution of the United States gives us instructions that we
are to watch our treasury and protect it and make sure that the money
that we spend out of that treasury is appropriate for the operation of
this country. Chairman Rogers and the three ranking members who have
operated in this particular mini-bus have been very noble in that
effort.
A commitment was made under the Budget Control Act that we would stay
within $1.043 trillion, and this first start of finishing this
appropriations process will see to it that we meet that commitment.
Chairman Rogers has been very, very distinct and positive that he will
meet that commitment, and this is the first step to meeting that
commitment.
It is important that although this is a noble effort, we have funded
what is needed, and we have given an open process both in subcommittee,
committee, and on this floor. And by that, we have shown the American
people that we are making our promises known, that we are on the route
to turning this country around and setting it back on a fiscal track
that we can sustain.
I want to commend all who have been involved in this process, both
the ranking members and the chairmen, for they have done noble work to
come up with this product. And this product is deserving of being
supported by every member of this conference and of this entire
Congress, and I urge them to support this noble product that has been a
tough fight, but we have accomplished it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine

[[Page H7776]]

(Mr. Michaud), whom I've enjoyed working with on these important issues
before our committee.
Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today in support of a provision in the underlying bill that
will move the heaviest trucks traveling in Maine off secondary roads
and onto the interstate.
People in the State of Maine already know the benefits of this
commonsense provision. That's why it has the support of organizations
throughout the State of Maine, such as the Maine Department of
Transportation, the Maine Department of Public Safety, the Maine State
Police, because they know it's safer to have these trucks on the
interstate.
Additionally, letting heavier trucks use the interstate reduces fuel
consumption, cuts emissions, reduces travel time, and reduces the
competitive disadvantage between Maine and the surrounding States that
already have a higher truck weight limit on their interstate.
So I would like to thank my colleagues that supported my efforts to
ensure that this provision was included in the final bill, and I would
encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
bill. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
efforts as well.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, could I ask the remaining time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Grimm). The gentleman from Kentucky has
11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio, a member of the conference committee, Mr.
LaTourette.

{time} 1540

Mr. LaTOURETTE. I thank both chairmen for yielding and also for the
recognition.
Mr. Speaker, it's like a breath of fresh air has blown through this
Chamber. I will tell you what a relief it is.
Congratulations goes to Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks and
to the subcommittee chairs and the ranking members for getting us to a
point that was normal practice for the first 12 years that I was here,
which is to do things like have a subcommittee markup. It's where
people get to offer amendments--good amendments, bad amendments, in-
between amendments--but they were thoughts that they had. We'd debate
them; we'd discuss them; and we'd vote on them. The same thing happened
in the full committee; the same thing happened on the floor; and we
actually had a conference between the House and the Senate. Some people
had never been to a conference before because they hadn't been here
that long. I had Members come up to me who were new--we have 87, 88 new
Republican freshmen, and we even have some sophomores and juniors--who
didn't even know what the 5-minute rule was for the discussion of an
amendment on the floor.
So everybody in this Chamber understands that sometimes you win and
sometimes you lose, but at the end of the day, if you've had a chance
to express yourself and to articulate why your position is correct and
then it's either accepted or rejected by your colleagues, you can go
home and put your head on the pillow and feel pretty good about it.
This product is a result of that.
I'm particularly proud of the piece from the subcommittee that I'm
involved in with Mr. Latham as the chair and Mr. Olver as the ranking
member. What is remarkable to me is that this wasn't a ``my way or the
highway'' negotiation. There were numbers that were important to some
of us and not important to others but that were improved between the
House version and the conference report. I would cite, for instance,
the highway level.
Now, because no one is willing to make the adult decision about what
to do with the income stream at the highway trust fund, it was proposed
to be a paltry $27 billion. However, through negotiation between the
House and the Senate, it's now restored to the authorized level in the
extension at $39 billion.
The Community Development Block Grant program as well is recognized
in this conference report as being a valuable source of seed money for
local communities to add other money and to do good works. Something
that is popular and unpopular in certain segments on both sides of the
aisle is Amtrak, which is now receiving the money necessary to do its
mission.
They've done a good job, and I urge its passage.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of
the conference committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).
Mr. BONNER. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Back home, the American people listen to Members of Congress talk
about things that are historic, about things that are important. Today,
we're talking about something that's very important. Tomorrow, we'll
actually be talking about voting on something that truly is historic.
But for the moment, let's focus on, as my friend from Ohio just
mentioned, something that this Congress has not seen since 2009, which
is a conference report.
That's the American legislative system working. It's where Democrats
and Republicans, Senators and Members of the House of Representatives,
have come together--to produce a perfect document? Of course not.
Conservatives would like to cut more. Liberals would like to spend
more.
The fact is that, in this conference report, we cut and terminate 20
programs, saving $456 million. It responsibly addresses disaster
spending, and many States and even more counties and cities had been
affected by disasters earlier this year. It also contains a CR that
will run until December 16 at fiscal year 2011 levels to allow our
committee to complete its work.
It also represents an effort, I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that both
House and Senate appropriators, Democrats and Republicans alike, are
doing something that is responsible in order to avoid the plague of a
government shutdown by reaching agreement that will put our Nation on a
more fiscally sustainable path.
Tomorrow, it will be more historic in nature. Yesterday, the debt
clock ticked over $15 trillion. We cannot ignore that threat. Tomorrow,
we will bring to the House floor an opportunity for something that
Presidents Jefferson and Reagan both envisioned: a balanced budget
amendment.
Today's CR, today's minibus appropriations bill, is an important step
for the future of this fiscal year and this country that we love and
serve. Tomorrow will be an opportunity, for the legacy of future
generations not yet born, to do something even more bold.
I thank the chairman for giving me a chance to serve on the
committee, and I urge my colleagues to support the report.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida, a member of our committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the chairman for this opportunity, and I
really congratulate him. This is the first time in many years, since
2009, that we've actually come to the floor with a conference report.
Think about that.
Before, things just kind of came out of the blue, and we were forced
to deal with them without having an opportunity to see them and without
going through regular order. But this would have not happened without
the leadership of our chairman, Chairman Rogers.
I cannot thank you enough, sir, for, once again, making the people's
House do its work and do it in a responsible way.
I also want to commend the ranking member for working hand-in-hand
with the chairman.
Look, there is no denying that we are on an unsustainable path of
borrowing too much and spending too much. In past appropriations bills,
they were judged to be successful by how much more taxpayer money we
were spending. I guess Congress felt good because we were spending more
money. Well, that has changed dramatically. This bill actually cuts
funding. It actually spends less than the previous year's level.
So, again, it is a huge step in the right direction, but it also
funds the essential services that the American people depend on.
I want to recognize the work of Chairmen Kingston and Wolf, who

[[Page H7777]]

have balanced the funding for necessary food safety and for, as an
example, law enforcement. They also made some very difficult choices--
but necessary choices--to reduce spending.
I had the privilege of serving on the Transportation and Housing
Subcommittee, and I want to commend Chairman Latham for the work that
he has devoted to this bill.
On the transportation side, this bill prioritizes rail and transit
projects that improve and expand existing systems. It funds NextGen to
help reduce traffic delays, and it funds the Federal highway program.
It provides sufficient funding to renew every individual and family
voucher, for example, and it includes new oversight reforms at HUD to
root out waste, fraud, and abuse, which is such a huge issue.
This conference report prioritizes government spending for vital
programs, but it also reduces waste and, again, puts us on a path where
we will not bankrupt the United States of America.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this fine piece of
legislation. Is it perfect? No. But it's the best piece of legislation
and the only one in many, many years that has actually come to the
floor through regular process after an amendatory process.
I commend the chairman, and I support the legislation wholeheartedly.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Mississippi, a member of our committee and a very valued
member, Mr. Nunnelee.
Mr. NUNNELEE. I thank the chairman for yielding.
As a member of this historic freshman class, we came here committed
to cutting government spending because we know that cutting government
spending is tied directly to increasing job opportunities in this
Nation.
This bill does something that has not happened since World War II.
For the second year in a row, we are now on the path to cutting
government spending, not by the definition traditionally used by
Washington, which is cutting the rate of growth, but by the definition
of the people of America: actually cutting spending.
We also came here to change the way Washington does business.
President Reagan observed that government programs, once launched,
never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to
eternal life we'll ever see on Earth.
This conference report terminates a total of 20 programs from the
Federal budget. Now, I wish it would have cut more spending, but when I
look at the opportunity to cut 20 programs from our Federal budget--
something that rarely happens in this town--I gladly support this
conference report.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your work.
Thank you to the ranking member and the minority for working with us
to eliminate those 20 programs.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS of New Hampshire. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report, which
includes the CJS approps bill for fiscal year 2012, and I want to pay a
special thanks to Chairman Wolf for his help in working out a very
difficult problem.
In 2010, a Federal prison was built in Berlin, New Hampshire, which
is in my district. However, due to the lack of funding, the facility
has been sitting idle now for a year and a half at a significant cost
to taxpayers. So I applaud the inclusion of report language that urges
the Bureau of Prisons to begin the activation phase of this prison in
Berlin, New Hampshire, and others where construction has been completed
but where the facilities currently sit idle.

{time} 1550

Additionally, I would like to thank Mayor Grenier in Berlin for his
dogged determination and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee
for their special attention to this very serious problem.
Once opened, this prison will house over 1,000 minimum-security and
medium-security adult male offenders. It will produce over 300 jobs for
the region and bring $40 million to the local economy. It is a very
worthwhile program. I thank you for being attentive to this issue with
me. I urge final passage of the bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. May I inquire of the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2\1/2\
minutes, and the gentleman from Washington has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I am the last remaining speaker
on my side, so I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. I yield myself as much time as I may use.
I just want to say that I think that this is a bill that we've worked
hard on, we've worked with the other body; and I hope that the Members
will support this bill. And I want to remind everybody, this has got
the CR in it. We've got to keep the government open. It's clean, as
clean as any one that I have seen. So I hope that we can pass this bill
with a very strong bipartisan vote. I'm urging my colleagues on the
Democratic side to support this bill.
I want to, again, congratulate the chairman and all of our staff for
the work that they've done on this bill. It's a good bill. It's not
perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternative. And we need to
keep moving on these appropriations bills. I hope we can pass the other
nine in December, and we have to do that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I want to say a special thanks to my friend from Washington, Norm
Dicks, for being a hardworking, cooperative ranking member. We worked
together on this bill, and we will continue to do that. And I also want
to thank the staff. You know, they don't get enough thanks. These are
the people that do practically all the work, day and night, weekends
included, holidays included. So thank you to all of the staff, majority
and minority, for producing this work.
Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by emphasizing that this conference report
is only the first step toward finishing fiscal '12, and I urge my
colleagues to support this conference report.
Let me also remind our colleagues that there are no earmarks in this
bill. A lot of people said, you cannot pass a bill without earmarks.
Well, this bill has no earmarks, not one, not a single one. It also
reduces dramatically Federal spending. And when we finish--and I want
my colleagues to hear this plainly and clearly--when we finish all 12
bills, we will be at $1.043 trillion, not a penny more. We will be at
$1.043 trillion, as provided by the cap under the Budget Control Act. I
guarantee that number. I guarantee that number, hear me. So I urge an
``aye'' vote on this first step towards fiscal sanity.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support a number of provisions
in H.R. 2112, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food & Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
such as the vital funding for low-income food assistance programs. I
must voice my outrage at language included in this legislation which
blatantly ignores and imperils the health of this country's school
children.
Just days ago, language was inserted into H.R. 2112 which prevents
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing
important new school lunch standards that are scheduled to go into
effect next year. The language also allows pizza, if it has at least
two tablespoons of tomato paste, to be defined as a vegetable.
Childhood obesity is a disease effecting 17% children throughout the
country. According the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
childhood obesity has more than tripled in the past 30 years and in
2008, more than one third of children and adolescents were overweight
or obese. Nationally subsidized meals at schools have a responsibility
to feed our children healthy and nutritious food. The USDA has
developed new school nutrition standards and is ready to implement
them. Instead, we are allowing these industries to make and keep our
children sick, to put them at risk for serious cardiovascular diseases,
type 2 diabetes, stroke, osteoarthritis and several types of cancer.
The needs of special interest groups are being put ahead of the
health needs of children across the country. By including these
provisions, we are allowing the salt, potato growers and frozen food
industries to continue feeding the childhood obesity epidemic.
According to the Institute of Medicine, a typical high school lunch
contains around 1,600 milligrams of sodium; this is more than half of
the daily recommended amount.

[[Page H7778]]

One of the largest barriers school nutrition programs face is cost.
This is why I have authored a bill that would eliminate the tax
deductibility of advertising and marketing of fast food and junk food
that targets children. Despite the fact that research shows that
marketing and advertising is a primary factor in increasing obesity
rates in children, the tax code allows companies to deduct their
advertising and marketing costs from tax returns. The government
essentially subsidizes childhood obesity. My legislation has the
potential to raise billions of dollars to pay for student nutrition
programs.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, though the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, NOAA, may not be a household name, Americans rely on
this agency every day to provide critical weather information and to
support ecologically sustainable and economically vibrant coastal
communities. 2011 has been a record year for extreme weather disasters,
including floods in the Midwest, extensive drought in Texas, a
hurricane in Vermont and a debilitating October snowstorm in New
England. The latest insurance analysis finds that the United States has
experienced 15 billion-dollar weather disasters thus far in 2011.
Despite these substantial costs, the ability to accurately predict and
therefore prepare for such events not only prevented additional
economic losses, but also saved lives. The funding levels in this bill
will support the Joint Polar Satellite System, which provides NOAA with
the technology to continue to make timely and accurate weather
predictions.
Unfortunately, this bill prevents NOAA from undertaking a budget
neutral reorganization to create a Climate Service, which was first
proposed by President Bush's administration. Increasingly businesses,
communities, and individuals are asking NOAA for climate information so
they can make informed long-term decisions that impact the economy,
public health, and safety. By continuing to oppose all things
'climate', Republicans have denied NOAA the ability to provide these
critical products and services.
This bill also unfortunately reduces funding levels for NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service to 2005 levels. NOAA is responsible
for the conservation and management of fisheries in the United States
and adequate funding is needed to protect our iconic American fishing
industry. Our fishing industry is a critical component of our national
economy. In 2010, the United States landed 8.2 billion pounds of fish
valued at $4.5 billion dollars. We know improved data collection and
stock assessments allow NOAA to make better and more timely fishery
management decisions. We must continue to push for adequate fisheries
science funding, which is critical to supporting our fishermen and
coastal communities.
I remain concerned that NOAA's role in climate and fisheries science
will be hindered by these funding levels, but will support this bill.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the national debt
surpassed the $15 trillion mark. We cannot borrow and spend our way to
prosperity. We must get control of spending. While the Appropriations
Committee deserves credit for getting an agreement on the three
appropriations bills in this measure, I'm concerned where we are headed
on spending based on the use of ``disaster'' funding and the potential
use of temporary mandatory savings to permanently increase the base of
discretionary spending. The bill also includes damaging housing
policies that contributed, along with many government policies, to
recent financial crises and increases the financial exposure of the
federal government.
Instead of advancing solutions in the face of this crisis, the
President has not put forward a credible budget and the Senate under
Democratic leadership has failed to pass a budget in over 930 days.
Despite their failure to produce a budget, they are working hard to
increase deficit spending.
The House of Representatives actually passed a budget, ``The Path to
Prosperity,'' which would put us on a path to balancing the budget and
saving and strengthening critical programs such as Medicare--without
resorting to trillion dollar tax hikes that will damage our economy and
hinder job growth. We passed the Budget Control Act, BCA, to cut nearly
one trillion of dollars in spending and impose statutory caps on future
appropriations. Under Chairman Roger's leadership, we also cut fiscal
year 2011 spending to begin to bring spending under control. Today, we
consider H.R. 2112, the conference report on three appropriations
bills: Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, and Science; and Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development.
Republicans control the House, but with the Senate and the White
House controlled by leaders who want to increase spending, and not
reduce it, our ability to address this problem is limited. I know our
Appropriations Committee has worked hard to try to hold the line on
spending. Despite the challenges our Appropriations Committee faced, I
have serious concerns regarding the precedent it sets for future
spending. H.R. 2112 provides a total of $130.4 billion in new spending,
including $2.3 billion of ``disaster relief'' funding. Excluding the
disaster funding the bills are $757 million below the levels funded in
2011. Including the disaster relief funding the bills are $1.6 billion
above the 2011 levels. In addition, this bill uses changes in
mandatory spending, CHIMPS, which are temporary savings, to offset what
I fear will be a permanent increase in the base of non-defense
spending.

In the House-passed budget, we set a total limit on appropriations of
$1.019 trillion for FY 2012. In the Budget Control Act, we increased
that limit to $1.043 trillion and got statutory limits on spending for
10 years producing nearly $1 trillion in spending reductions over 10
years. This bill puts us potentially on a very troubling path. The BCA
established a new exception to allow funds Congress designates as being
for disaster relief to be added on top of the discretionary caps. There
is no mandate to increase spending above $1.043 trillion. It is
entirely in our control. And, there are conceivably circumstances in
which a disaster could be of such severity or immediacy that Congress
could choose to provide relief funding above and beyond the
discretionary caps. But given the seriousness of the Nation's fiscal
problems, such funding should be limited to only the most exigent
circumstances. Instead, the Administration and Senate Democrats have
insisted on using this disaster relief loophole in a way that, if not
closely monitored, will undo the hard-won savings contained in the BCA.
The Budget Control Act language allows for the discretionary cap to
be raised by as much as the historical average of past disaster
spending, which for fiscal year 2012 would amount to a maximum
adjustment of $11.3 billion. But rather than reserving this breathing
space for truly dire emergencies, the Senate took this as an
opportunity to stretch this exception to cover a number of programs
that are not considered our primary disaster relief programs. The
primary means for providing immediate disaster relief is through FEMA's
Disaster Relief Fund, DRF, which will be included in a future
appropriations bill and for which the Administration requests another
$7 billion. But Senate Democrats have expanded disaster relief to
programs such as funding for the Economic Development Administration,
Community Development Block Grants, and agricultural grants. This is
funding in this one bill alone. My concern is that the Senate and
Administration will push the disaster relief exception to add even more
funding in future bills, as a means of spending above the caps we
agreed to as part of the debt limit.
The bill also includes $9.1 billion in Changes in Mandatory Program
Spending, CHIMPS, that score as savings in the budget year, but that
may not actually reduce costs for taxpayers. One provision in this bill
related to the Crime Victims Fund creates nominal savings of $6.6
billion this year, essentially offsetting $6.6 billion of other
spending in the bill. But all of these savings are reversed in 2013. To
the Appropriations Committee's credit, this bill makes some progress in
reducing the use of these savings gimmicks--reducing the use of these
CHIMPS by about $1 billion compared to last year's bills. But, further
vigilance is warranted in the use of such budgetary maneuvers.
Lastly, this bill includes a housing rider increasing conforming loan
limits for the Federal Housing Administration. Increasing the federal
role in housing markets, in this case by increasing housing subsidies,
is bad policy. It increases risk and exposure to the taxpayer, who will
have to pay for non-performing loans. Bailouts of Fannie and Freddie
have cost taxpayers to date about $170 billion due to risky loans in
their portfolios.
We have to offer real leadership in budgeting if we are to
successfully resolve our fiscal challenges. This bill reflects the
compromises inherent in divided government and we should recognize it
both for the progress it makes and for how much further we have to go.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
support of the conference report containing fiscal year 2012
appropriations for Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Science,
Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development. My support is somewhat
tempered, as I find several items to cheer in this agreement and
several that are of great concern to me. But recognizing the
constraints within which the appropriators were working, I thank and
applaud them for their hard work to achieve agreement and bring this
bill before us today. In particular, I want to thank Chairman Wolf and
Ranking Member Fattah for their long-time support for research and
development and STEM education.
As Ranking Member of the Committee on Space, Science, and Technology,
today I limit my remarks to those agencies in this conference report
that are within my committee's jurisdiction: NIST, EDA, NOAA, OSTP,
NASA, NSF, and certain of FAA's activities.
Let me begin with what I think is one of the bright spots in this
conference agreement, and

[[Page H7779]]

that is the budget for the National Science Foundation. NSF is the only
federal agency that supports basic research across the entire range of
science and engineering disciplines, continuingly refreshing both our
intellectual capital and the new ideas and technologies that combined
serve as the backbone for the creation of new industries and jobs in
our nation. The Foundation also plays a critical leadership role in the
nation in improving the quality of STEM education at all levels and for
all students. Therefore I am quite pleased with the 2.5 percent
increase proposed for the Foundation. This is exactly what setting
priorities during tough budget times should look like.
Likewise, I am pleased that the Scientific and Technical Research
Budget at the National Institute of Standards and Technology is
increased by 11 percent. I am also pleased that the agreement maintains
funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program, but
I am very disappointed that the agreement eliminates all funding for
the Technology Innovation Program and the Baldrige National Quality
Award, and fails to provide any funding for the promising AMTech
program.
While I am pleased that the agreement proposes $17.8 billion for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, a strong sign of
support within these challenging fiscal times, we must be mindful that
the overall program that NASA is being asked to accomplish with these
funds has not changed significantly despite yearly reductions in the
agency's appropriations. That said, I am pleased that the bill provides
funding to maintain the James Webb Space Telescope program on a
schedule for launch in 2018 and that the bill provides funding and
direction for NASA to pursue a flagship planetary science mission, if
it can be scoped so that NASA's costs can be accommodated within
appropriated funding levels. While funding for the Space Launch System,
SLS, and Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle, MPCV, proposed in this bill is
more than requested by the Administration, it is significantly below
authorized levels. This downward trend cannot continue. It is vital
that the SLS and MPCV stay on track so that we reinstate a U.S.
government capability to launch American crews into orbit, provide a
back-up crew and cargo transfer capability for the International Space
Station, and return the United States to the forefront of the human
exploration of outer space beyond low-Earth orbit.
I am pleased that the conference report provides the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, with a $306 million increase
above this fiscal year's level. However this increase is insufficient
for the many missions that this important agency is being asked to
undertake at this time. America has already experienced in this year
alone ten extreme weather events with economic costs to date
approaching $50 billion. The National Weather Service provides weather
and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States and maintains
the national infrastructure of observing systems that gather and
process data worldwide from the land, sea, and air. The Joint Polar
Satellite System weather satellite program, a vital component of this
mission, must have consistent and sufficient levels of funding in order
to provide these much needed products and services. Further, I am
disappointed but not surprised that this bill does not support the
Administration's efforts to better align the agency to provide reliable
weather and climate products and services now and into the future. If
left uncorrected, current political efforts to undermine these services
will have significant negative economic consequences down the road.
With respect to the Economic Development Administration, EDA, I am
pleased that the agreement provides $5 million in funds for loan
guarantees for small- and medium-sized manufacturers, as authorized
last year in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. And while I am
disappointed that the bill does not include a separate line item of
funding for the Regional Innovation Strategies program, as also
authorized in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, I am pleased
that the agreement recognizes the importance of EDA's work in regional
innovation and encourages it to continue.

However, I am concerned about the budget for the Office of Science
and Technology Policy. I fear that the 32 percent cut to OSTP will do
significant collateral damage to the formal infrastructure that helps
ensure that billions of dollars in federal R&D initiatives are
coordinated across the agencies efficiently and effectively. I wish the
appropriators would have found another path forward to deal with the
disagreements that motivated this cut, and I certainly hope that in the
next fiscal year we can see this matter resolved and OSTP made whole
again.
Finally, with respect to the FAA, I am encouraged by the conferees'
recognition that arbitrary funding reductions imposed earlier by the
House Majority were unwise as such cuts negatively affect aviation
safety and halt job creation. Furthermore, I appreciate the conferees'
support of NextGen air traffic modernization activities because of the
importance of NextGen in preventing future gridlock in our skies, while
allowing FAA to manage air traffic in a safe and environmentally
responsible manner. I agree with the funding level provided to FAA's
commercial space regulatory activities, since hearings conducted by the
Science, Space, and Technology Committee and its Space and Aeronautics
Subcommittee during this session confirmed that commercializing space
transportation has not progressed as quickly as expected and thus the
need for the additional funding sought in the original FAA budget
request was not supportable.
In closing, I once again would like to thank Chairman Wolf, Ranking
Member Fattah, and their colleagues in the House and Senate for all of
their work on this agreement, and for their implicit recognition of the
critical role that federal investments in R&D and STEM education play
in ensuring our nation's long-term health and prosperity.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the
conference report on H.R. 2112, containing FY 2012 appropriations. This
bill will fund the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice,
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, as well as NASA
Additionally, the bill funds the government through December 16, 2011.
I am pleased to see the conferees were able to restore essential
funding for jobs, innovation, food safety, and vital investments in
infrastructure. Moreover, the bill has come back from conference free
of controversial policy riders that put special interest above the
interests of the American people.
The conference report contains key investments in infrastructure that
will put Americans back to work. Funding for high ay and transit
programs has been set at $39.8 billion for the federaI aid highway
program, and $10.5 billion for transit programs, allowing for 400,000
more jobs than the House version of the bill.
I am extremely pleased that the conference agreement includes funding
for METRO rail in the Houston, Texas North Corridor ($94,616,000) and
Southeast Corridor ($94,616,000) for a total of $189,232. This funding
is critical for the regional mobility of the citizens in and around the
18th Congressional District. At a time when cities around the country
are struggling with a backlog of transportation projects amidst high
unemployment, this funding is critical to improving transportation
infrastructure while creating jobs.
Houston, in particular, needs this infrastructure to relieve
congestion and provide adequate public transportation. Furthermore,
this investment in the city's New Start Transit Project will create
jobs for Houstonians who want to work to support their families and
improve their communities.
As the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on
Transportation Security, I understand the vital importance of ensuring
the nation has a developed transit system. Houston has been working for
over 20 years to bring these New Start Projects to fruition. I have
worked tirelessly to secure the necessary funding to complete the METRO
RAIL New Start Projects, and I am very pleased this project was
included in the conference report.
This legislation also contains $2.3 billion dollars in funding for
disaster relief. Adequate funding for disaster relief is imperative to
our nation's emergency preparedness. As a Representative from Texas, I
have seen firsthand the necessity for disaster relief funding. During
Hurricane Katrina, there were insufficient quantities of generators
forced hospitals to evacuate patients. Local governments waited days
for commodities like ice, water, MREs, and blue tarps. Evacuees from
Texas arrived in Shreveport and Bastrop shelters that were grossly
unfit for occupancy, and 2,500 people were forced to use the same
shower facility.
Emergency preparedness is only one part of keeping our communities
safe. We also need to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the
resources they need to uphold law and order at all times. The Community
Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Program for state and local law
enforcement will receive $198.5 million dollars in this legislation,
including $166 million dollars for COPS hiring to put more police
officers on the streets, keeping our citizens safe. As a senior Member
of the Homeland Security, I know that strong state and local law
enforcement agencies are vital to our national security.
I am also pleased to see funding for the Office of Violence Against
Women. The conference agreement includes $412.5 million dollars for
programs to prevent violence against women, and assist victims of
violent crime. Across the country there are non profits, community
based organizations, and religious groups that are diligently working
to address all the issues that arise from domestic violence. One such
organization is in my hometown of Houston, TX, the Houston Area Women's
Center. Programs such as the Houston

[[Page H7780]]

Area Women's Center will benefit from the grants made available through
this funding.
Throughout the budget and appropriations process, I have been
concerned about the adverse effects of spending cuts on minority and
underserved populations. I am extremely pleased to see that the
Minority Business Resource Center program received $922,000 dollars in
funding to provide loans and capital to invest in minority owned
businesses. The conference report also allocates $3.06 million dollars
for minority business outreach. These efforts show a commitment to
revitalizing small business and giving everyone the opportunity to make
it in America.
This bill represents an investment in America's future by allocating
$4.5 million dollars for the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
In the report, the conferees state their support for improvements to
the federal Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, STEM,
education. STEM education is absolutely imperative for Americans to
compete in the increasingly globalized economy. A commitment to
improving STEM education is a commitment to our children and our
students.
H.R. 2112 also takes steps to further our economic recovery after the
2008 financial crisis. In the wake of the housing crisis, many
responsible, hard working Americans lost their homes, not because they
neglected to pay their mortgage, but because their rates went up
unexpectedly, or because they lost their jobs. In an effort to prevent
more families from losing their homes, this bill provides $45 million
dollars for non-profits to advise families on foreclosure prevention.

While I support this measure, I also have some reservations. While I
am glad to see the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, nutrition program
funded at $6.6 billion, $570 million above the House level, and $36
million above the Senate level, I am concerned that the Supplemental
Nutrition Access Program, SNAP, and child nutrition have been funded at
$98.6 billion, $2 billion below President Obama's request. Moreover,
the decision to render tomato paste and tomato sauce as adequate
servings of vegetables undermines efforts to teach children healthy
eating habits at a young age.
While the funding levels for SNAP allow all individuals and families
that meet the program's criteria for aid to receive benefits, there is
nothing in the conference report that addresses the very serious
problem of urban food deserts, communities in which residents do not
have access to affordable and healthy food options. Food deserts
disproportionally affect African American and Hispanic communities.
Fast food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low
income neighborhoods, offering few, if any healthy options.
Food deserts have greatly impacted my constituents in the 18th
Congressional District, and citizens throughout the state of Texas.
Texas has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other state. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, identified 92 food desert census
tracts in Harris County alone. These areas are subdivisions of the
county with between 1,000 to 8,000 low income residents, with 33
percent of people living more than a mile from a grocery store.
I am also concerned about the decrease in funding for NASA found in
this report. While I am very pleased that NASA's budget does include
$138 million dollars for education, including the Minority University
Research and Education Program, I wholeheartedly believe we need to
further the space program. The Johnson Space Center in Houston attracts
the best and brightest minds in the nation, and we must give them the
resources they need. There is no blueprint for great achievement, but
allowing for continued exploration of the universe can lead to great
discovery.
Despite these reservations, I am pleased to support this measure, and
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2112, the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, but want to
express serious concern over a provision that would only extend some
loan limits, and not others, that are guaranteed, in one form or
another, by the United States government.
For several months, I have been advocating for a temporary extension,
and now a restoration and temporary extension, of the Government
Sponsored Enterprise, GSE, conforming and Federal Housing
Administration, FHA, loan limits. GSE conforming and FHA loan limits
were increased in 2008 to stabilize the housing market during the
economic crisis, and fill a gaping void left by retreating private
financial institutions. Unfortunately, the housing market remains
troubled and the painful cycle of defaults, distressed sales,
foreclosures, and price declines has caused a severe delay in our
economic recovery. Even now, private lenders remain incredibly risk-
averse, hesitating to provide long-term, fixed-rate mortgages to the
vast majority of the market. Until Congress decides how to move forward
with broad reform to fix our broken housing finance system, we should
not dismantle the few remaining support systems that are preventing the
housing industry from collapsing further.
For these very reasons, I introduced H.R. 2508, a bill that would
have extended both sets of loan limits for two fiscal years after their
expiration on October 1, 2011. Doing so would have given certainty to
housing and financial market participants and allowed enough time for
Congress to thoughtfully consider broad reform legislation.
Unfortunately, Congress chose not to act on my legislation, nor
implement any other legislation that would have extended the loan
limits out.
Since then, I and many of my colleagues in Congress have received
countless calls from frustrated constituents in our districts who are
now unable to transact in the housing markets due to the inability to
find a private lender willing to finance them. Just yesterday, new data
was released on housing market activity in October showing that home
sales are down an average of 20 percent in some markets from a year
earlier in the segment of the market that was relying on these higher
loan limits. In my home district, sales of homes in this market segment
fell by 71 percent since September.
As amended by the Senate, H.R. 2112 would have extended both sets of
loan limits and mitigated costs to the taxpayer by increasing the
guarantee fees assessed on larger loans. However, the compromise made
by the Conference Committee to only restore the loan limits for
mortgages guaranteed by FHA is a half-measure and one that ignores the
tremendous need for restoration of the conforming loan limits. While
this is better than no extension of either loan limit, it is not the
compromise we should have made. The nature of FHA's guarantee is
inherently different than that of the GSEs, the former being more
expensive to the taxpayer. Historically, FHA-guaranteed loans have been
a narrowly targeted subsidy, a state to which I would like to see FHA
eventually return. However, by extending only the FHA loan limits now,
we are essentially granting FHA a complete monopoly in this market
segment at a time when the FHA is under considerable stress.
Independent actuaries have estimated a 50 percent chance that the
agency will need a federal bailout of its own in the coming year as it
continues to draw down its reserves in a deflating housing market.
It's with this in mind that I will cast my vote in favor of H.R.
2112, but do so with significant reservations.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reluctantly support the Fiscal
Year 2012 Appropriations Minibus.
Given current budgetary constraints primarily caused by unnecessary
tax cuts for the rich, this bill generally reduces spending but
provides additional resources for certain programs that will help
create jobs.
For example, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that a $1
Billion expenditure on highway construction supports 30,000 jobs. The
underlying bill provides nearly $40 Billion for highway construction.
However, the legislation also includes unnecessary riders that will
allow corporate packers and processors to continue to manipulate the
livestock market to the detriment of our farmers and ranchers.
Funding is withheld from USDA in this bill from implementing a set of
Rules that would restore balance and fairness to the livestock
marketplace.
Is it fair that the average chicken grower makes 34 cents per bird
while the processing corporation makes $3.23 per bird and this Congress
prevents the agency tasked with protecting farmers from doing its job?
It is my sincere hope that USDA implements what remains of the
fairness Rule as soon as possible and enforces existing laws to protect
farmers and ranchers from corporate abuses.
I urge my colleagues to support the Appropriations Minibus.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us would increase
taxpayer exposure to the housing market by raising conforming loan
limits at the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).
Hardworking taxpayers, struggling to make their own mortgage
payments, should not be forced to subsidize the purchase of $729,750
homes. Taxpayers have already spent almost $200 billion dollars bailing
out the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac--why should they also be forced to subsidize the purchase of costly
homes for affluent borrowers through FHA?
If the GSEs with their implicit guarantee were a problem, then
expanding FHA with its explicit 100 percent taxpayer-backed guarantee
is a larger problem. I fear that raising conforming loan limits at FHA
while allowing the GSE limits to remain at current levels will push all
new mortgage originations between $625,500 and $729,750 into full
taxpayer backing through FHA.
To make matters worse, FHA's present financial state is precarious.
For the past two years, its single family Mutual Mortgage Insurance
Fund (MMIF) has been undercapitalized.

[[Page H7781]]

This fund, which is supposed to hold sufficient reserves against
unexpected future losses on its existing insurance, is statutorily
required to maintain a 2% capital cushion. As of FHA's most recent
actuarial report, the Agency is currently 88% below their statutorily
required minimum capital ratio. To put that number in perspective, FHA
is currently more than ten times more leveraged than Lehman Brothers
was when it filed for bankruptcy.
Last week, Dr. Joseph Gyourko, an American Enterprise Insitute (AEI)
scholar and real estate and finance professor at the University of
Pennsylvania's Wharton School, released a report suggesting that FHA is
underestimating future losses by many tens of billions of dollars. Dr.
Gyourko estimated that the recapitalization required will be at least
$50 billion, and likely much more, even if housing markets do not
deteriorate unexpectedly.
Dr. Gyourko is not the only one who thinks FHA will need a bailout.
In FHA's November 15, 2011, annual report to Congress on the financial
status of the MMIF, their independent actuary acknowledged there is a
nearly 50% chance they will need a bailout: ``With economic net worth
being very close to zero under the base-case forecast, the chance that
future net losses on the current, outstanding portfolio could exceed
current capital resources is close to 50 percent.''
Even the Obama Administration has acknowledged a need to scale back
taxpayer support for the housing finance system. In its February 2011
report to Congress on options for the future of housing finance, the
Administration encouraged Congress to let the elevated loan limits
expire. I do not often find myself in agreement with the Obama
Administration, but in this instance, we agree that the private sector
simply cannot compete with government guarantees. The best way to get
private capital in the game is to get the government out.
It is imperative that we work toward comprehensive housing finance
reform that will end bailouts and get taxpayers off the hook for bad
housing bets. Unfortunately, the underlying legislation works against
this goal and for that reason, I must oppose the bill.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote number 857. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote number 857,
adoption of the Conference Report on H.R. 2112--the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food & Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report is not perfect. I am pleased that
it would avert a government shut-down and that the Federal Government
can continue to provide services to the American people. Additionally,
I am pleased that the conference report provides over $2 billion for
emergency disaster relief. That being said, there are many items
contained in the legislation that are troubling. At a time of severe
economic challenge in many parts of the country, this bill reduces
investments in infrastructure, community policing and federal housing
programs. I am hopeful that my colleagues can craft the next slate of
appropriations bills with a fundamental understanding that we are
experiencing an economic emergency in many parts of the country. I look
forward to working with them on the remaining appropriations bills for
the current fiscal year and to continuing to work to put our economy
back on the right track.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 467, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 298,
nays 121, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 857]

YEAS--298

Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kissell
Kline
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Richardson
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--121

Adams
Akin
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Canseco
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clarke (NY)
Coffman (CO)
Conyers
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guinta
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kucinich
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Lee (CA)
Lummis
Mack
Marchant
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
Meeks
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Ross (FL)
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Schakowsky
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Tipton
Towns
Velazquez
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--14

Bachmann
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Brown (FL)
Courtney
Filner
Gardner
Giffords
Manzullo
Napolitano
Paul
Richmond
Roskam
Shimkus

{time} 1619

Messrs. TERRY, POE of Texas, SULLIVAN, YOUNG of Indiana, FLEISCHMANN,
Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. BUERKLE, and Mr. MILLER of Florida changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SESSIONS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 857, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall vote No.
857 in order to attend an important event in my district. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on

[[Page H7782]]

Adoption of the Conference Report on H.R. 2112--Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food & Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
Stated against:
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 857. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

____________________