[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.''

                          ____________________