Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 194 (Friday, December 16, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 194 (Friday, December 16, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H9823-H9902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2055, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
500, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2055)
making appropriations for military construction, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and related agencies 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 500, the
conference report is considered read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
December 15, 2011, at page H9004.)
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 such time as I
may consume.
I rise today to present the final fiscal year 2012 appropriations
legislation, which includes the conference report for the remaining
nine appropriations bills, as well as two other bills we will consider
later that provide funding for disaster recovery and assistance.
For the second year in a row, Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations
Committee, along with the body, has achieved significant reductions in
Federal Government spending to the tune of some $95 billion in reduced
spending. Never before in recent history has Congress cut spending 2
years back to back.
The Republican majority is truly living up to our commitment to slice
Federal spending, getting our budgets back into balance and living
within our means. The legislation also includes absolutely no earmarks,
zero earmarks, abiding by the House rule.
This report and the disaster aid spending package signify the end of
the road for the fiscal year 2012 appropriations cycle, helping to
avoid a potential government shutdown and supporting vital programs and
services the American people rely on.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides funding necessary to
support our national security, including funding for our military
engagements abroad and our domestic obligations; benefits and programs
for our veterans, active military, and their families; and Homeland
Security efforts to keep our borders and communities safe and sound.
In addition, this legislation includes policy provisions targeted at
reining in harmful government interference and protecting life,
liberty, and the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, after weeks of arduous negotiations on this package with
our Senate counterparts, we've struck a fair, bipartisan compromise. No
party got everything they wanted, but we have found a reasonable,
responsible balance between reduced spending, wise Federal investments,
and policy changes that American businesses need to thrive. With
Christmas coming on, it's time we complete this important legislation
and go home to our families and our friends.
We don't have much down time before our work will begin again on
fiscal year 2013, and I'm hopeful that with the groundwork we have laid
this year, cleaning up past years' messes, clearing the table for next
year, when we can bring these bills separately and individually to the
floor for our Members to debate, amend, and vote on. That's the goal.
So I'm hopeful with the groundwork we have laid this year, we will be
able to work through next year's appropriations in regular order and,
most importantly, on time, so that we don't find ourselves in this
situation next December.
One last note, Mr. Speaker: This result today would not have happened
without the good will and the good work of the committee's ranking
member, Mr. Dicks, who has been a great partner throughout this
process. While things have been difficult, and we haven't always seen
eye to eye, his knowledge of the process and his commitment to a fair
and positive outcome have been a huge asset. His leadership has been
critical to the bills we've passed, and certainly the one before us
today.

{time} 1200

Along with Mr. Dicks, I must thank the cardinals and the ranking
members of the subcommittees to whom we turned to produce this bill
that's before us today: Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks on
Defense; Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky on Energy
and Water; Chairwoman Emerson and Ranking Member Serrano on Financial
Services; Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member Price on Homeland
Security; Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Moran on Interior;
Chairman Rehberg and Ranking Member DeLauro on Labor-HHS; Chairman
Crenshaw and Ranking Member Honda on Legislative Branch; Chairman
Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop on MilCon; and Chairwoman Granger
and Ranking Member Lowey on State and Foreign Operations. They worked
through these bills with a sharp eye and a respect for the taxpayer and
the programs that they dealt with.
Time and again, Mr. Speaker, throughout this year we've faced
difficult and arduous tasks head-on, met every challenge before us. And
without the leadership of these subcommittee chairmen and ranking
members, we would not be here today. They've made up the package that's
before us today.
Finally, I want to thank the staff, both sides of the aisle, majority
and minority, hard work this year beyond

[[Page H9824]]

anything that I've ever seen. It's been a tough year with H.R. 1 in the
spring that took so much time and effort, 500-plus amendments, and then
the 150 hearings that our subcommittees have conducted making up this
year's appropriations bills; and then after that, the effort that took
place on the debt ceiling increase and the time and distraction that it
took from the rest of the work we were doing. And then finally, the
concoction and the makeup of this bill before us today. It has been a
long, tough year. We have appropriated in 1 year for 2 years, both for
2011 and now for 2012, all in 1 year, in order to get us back to where
we can go on regular order next year.
The staff has been absolutely arduous and dedicated week in, week
out, day in and day out, night after night, holidays included. They've
just been terrific. I want to thank our staffs on the committee, both
sides, for all of the hard work that has taken place. Bill Inglee, the
chief clerk on the committee, and David Pomerantz on your side, Mr.
Dicks, what a terrific team that we have had backing us up. We're
deeply indebted to these wonderful staff workers for us that have us
where we are.
Finally, I want to say this. Today is sort of a special day, Mr.
Speaker, for any number of reasons. I think we're going to wind up with
a good bill here that will get the appropriations process over with,
finally, for this year. But it's also a very, very special day for two
Members who are on the floor with us this very minute.
One of them is my ranking member, Mr. Dicks, who's celebrating a
birthday today.
Happy birthday.
Also, another gentleman is celebrating a birthday today, and that's
Mr. Bill Young, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee.
Happy birthday, Mr. Chairman.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H9825]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.001

[[Page H9826]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.002

[[Page H9827]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.003

[[Page H9828]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.004

[[Page H9829]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.005

[[Page H9830]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.006

[[Page H9831]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.007

[[Page H9832]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.008

[[Page H9833]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.009

[[Page H9834]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.010

[[Page H9835]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.011

[[Page H9836]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.012

[[Page H9837]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.013

[[Page H9838]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.014

[[Page H9839]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.015

[[Page H9840]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.016

[[Page H9841]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.017

[[Page H9842]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.018

[[Page H9843]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.019

[[Page H9844]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.020

[[Page H9845]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.021

[[Page H9846]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.022

[[Page H9847]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.023

[[Page H9848]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.024

[[Page H9849]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.025

[[Page H9850]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.026

[[Page H9851]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.027

[[Page H9852]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.028

[[Page H9853]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.029

[[Page H9854]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.030

[[Page H9855]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.031

[[Page H9856]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.032

[[Page H9857]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.033

[[Page H9858]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.034

[[Page H9859]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.035

[[Page H9860]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.036

[[Page H9861]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.037

[[Page H9862]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.038

[[Page H9863]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.039

[[Page H9864]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.040

[[Page H9865]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.041

[[Page H9866]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.042

[[Page H9867]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.043

[[Page H9868]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.044

[[Page H9869]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.045

[[Page H9870]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.046

[[Page H9871]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.047

[[Page H9872]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.048

[[Page H9873]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.049

[[Page H9874]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.050

[[Page H9875]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.051

[[Page H9876]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.052

[[Page H9877]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.053

[[Page H9878]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.054

[[Page H9879]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.055

[[Page H9880]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.056

[[Page H9881]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.057

[[Page H9882]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.058

[[Page H9883]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.059

[[Page H9884]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.060

[[Page H9885]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.061

[[Page H9886]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.062

[[Page H9887]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.063

[[Page H9888]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.064

[[Page H9889]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.065

[[Page H9890]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.066

[[Page H9891]]

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The conference report before us contains nine separate bills:
Defense; Energy and Water; Financial Services; Homeland Security;
Interior; Labor-HHS and Education; Legislative Branch; Military
Construction and VA; and State and Foreign Operations. It is a
bipartisan agreement reached after many hours of deliberation and
debate. It reflects the fact that neither party can pass this bill on
its own in either the House or the Senate.
The conference report is a remarkable product of the hard work of all
members of the Appropriations Committee and, as the chairman mentioned,
especially the ranking members and the cardinals, the chairmen of the
subcommittees.
I especially want to congratulate the staff. I was a staff person
myself, and as the chairman has said, I have never seen people work
harder than the staff on the House Appropriations Committee. And I want
to commend Bill Inglee and David Pomerantz for their work all during
this year, their cooperation, and their leadership of the staff. And we
have a great staff. You know, these people have enormous experience,
they have great background, and we're proud of all of them.
I also want to congratulate Bill Young, my chairman on the Defense
Subcommittee, former chairman of the full committee. We've been good
friends, and I want to wish him a happy birthday. It's ironic that here
we are on the last day getting this big bill passed on both of our
birthdays. So somebody smiled on us. Maybe it was the other body by
slowing things down.
We're going to have our ranking members present their statements
after the chairmen on the other side.
I want to thank Mr. Rogers again for all of his courtesy and his
great work. He had to have the patience of Job in order to get this
thing done, but he did it and I commend him.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
I just want to commend him for his patience and his determination,
and next year we're going to get all 12 bills to the floor.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for his words.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, the
chairman, for yielding me the time.
It's not really adequate to explain this bill, this defense bill,
which is the largest part of this mini-bus, omnibus, or call it what
you will, but thank you, Chairman Rogers, especially for bringing back
regular order in the appropriations process, which we haven't done for
a while. You've done a really great job in leading this committee in
getting this job done.
To my friend, Mr. Dicks, I've already wished him personally a happy
birthday, but, Mr. Speaker, we appreciate Mr. Dicks' relationship with
the Congress, with our subcommittee, with the full committee. Together,
they've made a great team; they've done a great job.
As I said, the defense bill is the biggest part of this bill. It is
actually $21 billion less than was requested in the budget. We were
given a number. We were instructed to make reductions. This
subcommittee, the members and the staff, worked diligently to make sure
that any reductions that we had to make would not affect the readiness
of our Nation or would not adversely affect any of our troops. We
successfully concluded that task. We kept our commitment to maintain
readiness and to remain strong in the support of our troops.
It makes me feel good that we have an agreement that was agreed upon
by the Republicans and the Democrats in the House and the Republicans
and the Democrats in the Senate. We won't get a unanimous vote on this
package at all, but we worked together.
People have wondered, and I'm sure all of us have been asked by our
constituents, Why can't you guys in Congress work together and get
things done?
When Congress acts as a Congress and avoids a lot of outside
political influence, it's amazing what we can do. I just would call
attention to the fact we just concluded the intelligence bill on a
bipartisan basis.
We did the National Defense Authorization Act last week on a
bipartisan basis. This omnibus bill that we will pass today on a
bipartisan basis, we worked together and we got things done when we
were able to work as a Congress.
I am very happy to be supportive of especially the defense part of
this bill.

{time} 1210

Again, I want to congratulate Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member
Dicks for their strong leadership in getting us back to the regular
order. As Mr. Dicks said, next year we're going to do all of the
appropriations bills one at a time, which is just like it's supposed to
be done.
Mr. Speaker, there is so much more to talk about with regard to this
bill--so many details--that we have written copies of a report on what
it does and what it doesn't do, and we'll be happy to provide that for
any Member who asks. Other than that, let's vote for this package and
let's get our job done.
I want to wish you all a very Merry Christmas. Hopefully, I won't
have to wish you a happy New Year until after we come back next year,
but we'll see how that goes.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to represent the fiscal year 2012 Defense
Appropriations bill before the House today.
The Defense bill provides funding for critical national security
needs, provides the necessary resources to continue the Nation's
military efforts abroad, and contains essential funding for health and
quality of life programs for the men and women of the Armed Services
and their families.
The bill is separated into two subdivisions, the Department's base
funding and the Overseas Contingency Operations funding. The base
funding in this bill totals $518 billion--$5 billion above last year
and $21 billion below the request. The Overseas Contingency Operations
portion totals $115 billion--$43 billion below last year and $2.8
billion below the request.
These reductions were not easily achieved; but the Subcommittee
reviewed in detail the budget request, and found areas and programs
where reductions were possible without adversely impacting the
warfighter or readiness.
This was extremely important in finalizing this bill. I committed
long ago that I would never write or support a bill which adversely
affected any soldier or had an adverse effect on our Nation's
readiness. I firmly believe I have kept that promise with this bill.
The bill before us provides $131.1 billion for military personnel--
including the requested 1.6 percent military pay raise.
It funds $163.1 billion in Operation and Maintenance for equipment
and facility maintenance, base operations, and critical readiness
programs to prepare for and conduct combat and peace-time missions.
The bill provides $32.5 billion for the Defense Health Program,
including an additional $603.6 million for military medical research,
including +$239 million for cancer research and +$135 million for
Psychological Health/Traumatic Brain Injury (PH/TBI).
It provides $104.6 billion in procurement for new equipment and
upgrades to ensure that our military has the systems, weapons, and
equipment they need to train, maintain infrastructure, and conduct
successful operations. This includes $15.3 billion for the construction
of 11 Navy ships; $5.9 billion for 31 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft;
$3.2 billion for 28 F-18 Super Hornets and 12 EA-18 Growlers; $2.8
billion for 127 H-60 Blackhawk helicopters; and $720 million for 48 MQ-
9 Reaper UAVs.
And the bill funds $72.4 billion in essential basic and applied
research that will help prepare our forces with the systems and
equipment necessary to meet potential future challenges. This includes
$2.7 billion for continued development and testing of the Joint Strike
Fighter.
As I mentioned before, analytically based and rational reductions
were taken to reach the subcommittee's allocation. These include:
programs which have been terminated or restructured since the budget
was submitted; savings from favorable contract pricing adjustments;
contract and schedule delays resulting in fiscal year 2012 savings;
unjustified cost increases or funding requested ahead of need;
anticipated or historical under-execution; rescissions of unneeded
prior year funds; and Department-identified funds which were no longer
required.
For example, we reduced $435 million for contract delays on the
Army's Ground Combat Vehicle; $515 million for excess Working Capital
Fund cash balances; $540 million in program delay savings for the
Enhanced Medium

[[Page H9892]]

Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (EMAARS); and $2.6
billion in unneeded prior year funds.
While representative of the reductions that were made, these were by
no means easy decisions. Staff on both sides of the aisle, and both
sides of the Capitol, worked tirelessly to ensure that the readiness of
our Nation's military was not impacted, and its future not jeopardized,
in the name of budget cuts.
That effort is a strong indication of the bi-partisan nature of this
bill, which is the longstanding tradition of this subcommittee. And I
would like to thank Ranking Member Dicks for working with us in
upholding that tradition.
It is a good bill that maintains our commitments to our soldiers and
their families, and continues to support and maintain the finest
military in the world. I urge its adoption.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Department of Defense appropriations bill is part of this
package:
This bill includes the base funding of $518 billion, a reduction of
$21 billion below the President's budget request;
The bill also provides $115 billion for overseas contingency
operations, $2.8 billion below the budget request;
The bill balances funding essential for U.S. troops and their
families with readiness, weapons acquisition, and technology
development;
For military personnel and family programs, the bill includes full
funding of the military pay accounts, including a 1.6 percent pay raise
for our troops. For community support programs, the bill includes $40
million above the request for Impact Aid and $250 million to replace
inadequate schools located on DOD bases that are owned and operated by
our local educational authorities and by the U.S. Department of
Education;
For readiness, the bill includes $163 billion for operations and
maintenance. With this account, the bill includes $150 million above
the request for ship depot maintenance and $34 million to fully fund
the Reserve Officers' Training Corps program;
For procurement and research programs, the bill includes $255 million
to prevent the shutdown of the M-1 tank production; $1 billion for
National Guard and Reserve equipment; $200 million for Rapid Innovation
Funding; $230 million to procure equipment needed to enhance special
operations; $130 million above the request for ongoing cooperative
missile defense programs with Israel; and $100 million above the
request to mature technologies for the next-generation bomber;
For overseas contingencies, the bill includes $115 billion, $2.8
billion below the request and $43 billion below 2011. The decline
compared to that of last year reflects the withdrawal of U.S. troops
from Iraq. The bill provides for the withdrawal of U.S. personnel from
Iraq by the end of this month; the operation of U.S. forces in
Afghanistan; and programs to train and equip Afghan security forces so
they are capable of assuming security responsibility.
This bill is essential to maintaining the readiness and capabilities
of U.S. forces. It provides for the need of our men and women in
uniform and their families. The bill also includes responsible
reductions from the budget request, recognizing the fiscal realities
that our Nation faces. This is a must-pass bill, which I support.
Again, I commend Chairman Young and the staff of the Defense
Subcommittee for their extraordinary work. This is the largest
appropriations bill. It is essential to national security.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I want to thank the chairman for his support and
leadership as we work through the appropriations process.
Mr. Speaker, this morning I am pleased to support this appropriations
bill that keeps our government open for business but that also
substantially reduces Federal spending in almost every Department.
A special thanks to my ranking member and good friend, Pete
Visclosky, for his hard work, his knowledge of our energy and water
bill, and his passionate support for so many priorities.
Our portion of the bill has an important national security component
so that we increase funding for the safety and the reliability of our
nuclear deterrent, as well as for a new generation of naval reactors.
While funding for the Department of Energy is below the President's
request, we continue to ensure that our Nation has a diversity of
energy supply, that nuclear energy will be a critical part of that
future, and that important research and development will continue at
our remarkable national laboratories. Additionally, our bill provides
funds for the Army Corps of Engineers to protect public safety, to keep
America open for business, and to meet emergencies.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support a bill that ensures our national
security, our safety, and our economic security with fewer taxpayer
dollars.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Indiana, the ranking member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Mr.
Visclosky.
(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
There is great substance in this bill, but I really want to address
the process and to begin my remarks by saying how very proud I am of
the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives and the
United States Senate of this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee is composed of serious and
intelligent people. Our members and our terrific staff--I was also on
the staff at one time--work hard to invest in our country and to
improve the lives of the people we represent.
As Chairman Rogers indicated, our members do disagree, but they
thoughtfully consider the facts; they consider each other's
perspectives and positions and reach reasonable compromises that
improve the Government of the United States of America. This is how
this entire body should conduct itself.
I especially want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks
and their staffs for leading the way.
I also want to express my gratitude to Chairman Frelinghuysen, who is
also my friend and a consummate gentleman; and to our subcommittee
members and our exceptional staffs for their dedication and hard work
in crafting a wonderful piece of legislation.
The agreement on energy and water provides $2.3 billion for
nonproliferation activities, $30 million above last year's level,
ensuring that our ability to counter the most serious threat
confronting our national security, the threat of nuclear terrorism, is
adequately funded;
The agreement provides for renewable energy programs at level funding
from last year. The science account, so critical to the competitiveness
of our Nation, is $46 million above last year; and ARPA-E provides and
drives innovation to support our scientific competitiveness;
The Army Corps of Engineers is funded at $5 billion, a slight
increase over last year's level, ensuring that some ongoing projects
will not be terminated.
We must invest in our infrastructure. While this bill does increase
funding for Corps, we are not adequately investing in infrastructure.
But I do urge the support of the legislation.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
(Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ADERHOLT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of the conference report.
I want to thank Chairman Rogers, as well as Ranking Member Norman
Dicks, for his leadership and their commitment as we went back to
regular order in producing this agreement.
Mr. Speaker, we had challenging negotiations with our colleagues from
the other body, but I believe we have forged a disciplined agreement
that puts a priority on limited spending and on true priorities like
border security, immigration enforcement, and disaster relief while at
the same time instilling robust fiscal discipline and oversight.

[[Page H9893]]

This conference report provides a total of $39.6 billion in
discretionary spending for the Department of Homeland Security. That is
$4 billion below the President's request, 9.1 percent. It is $3 billion
below the FY 2010, and it is $2 billion below that of last year. These
are genuine reductions, not just budget gimmicks.

{time} 1220

Within this contracted funding, frontline operations are made a
priority as well, including funding and direction to ICE to maintain a
daily detention bed capacity of 34,000 beds, which is the highest
detention capacity in its history. Also, funding for the highest-ever
levels of staffing for Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, and ICE
agents.
This conference agreement also terminates two ineffectual offices at
the Department of Homeland Security. It installs unprecedented
oversight at FEMA, and it includes a statutory requirement for the
Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce the immigration laws that are
on the books.
Finally, this conference agreement and the disaster supplemental bill
that we are also considering today fully funds FEMA's disaster relief
requirements for 2012. That means that devastated areas all across the
country will get what they need to get back on their feet. And this
funding can be offset through reductions that will also be considered
later this afternoon, which I support.
Let me close again by thanking all those involved in this process on
the Appropriations Committee. I would like to thank Ben Nicholson, with
the majority, as well as the majority staff, and Stephanie Gupta, with
the minority, and her staff. I would also like to thank Senator
Landrieu and Senator Coats, as well as the gentleman from North
Carolina, Ranking Member Price, of course, who was my partner in this
process, for their hard work and compromise as we worked toward forging
this reasonable agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference aagreement.
We had a long, challenging negotiation with our colleagues from the
other body, but I believe we have forged a disciplined and reasonable
agreement, that adheres to the requirements, constraints, and
principles of the Budget Control Act; requires strict fiscal
discipline; instills hard-hitting oversight; and prioritizes limited
spending on true priorities like border security, immigration
enforcement, and disaster relief.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report provides a total of $39.6 billion
dollars in discretionary spending for the Department of Homeland
Security. That's $4 billion dollars, or 9.1 percent, below the
President's request; $3 billion dollars, or 7.2 percent, below fiscal
year 2010's enacted level; and $2 billion dollars, or 5.0 percent,
below last year's enacted level.
These are actualized spending reductions, not just some budget
gimmicks.
Within this contracted funding, frontline operations are prioritized,
including: Funding and statutory direction to ICE to maintain a daily
detention bed capacity of 34,000 beds--the highest detention capacity
in its history--to strengthen immigration enforcement and achieve
increased removals; supporting the highest-ever levels of staffing for
Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, and ICE agents; and fully funding
major re-capitalization efforts by the Coast Guard and Secret Service
protective operations during next year's Presidential campaign.
The fiscal discipline, oversight, and spending reductions in this
conference agreement include: Two terminations of ineffectual and
redundant offices at DHS; unprecedented reporting requirements for
FEMA's grant programs and disaster relief operations; numerous
planning, justification, and reporting requirements; and a statutory
requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to enforce
immigration law.
Finally, this conference agreement and the disaster supplemental bill
that is also being considered by the House today, fully fund FEMA's
disaster relief requirements for fiscal year 2012--that means that
devastated areas like Joplin, Missouri; numerous flooded communities
along the Mississippi River and East Coast; and tornado-ravaged towns
in my home state of Alabama will get the full assistance they need to
rebuild and get back on their feet.
And, this funding can be offset through reductions we will also
consider later today--reductions I support.
Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement represents some of the very
best from this Chamber--a product forged out of intense and open
debate; a product that followed regular order; and a product that meets
the goals and objectives laid out by Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader
Cantor, and Chairman Rogers at the beginning of this Congress.
This is a strong conference agreement and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Let me close by sincerely thanking Senators Landrieu and Coats as
well as Ranking Member Price for their hard work and contributions
toward forging this reasonable agreement on funding for the Department
of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2012.
Let me also thank Chairman Rogers, Chairman Inouye, and the House and
Senate Appropriations front office staff for the support of our
Subcommittee's efforts--I sincerely appreciate their leadership through
this laborious process as well as their fidelity to regular order.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
North Carolina, the ranking member of the Homeland Security
Subcommittee, Mr. Price.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are
finally considering an omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal 2012 to
fund critical Federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland
Security. After a year of lurching from one manufactured crisis to
another, destabilizing the American economy and sending Congress'
approval ratings to record lows, it's high time we restored some
measure of regular order to this critical legislative function.
I applaud Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Dicks, and my subcommittee
chairman, Mr. Aderholt, for their commitment to restoring regular order
and maintaining the pattern of bipartisan cooperation that
distinguishes our committee, even in today's hyperpartisan environment.
I also want to thank our talented and dedicated staff for drafting and
negotiating what was a very difficult package to put together.
With respect to DHS, overall funding will drop for a second year in a
row to $39.6 billion. But this drop is compensated for by the separate
disaster relief bill we will be considering shortly. When these two
measures are combined, FEMA will receive a total of $7.1 billion for
disaster relief, ensuring that families and businesses affected by
recent disasters will receive assistance vital for recovery and
rebuilding.
Beyond disaster assistance, the reduced allocation meant that we had
to make some tough decisions. I'm pleased that sufficient funding is
provided in this bill for our frontline DHS employees to conduct
critical operations along our borders, protect our Nation's airports
and seaports, and thwart cybersecurity attacks on our Federal
Government.
Other accounts which were radically underfunded in the House bill,
have been increased modestly in this omnibus bill but nowhere near
adequate levels. Research and development funding has been cut by 38
percent since 2010, undermining our investments in new technologies
targeted specifically at homeland security threats. And State and local
grants have been reduced by more than 50 percent from the 2010 level,
requiring our States and communities to delay or abandon vital
preparedness efforts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. These cuts in grants will seriously
hamper States and communities in their preparedness efforts. We simply
have to do better next year.
While this is an imperfect bill, under the circumstances we know it
could have been much worse. It's the product of bicameral and
bipartisan decisions about how best to allocate our scarce resources to
protect the American people. With that in mind, I urge colleagues to
support the omnibus bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on
Appropriations, the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I know
he hasn't enjoyed an easy task, but he has done a tremendous job in
bringing us to this point today. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to express my appreciation to Ranking Member Serrano and
Laura Hogshead, on his staff. They have been terrific to work with. And

[[Page H9894]]

even when we might not have agreed on something, we still had dialogue,
and they were terrific. Our own staff on the subcommittee, very ably
led by John Martens, Winnie Chang, Kelly Shea, Ariana Sarar, and Karen
Thomas, have done a tremendous job.
There are a lot of reasons to be happy about this bill and to vote
for it, from the perspective of the Financial Services Committee. The
bill reduces this portion of the President's budget request by $4.2
billion. Compared to 2010, discretionary funding in this bill is
reduced by 11 percent. We are heeding the American people's call for a
limited, more transparent, more responsive Federal Government.
The bill prohibits funds for certain White House czars, rescinds $25
million from a mandatory slush fund at the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and dedicates much-needed resources for the
counterterrorism activities at the Department of Treasury. The bill
also provides funding for the Small Business Administration's business
loans program. Our small businesses are critical to our economy, and
this program extends accessible and affordable credit to help them
grow.
As fortunate as I feel to have reached agreement with my colleagues
in so many areas, I'm still startled and a bit dismayed by the White
House's refusal to submit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an
agency whose mission is to promote accountability and transparency in
the financial industry, to the usual and customary transparency
measures accorded to Congress and the American people.
Provisions in the House's bill would have limited the budget of the
bureau to $200 million and subjected the CFPB to annual congressional
review. I'm really hard-pressed to understand why a $200 million
limitation is not enough for a bureau without a director, or why the
centerpiece of the Dodd-Frank Act cannot withstand meaningful, regular
review by the Congress, which established it in the first place.
The checks and balances envisioned by our Founders apply to every
other consumer-oriented agency in the executive branch of government.
The CFPB ought to be treated no different from the Federal Trade
Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and
others in this important regard. I can promise that the CFPB will be
revisited again and again by Congress.
Leaving that subject though for another day, I do urge my colleagues
to support the bill and the savings it contains on behalf of the
American people.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New
York, the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee, Mr.
Serrano.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman Dicks for
yielding me time so that I can comment on the Financial Services and
General Government section of this bill. I would also like to thank
both him and Chairman Rogers for their hard work in bringing this bill
to the floor. Please let me also express my appreciation to Chairwoman
Emerson, who worked so well with me and our staff throughout this
process.
Unfortunately, because of the budget agreement and the allocation
that was given to the subcommittee, there are significant cuts to many
important agencies. However, this is a much better bill than what
emerged from our committee markup, and we worked hard to provide
sufficient funding in order to avoid layoffs of hardworking Federal
employees. I am especially pleased that the health care repeal
provisions and the many anti-Dodd-Frank provisions that were a part of
the committee-passed bill have not been included in this final
conference agreement.
I am, however, distressed that this agreement once again interferes
in the local affairs of the District of Columbia. Although D.C. will be
able to continue to use its own local funds for syringe exchange
programs, this conference report prohibits them from using their own
local funds for abortion services, a restriction that no other American
city has dictated to it by the Federal Government.

{time} 1230

Finally, I am pleased that the provision reinstating the harsh Bush-
era restrictions on Cuban-American travel to Cuba and limitations on
remittances was dropped from the conference report. Had this provision
stayed in the bill, there would have been an immediate shutdown of
family travel to Cuba, which would have been particularly difficult
just days before the holiday season.
Before I conclude, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the
majority and minority subcommittee staff for all of their hard work and
to acknowledge the efforts of my own personal staff.
Mr. Speaker, within the strict budgetary limitations that were given
the committee and this section, an improved version, I am in favor of
the bill, and I would ask my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished chair of the State-Foreign Ops Subcommittee, the
gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger).
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the State-
Foreign Operations division of this conference agreement, which
contains $42.1 billion in discretionary budget authority. This means
that since January, spending in this bill will decrease in this bill by
$6.6 billion, or more than 13 percent.
The agreement includes overseas contingency operations spending for
State and USAID to implement in frontline states and conflict areas.
These costs are temporary and extraordinary and will be reduced over
time.
This bill has been written to address our foreign assistance and
State Department funding through the lens of what is most important to
our national security interests and the security of our allies and our
neighbor Mexico. The bill provides security assistance for critical
allies, including full finding for the U.S.-Israel memorandum of
understanding.
The bill also carries new language on the Palestinian Authority,
cutting off their economic aid and stopping their ability to have a
U.S. office if they obtain member state status at the United Nations.
Additionally, the bill addresses concerns about assistance to Egypt and
to Pakistan.
New restrictions are also placed on the U.N. and other international
organizations. For example, funds are withheld from these organizations
until they publicly display their audit and financial reports.
I want to thank the members of the State-Foreign Operations
Appropriations Subcommittee and, in particular, my ranking member, Mrs.
Lowey, who has been extremely helpful in developing this compromise. I
also thank my colleagues across the Capitol who worked in good faith
for the best possible outcomes. I believe we were successful in
protecting our national security while providing appropriate oversight
of taxpayer dollars.
I want to sincerely thank the staff: from Mrs. Lowey's staff, Steve
Marchese, Erin Kolodjeski and Talia Dubovi; and on my staff, Anne Marie
Chotvacs, Clelia Alvarado, Alice Hogans, Susan Adams, Craig Higgins,
Jamie Guinn, Johnnie Kaberle, and Matt Leffingwell. They all worked
appreciable hours and with great dedication.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
New York, the ranking member of the State-Foreign Operations
Subcommittee, Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. LOWEY. As ranking member of the State-Foreign Operations
Subcommittee, I want to congratulate Chairwoman Granger, Chairman
Rogers, Ranking Member Dicks, and the outstanding majority and minority
staff. Thank you all for working together with me on a bill that will
help maintain our global leadership, protect national security, and
promote economic growth.
Our wise investments in better health and education systems, economic
opportunity in the developing world, humanitarian assistance,
international financial institutions, development assistance, economic
support funds, and international family planning will help to save
lives, develop the next generation of U.S. trading partners to boost
job growth domestically, and confront the conditions that foster
radicalism and instability that threaten the long-term security of the
United States.

[[Page H9895]]

This bill also fully funds our agreements with vital allies,
including Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and supports governance and
development activities in Egypt to aid the transition to democracy.
However, we do not write blank checks. Stringent conditions on
continued assistance for Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Pakistan,
and Afghanistan will help ensure accountability and responsible use of
taxpayer dollars.
This bill is aimed at advancing our economic and strategic interests
around the world through effective and efficient diplomacy and
development, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the
Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer, my good friend and a former member of the
Appropriations Committee who has worked very strongly with us all year
to move these bills forward.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for yielding.
I rise in support of this legislation.
This ought to be a lesson for us in some humility. I was the majority
leader. Had I, as majority leader, brought that bill that sits on that
floor, 1,207 pages, within the last 24 hours to the floor, I think the
response from that side of the aisle would have been harsh, accusatory,
and not helpful.
Now, why do I say that? Because it happened. And it ought to be a
portion of humility for all of us to understand the legislative process
is difficult. We bring different views and we represent different
constituencies and we have different priorities.
I rise in strong support of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to
support this piece of legislation. None of them have read it. Not one
of us has read every page of this bill. I see the chairman raising his
hand, and I take him at his word. That means 434 of us will have to
rely on his advice and counsel. And I'm sure Mr. Dicks has read it as
well. My point is we work by committees, as President Wilson said, and
we've worked hard on this bill through the year.
My Republican colleagues, during the course of the last election,
said, We're going to bring bills one at a time to the floor and
consider them. The Labor-Health bill that is included in a substantial
portion of those pages, not only has it not been brought to the floor,
it didn't pass the subcommittee. Nor the full committee. Nor this
floor.
But this bill has been worked on carefully, and I want to
congratulate Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks and all of the subcommittee
chairs for working out the differences that we had so we could do what
the American people expect us to do--come to agreement on a bill that
none of us perceives as perfect but perceive as a positive step for our
country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. HOYER. I, therefore, urge all of my colleagues to support this
bill. Yes, it will keep government open, which is essential; but it
will also do the most fundamental job that this Congress has to do
every year, and that is to fund appropriately the priorities that this
Congress puts before the country.
In closing, let me congratulate my friend, Hal Rogers from Kentucky,
with whom I served on the Appropriations Committee for over two
decades, and Mr. Dicks, with whom I have served every day of my
congressional career. Both are decent, hardworking, conscientious
Representatives. They and their subcommittee chairs and ranking members
have come together to present this product.
It is time to act. It is time to act positively. I will, when the
roll is called, be supporting this piece of legislation.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for those comments.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Interior
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. SIMPSON. First, let me thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member
Dicks.
As I've told many Members, if this is your first term or your second
term or your third term here in this body, this is the first time
you've actually seen an appropriation bill come to the floor under an
open rule, and I know that is something we both want. The majority
party wants that, and I know the minority party wants that, also. And
while Mr. Hoyer was correct, we didn't get them all done, we are moving
in the right direction. And we will get there where every bill comes
under an open rule so that Members have input into that legislation,
and that's what we're working toward. And I want to thank you for that.

{time} 1240

But first let me also thank my partner in this effort, Mr. Moran from
Virginia. He's been a great asset in working out this bill. We don't
always agree on every issue. I'm from Idaho, he's from Virginia, and so
we sometimes have differences of opinion. But we're able to sit down
and work together to solve those differences and work out a bill that I
think is in the best interests of the American people.
The Interior bill conference agreement is $29.175 billion, which is
$384 million below the FY enacted level. The conference agreement funds
the EPA at $8.45 billion, which is $233 million below the FY11 enacted
level and $524 million below the President's request. The bill also
includes in title IV a general provision that amends the Clean Air Act
to transfer air quality permitting authority as of the date of this
enactment from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of
the Interior. This will provide regulatory parity for the Beaufort and
Chukchi Sea planning areas with the western and central Gulf of Mexico
planning areas. It fully funds the newly created Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management with $60 million to help expedite the review of offshore
exploration plans. It also fully funds the newly created Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement at $76 million, including $15
million for oil spill research.
It provides authority for the collection of $62 million in inspection
fees, but it dedicates funding for approving permits, expediting
exploration plans, and hiring much-needed inspectors and engineers
while also accelerating the approval of drilling plans. It fully funds
wildfire suppression at the 10-year average. It cuts the NEA and NEH
funding by $17.4 million combined in this bill from the '011
appropriation.
It provides $4.3 billion to the Indian Health Service. This has been
a bipartisan effort with Mr. Dicks when he was chairman of this
committee, with Mr. Moran when he was chairman of this committee, and
now with me that we fully fund the Indian Health Services. This is a
5.8 percent increase in this bill to address the health care needs in
Indian Country, including access to Indian health facilities and
contractual obligations to tribes. It provides $108 million for the
Smithsonian, including $75 million for the construction of the National
Museum of African American History and Culture.
It does several things for Westerners that live in public land States
relative to grazing. There is a new provision that requires that the
administrative review process first be exhausted before litigating on
grazing issues and provides protection for trailing of livestock.
This, overall, is a good bill, and I think it's one that we can all
be proud of. And, again, I want to thank Mr. Moran for his dedication
and work on this. But, most of all, I want to thank the staff on both
sides of the aisle. If you're not on this committee, if you don't work
with this committee, you don't know how much time they put in, and they
do an incredible job for Congress and for the American people.
MR. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, the ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee, Mr. Moran.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I too want to join the chorus in commending
Chairman Rogers, Chairman Simpson, and our ranking member, Norm Dicks,
and the phenomenal work of the appropriations staff on both sides. Rich
Healey and Shalanda Young, for example, have been working on this bill
for the last several months, sometimes through the night. But all the
pros on the appropriations staff, they are led by David Pomerantz; his
deputy, Lesley Turner; Bill Inglee. They are pros, and they all deserve
special recognition.

[[Page H9896]]

Mr. Speaker, this is a vast improvement over the Interior and
Environment bill considered by the House in July. The agreement
provides $1.7 billion more than the initial House allocation. And $8.4
billion is provided for EPA, it's 1.3 over the House bill. The
agreement maintains basically level funding for the operation of the
National Park Service, and it restores funding for the science programs
in USGS land and water conservation front programs are increased by $22
million over last year's level. And it's important to note that we've
restored funding for endangered species and critical habitat listings.
Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson spearheaded a bipartisan effort in
support of funding for Native American programs. And as a result, the
Indian Health Service is increased by 6 percent, important increases in
education, public safety, and tribal government. This agreement doesn't
abandon our commitment to the arts.
In fact, NEA and NEH are each given $11 million over the House
allocation. It's equal to the President's request.
Just as important, though, as what is included in this agreement is
what is not. The conferees dropped more than two dozen unacceptable
environmental riders that were a part of the House bill. Gone are the
greenhouse gas, the Grand Canyon uranium mining, the mountain top
mining removal riders to name just a few. This is not to say that the
bill is completely devoid of any environmental restrictions, but this
is a compromise. And I can say that in nearly every instance what has
been included is significantly improved over what was originally
proposed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say this. This is the way things
were meant to be done in this body. Politics was meant to be the art of
compromise, with people acting in good faith for the betterment of
their country. That's what this omnibus appropriations bill is all
about. And so it deserves to be passed unanimously.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the chairman for yielding the time, and I thank
him for his leadership.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report because
I think it takes another step to change this culture of spending that
we've had in this town to a culture of savings. And we actually spent
less money this year than we spent last year.
When you look at the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, which I chair,
you'll find that we reduced spending this year by 7\1/2\ percent. In
fact, the money that we spend on the legislative branch is less than we
spent last year, it's less than we spent in 2010, and it's less money
than we spent in 2009.
When you look specifically at the House of Representatives, which we
are all a part of, the last two cycles we have reduced spending on the
House of Representatives by over 10 percent.
When we ask other agencies of the Federal Government to do more with
less, to rein in spending, to tighten their belt, be more effective and
be more efficient, we have not exempted ourselves from that, and we
have led by example. Every Member's office account in this body has
been reduced by 10 percent these last 2 years. The leadership offices
have had their funding reduced by 10 percent, and the committees as
well, even the Appropriations Committee, has been reduced by even more
than 10 percent. So I think this is another step forward to fund our
priorities but exercise spending discipline.
I certainly want to thank my ranking member, Mr. Honda, for his
cooperation and hard work and thank all our staff members for their
dedication and commitment, and I urge my colleagues to support this
very good bill.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the
ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, Mr. Honda.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, today Congress is considering a bill to keep
the government running for the remainder of the fiscal year. That is
our basic responsibility as Members of Congress. I am pleased that we
are operating under regular order in considering the conference report.
The American people want us to work together. This package is a
reflection of what we can accomplish through hard work and compromise.
The Legislative Branch appropriations bill will provide the Congress
and its agencies with $4.3 billion to work with, which is a reduction
from the previous fiscal year. I have hope for more funds for the
Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office,
which have experienced increased demands from Members during these
budget-focused times. However, I am glad we restored funding for
agencies that were the targets of the most extreme cuts proposed in the
original House bill.
This conference report restores $18 million to the Government
Printing Office, $12 million to the Library of Congress, averting
layoffs the original House bill would have caused. Capitol Police
funding remains at last year's level of $340.1 million. It is the only
legislative branch agency that was not cut from last year's level.
This conference report includes language requiring the Chief
Administrative Officer and the Sergeant At Arms to take on more of a
leadership role in setting policies regarding district office security,
including helping Members renegotiate leases to secure more favorable
terms on security requirements. This bill provides the basic level of
funding for the leg branch of the government and should be sufficient
to keep current services in place. That is why I support this bill and
ask my colleagues to do the same.
I want to thank Chairman Crenshaw and his staff for the collegial
working relationship throughout this process: Liz Dawson, the majority
clerk; Chuck Turner and Jennifer Kisiah from the subcommittee; and
Michael Kirlin from his personal staff. I also want to thank my staff,
Shalanda Young, the minority clerk, and Mark Nakamoto from my personal
staff.
Mr. Speaker, while not perfect, this bill is the result of a lot of
hard work and compromise. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle.

{time} 1250

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a very hardworking member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I'd like to congratulate Chairman Rogers
and Ranking Member Dicks for an exceptionally hard job which yielded,
frankly, a very good product.
This bill spends less--$70 billion less--than the President requested
and $6 billion less than we spent last year. It's the second year in a
row we've actually cut discretionary spending.
The bill cuts by 5 percent the funding for EPA regulatory programs
which have passed some wildly unpopular and costly rules. The bill
eliminates 23 programs totaling more than $240 million. And while this
bill cuts wasteful spending, it actually focuses additional funds on
things that count--defending our country, helping some of our most
vulnerable and challenged citizens, and providing funds to educate some
of our most disadvantaged young people.
The bill provides a 1.6 percent pay increase for the military, as
requested by the President, and funds the Defense Health and Military
Family programs at $1.1 billion above FY2011 and $283 million above the
President's request.
Along with supporting our Armed Forces, this bill exceeds FY2011
levels for our veterans. With $58 billion in discretionary spending,
this bill fully funds $2.1 billion above last year's level for those
who have served our country.
In addition, the Indian Health Service is funded at $4.3 billion, an
increase of nearly 6 percent. I particularly want to thank Chairman
Simpson and Ranking Member Moran for their hard efforts. The original
House bill was actually even higher; it's our friends in the Senate who
actually reduced funding here. The House really did a great job in this
area.
Finally, I want to note TRIO funding was increased in a difficult
environment by $15 million.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It reprioritizes our spending away
from wasteful programs that don't work toward things that are truly
important

[[Page H9897]]

for the American people. I urge its passage. I thank my friends for
their hard work.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE. I yield to my friend from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I just want to commend the gentleman for his work in
support of Indian Country, both the Indian Health Service and the BIA.
You have been a tireless advocate. Our subcommittee on the Interior has
had bipartisan work on this issue, and I commend you for your strong
leadership on that important issue.
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman very much and appreciate that.
I urge passage of the bill.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Connecticut, the ranking member of the Labor, Health
and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, Congresswoman Rosa
DeLauro.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the ranking member. And I want to say a thank
you to my colleague, Congressman Dicks, and to the chairman, Mr.
Rogers, also to the staff, both majority and minority, for their
tireless work in this effort, including David Pomeranz, Steve Crane,
David Reich, Lisa Molyneux and Letty Mederos, Susan Frost as well. They
did unbelievable work in this effort.
I rise in support of this budget for FY2012. It funds the government
at a level consistent with the Budget Control Act without many of the
damaging and extraneous ideological riders that marked earlier efforts.
Make no mistake, there are real cuts here, including hard cuts to
vital programs like the LIHEAP program, the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program. Still, I believe this legislation has been
improved.
In terms of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the
agreement restores $2.9 billion in cuts made in the chairman's draft.
These restorations are key investments in job creation, education, and
the health and well-being of families that will lead us to recovery. We
know, especially as over 13 million of our fellow Americans look for
work, that investments in human capital like job training and
reemployment services are part of the core, essential role for
government. They help responsible people succeed. And I am pleased that
this agreement restores the 74 percent cut to job training programs
that was proposed in the original chairman's bill, which was never
considered before the committee.
Health care is no longer shortchanged. With an aging population and a
nursing shortage before us, we need to make wise investments in our
health workforce. The programs that help to train primary care doctors,
nurses, and other health providers, cut by 61 percent in the majority's
draft, are now only cut by 6 percent. Funding for vital mental health
services, once cut by 17 percent, are now only cut by 3 percent. And
this agreement retains key investments in the Affordable Care Act
implementation and in title X.
I'm glad to see the National Institutes of Health receive a funding
increase of $299 million; and a new National Center for Advancing
Translational Science, as proposed by Director Francis Collins, is
established. NIH can now keep funding life-saving research and pushing
the frontiers of medical knowledge.
Perhaps no other investments we make are as important as the ones we
make in our children. This agreement includes a $16 million increase
for the Childcare and Development Block Grant, providing desperately
needed aid to working parents for safe and reliable child care. It
provides a $424 million increase for Head Start, allowing our kids to
continue a path to academic success.
It includes a $60 million increase to title I, supporting schools
serving low-income children, and a $100 million increase to IDEA,
supporting children with special needs.
One of the hardest issues for this conference has been Pell Grants.
The agreement maintains the maximum grant amount of $5,550. For too
many students I have met, even a $100 cut would have derailed their
prospects for higher education. At the same time, we have made some
targeted cost-saving changes to the program that should eliminate the
funding shortfall for this year and perhaps next year as well.
I am pleased to see that the virtual elimination of the Corporation
for National and Community Service proposed in the majority's draft has
been rolled back. Instead of ending AmeriCorps, it will continue.
I intend to support this conference agreement and would encourage
others to do so as well.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia, the ranking member of the Military Construction and Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement. The
MILCON/VA section of the conference agreement includes a discretionary
total of $71.7 billion, a decrease of $1.4 billion below last year's
level and a decrease of $2.1 billion below the President's request.
For Military Construction, the conference agreement provides $13.1
billion for military construction projects. And reductions to the
budget request are possible because of savings on projects that were
appropriated in previous years.
However, even with these reductions, the agreement funds family
housing construction at $1.7 billion, which provides for a total of 48
new family housing units, 80 replacement units, and improvements to 216
family housing units.
For Veterans Affairs, the conference agreement provides a total of
$122.2 billion for the FY12 programs of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, of which $58.5 billion is discretionary funding.
The agreement also contains $52.5 billion in advance funding for the
VA, the identical level that was requested by the President for the VA
medical accounts.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that the conference agreement provides
$45.8 million for Arlington National Cemetery, which is $700,000 over
last year's level.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement fully funds the Armed
Forces Retirement Home request and includes $14.6 million for the Armed
Forces Retirement Home to facilitate the repairs at the D.C. campus to
repair damages sustained by the earthquake in August.
Mr. Speaker, let me just thank the committee and the subcommittee
staff for all of their hard work in putting the bill together in a
bipartisan, bicameral, cooperative way, taking leadership from our
chairman and our ranking member, who have worked tirelessly to get this
appropriations process back to regular order.
I urge the adoption of the conference report, and I urge all my
colleagues to support it. It's a good bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the next ranking member on the
Democratic side on the House Appropriations Committee.

{time} 1300

Ms. KAPTUR. I thank my dear friend and colleague Congressman Dicks.
I rise in support of this conference report.
This bill is welcome news and helps restore confidence that America
can govern. It is essential to economic growth and job creation in our
country, and the bill cuts overall discretionary spending by $7 billion
over last year and also $98 billion less than the President's FY12
budget proposal.
This bill demonstrates the Appropriations Committee is still one of
the few that properly functions in this institution, and I can't thank
enough Chairman Hal Rogers and Ranking Member Norm Dicks for their
bipartisan leadership and hard work, along with their staff, to bring
this House to regular order.
This legislation includes vital funding for the defense of our Nation
and our domestic imperative. The bill includes support for our Great
Lakes ports, as in Cleveland, Lorain, Sandusky, and Toledo, as well as
around the country, and invests in their infrastructure necessary to
modernize those facilities to increase our exports and increase jobs.

[[Page H9898]]

It also includes environmental restoration funding needed for the
Great Lakes to allow economic revitalization as we create more maritime
jobs and nature tourism. The bill keeps our commitment to establish
America's energy independence with robust investments in renewable
energy in solar, wind, and biomass. The investments in technology for
those represent not just jobs for today, but for tomorrow.
As we grow our economy forward, budget certainty matters for fiscal
year 2012. I urge my colleagues to support this so that we can govern
our Nation and the Nation's interests.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lee), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.
Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding and
also thank our chairman and ranking member and subcommittee chairs,
really, for bringing together a bipartisan bill to the floor. But I
cannot support the bill because, once again, poor and low-income
communities are taking the brunt of the terrible cuts.
While there are good provisions in this bill, what we have, however,
is a bill loaded with special interest, Tea Party Republican riders at
the expense of low-income people, especially women of color, right here
in Washington, D.C.
Cutting off low-income women in Washington, D.C. from access to the
same health and reproductive services available throughout the country
is really not critical to preventing a shutdown. Forcing the
continuation of abstinence-only sex education that fails to meet the
needs of young people, that's not critical to preventing the government
shutdown. Increasing the spread of HIV and hepatitis C through dirty
needles is not critical to preventing a government shutdown.
Finally, let me just say this bill continues to fund over $2 billion
a week, mind you, $2 billion a week on a war without end in
Afghanistan. We must allow the Afghan people to control their own
destiny and immediately begin to pull our great young men and women in
uniform out of harm's way.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 1 minute
remaining, and the gentleman from Kentucky has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from
Washington that I have no further requests for time.
Mr. DICKS. I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Guam (Ms.
Bordallo) for a colloquy.
Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman very much.
Section 2207 of the recently passed FY12 Defense authorization bill
restricts transfer of funding from the Department of Defense to support
civilian infrastructure requirements on Guam, except funding
specifically authorized in law.
Does the language of section 8110 of division A of this bill require
any further authorization?
Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentlelady from Guam for raising this
question.
It is our intent that section 8110 of division A of this bill has the
required authorization and should be executed by the Department of
Defense as specified in division A of this bill to support civilian
infrastructure requirements on Guam.
Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman for the clarification.
Mr. DICKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time and urge an ``aye'' vote on the measure.
Mr. DICKS. I urge an ``aye'' vote too.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference
Report on H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act. I support a
number of provisions included in this bill such as the $10 million for
the Gulf War Veterans' Illness Research Program. Yet I cannot support
legislation that includes billions of dollars for our military
operations overseas.
I remain concerned over the funding for the Overseas Contingency
Operations (OCO) fund at DoD and the State Department included in this
bill. H.R. 2055 includes a total of $126.3 billion for the OCO account,
which is used to support our military operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq. The U.S. has spent a total of 19 years combined in Iraq and
Afghanistan, at a total of more than $1.3 billion. As official military
operations in Iraq draw to a close, we have to note that Iraq is not
much closer to a democracy than it was when we first invaded the
country in 2003. Similarly, we would be foolish to think that our
support of the corrupt central government and continued military
intervention in Afghanistan would result in stability.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this appropriations bill
presents us with a number of difficult, if not outright conflicting,
choices. Certainly I and other members would prefer to have debated
each of these bills individually with an opportunity to offer
amendments.--6 of 12. The spending decisions being made today will have
far reaching implications for all Americans, whether it's access to a
community health center, quality classroom instruction or support for
local police and firefighters. Some of these priorities enjoy
bipartisan agreement, but some do not. We ought to have those debates,
Mr. Speaker, so the public can be more informed and have time to weigh
in with their thoughts to better inform our decisions.
In reviewing this bill, I once again come to the conclusion that the
Republican leadership in the House knows the cost of everything yet the
value of nothing. For example, the Energy and Water bill preserves
level funding for the renewable energy program to support research and
development of alternative fuels in support of America's energy
independence. Yet the same bill undercuts the foundation of our
Nation's economic innovation by cutting half the budget for the
Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) and reducing
funds for basic science research. Similarly, this bill slashes funding
for virtually every environmental safety initiative the federal
government has pursued to protect public safety, including those
promoting clean air and water. Thankfully, this bill maintains level
funding for the National Institutes of Health and our community health
centers, as such services will likely be in more demand due to unwise--
or unhealthy, to be more precise--decisions made elsewhere in the bill.
While this bill maintains our commitment to our servicemembers,
veterans, and their families, it actually undermines their hard work by
further hollowing out our international aid programs. The bill cuts $6
billion from two of the three pillars of our national security agenda:
diplomacy and development. While the bill provides new funding for
counterterrorism, humanitarian assistance and civilian programs in
Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, it cuts more than 15% from the State
Department budget and continues the disinvestment in USAID by putting a
freeze on hiring and closing 3 overseas missions. Such cuts jeopardize
the stability achieved in Iraq and Afghanistan and our engagement in
the power shift under way in the Middle East through the Arab Spring.
How can we expect to foster moderate political movements in the Middle
East if we don't invest in development and diplomacy?
The same foolhardy choices are applied with respect to assistance for
our local partners. This bill cuts assistance for our community first
responders by 40%, and it reduces federal support for local fire
station personnel and equipment by 17%. Our local police and fire
personnel represent the front lines of our homeland security, and the
federal government must continue to be a full partner in that effort.
The bill does, however, increase ever so slightly federal assistance
for local classrooms by boosting Title I funding and adding $100
million in special education aid. While the federal government still
falls considerably short of meeting its commitment of funding 40% of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, this bill inches us
closer and relieves pressure on local taxpayers to foot the bill for
this unfunded mandate.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, these are difficult choices that merit
further debate than this current process allows. This is certainly not
the bill I would have drafted, but it is the one we have been
presented. I believe the positives do outweigh the negatives ever so
slightly. Faced with an up-or-down vote to support this package or shut
down the federal government, I will unenthusiastically support this
bill. The public expects us to conduct the Nation's business, and this
bill does accomplish that. But the public also expects us to do it in a
responsible manner, and this process has been anything but that, and I
hope my Republican colleagues more fully engage in this debate on
spending priorities when Congress reconvenes next year. I suspect such
an exercise will better inform our public, which will better inform our
politics and our decisions.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the conference report accompanying H.R. 2055
clearly states that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has the ability
to create the Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group. I worked closely with
members of the House and Senate to include the funding for this
important panel and I am extremely pleased that it is now possible for
it to become a reality.
Despite numerous requests for Secretary Panetta to create this panel
using his existing

[[Page H9899]]

authority, he has steadfastly refused to do so. His letter of November
3, 2011, which I include for the Record, states that he believes
``fresh eyes'' have already been put on our mission and strategy in
Afghanistan. He neglects to mention whether his definition of ``fresh
eyes'' includes those who devised and implemented the current U.S.
strategy. It is clear that his strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan has
not yet been successful--and the American people are concerned about
the outcome.
I also include for the Record my initial letter to President Obama
outlining the importance of the Af/Pak Study Group, as well as letters
of support from prominent foreign policy experts. This panel presents
the Obama Administration with the opportunity to engage the brightest
minds outside of government in reviewing current strategy in South Asia
and bring their considerable experience to bear to ensure that we have
the best possible strategy going forward in this vitally important
region.
Mr. Speaker, Secretary Panetta now has clear ability and funding to
create the Afghanistan/Pakistan Study Group. I believe we owe it to our
servicemembers and their families to consider all opinions on how to
achieve success in Afghanistan in Pakistan.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, August 4, 2010.
Hon. Barack H. Obama,
The President, The White House, Washington DC.
Dear Mr. President: On September 14, 2001, following the
catastrophic and deliberate terrorist attack on our country,
I voted to go to war in Afghanistan. I stand by that decision
and have the utmost confidence in General Petraeus's proven
leadership. I also remain unequivocally committed to the
success of our mission there and to the more than 100,000
American troops sacrificing toward that end. In fact, it is
this commitment which has led me to write to you. While I
have been a consistent supporter of the war effort in both
Afghanistan and Iraq, I believe that with this support comes
a responsibility. This was true during a Republican
administration in the midst of the wars, and it remains true
today.
In 2005, I returned from my third trip to Iraq where I saw
firsthand the deteriorating security situation. I was deeply
concerned that Congress was failing to exercise the necessary
oversight of the war effort. Against this backdrop I authored
the legislation that created the Iraq Study Group (ISG). The
ISG was a 10-member bipartisan group of well-respected,
nationally known figures who were brought together with the
help of four reputable organizations--the U.S. Institute for
Peace, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, and the Baker
Institute for Public Policy at Rice University--and charged
with undertaking a comprehensive review of U.S. efforts
there. This panel was intended to serve as ``fresh eyes on
the target''--the target being success in Iraq.
While reticent at first, to their credit President Bush,
State Secretary Rice and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld came to
support the ISG, ably led by bipartisan co-chairs, former
Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee
Hamilton. Two members of your national security team,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon
Panetta, saw the merit of the ISG and, in fact, served on the
panel. Vice President Biden, too, then serving in the Senate,
was supportive and saw it as a means to unite the Congress at
a critical time. A number of the ISG's recommendations and
ideas were adopted. Retired General Jack Keane, senior
military adviser to the ISG, was a lead proponent of ``the
surge,'' and the ISG referenced the possibility on page 73.
Aside from the specific policy recommendations of the panel,
the ISG helped force a moment of truth in our national
conversation about the war effort.
I believe our nation is again facing such a moment in the
Afghanistan war effort, and that a similar model is needed.
In recent days I have spoken with a number of knowledgeable
individuals including former senior diplomats, public policy
experts and retired and active military. Many believe our
Afghanistan policy is adrift, and all agreed that there is an
urgent need for what I call an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study
Group (APSG): We must examine our efforts in the region
holistically, given Pakistan's strategic significance to
our efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban's presence in
that country as well, especially in the border areas.
This likely will not come as a surprise to you as commander
in chief. You are well acquainted with the sobering
statistics of the past several weeks--notably that July
surpassed June as the deadliest month for U.S. troops. There
is a palpable shift in the nation's mood and in the halls of
Congress. A July 2010 CBS news poll found that 62 percent of
Americans say the war is going badly in Afghanistan, up from
49 percent in May. Further, last week, 102 Democrats voted
against the war spending bill, which is 70 more than last
year, and they were joined by 12 members of my own party.
Senator Lindsay Graham, speaking last Sunday on CNN's ``State
of the Union,'' candidly expressed concern about an ``unholy
alliance'' emerging of anti-war Democrats and Republicans.
I have heard it said that Vietnam was not lost in Saigon;
rather, it was lost in Washington. While the Vietnam and
Afghanistan parallels are imperfect at best, the shadow of
history looms large. Eroding political will has
consequences--and in the case of Afghanistan, the stakes
could not be higher. A year ago, speaking before the Veterans
of Foreign War National Convention, you rightly said, ``Those
who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If
left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even
larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more
Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting . . .
this is fundamental to the defense of our people.'' Indeed it
is fundamental. We must soberly consider the implications of
failure in Afghanistan. Those that we know for certain are
chilling--namely an emboldened al-Qaeda, a reconstituted
Taliban with an open staging ground for future worldwide
attacks, and a destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Given these realities and wavering public and political
support, I urge you to act immediately, through executive
order, to convene an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group modeled
after the Iraq Study Group. The participation of nationally
known and respected individuals is of paramount importance.
Among the names that surfaced in my discussions with others,
all of whom more than meet the criteria described above, are
ISG co-chairs Baker and Hamilton; former Senators Chuck Robb,
Bob Kerrey and Sam Nunn; former Congressman Duncan Hunter;
former U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker, former Secretary of
Defense James Schlesinger, and General Keane. These names are
simply suggestions among a cadre of capable men and women, as
evidenced by the make-up of the ISG, who would be more than
up to the task.
I firmly believe that an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group
could reinvigorate national confidence in how America can be
successful and move toward a shared mission in Afghanistan.
This is a crucial task. On the Sunday morning news shows this
past weekend, it was unsettling to hear conflicting
statements from within the leadership of the administration
that revealed a lack of clarity about the end game in
Afghanistan. How much more so is this true for the rest of
the country? An APSG is necessary for precisely that reason.
We are nine years into our nation's longest running war and
the American people and their elected representatives do not
have a clear sense of what we are aiming to achieve, why it
is necessary and how far we are from attaining that goal.
Further, an APSG could strengthen many of our NATO allies in
Afghanistan who are also facing dwindling public support, as
evidenced by the recent Dutch troop withdrawal, and would
give them a tangible vision to which to commit.
Just as was true at the time of the Iraq Study Group, I
believe that Americans of all political viewpoints, liberals
and conservatives alike, and varied opinions on the war will
embrace this ``fresh eyes'' approach. Like the previous
administration's support of the Iraq Study Group, which
involved taking the group's members to Iraq and providing
high-level access to policy and decision makers, I urge you
to embrace an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group. It is always
in our national interest to openly assess the challenges
before us and to chart a clear course to success.
As you know, the full Congress comes back in session in
mid-September--days after Americans around the country will
once again pause and remember that horrific morning nine
years ago when passenger airlines became weapons, when the
skyline of one of America's greatest cities was forever
changed, when a symbol of America's military might was left
with a gaping hole. The experts with whom I have spoken in
recent days believe that time is of the essence in moving
forward with a study panel, and waiting for Congress to
reconvene is too long to wait. As such, I am hopeful you will
use an executive order and the power of the bully pulpit to
convene this group in short order, and explain to the
American people why it is both necessary and timely. Should
you choose not to take this path, respectfully, I intend to
offer an amendment by whatever vehicle necessary to mandate
the group's creation at the earliest possible opportunity.
The ISG's report opened with a letter from the co-chairs
that read, ``There is no magic formula to solve the problems
of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to
improve the situation and protect American interests.'' The
same can be said of Afghanistan.
I understand that you are a great admirer of Abraham
Lincoln. He, too, governed during a time of war, albeit a war
that pitted brother against brother, and father against son.
In the midst of that epic struggle, he relied on a cabinet
with strong, often times opposing viewpoints. Historians
assert this served to develop his thinking on complex
matters, Similarly, while total agreement may not emerge from
a study group for Afghanistan and Pakistan, I believe that
vigorous, thoughtful and principled debate and discussion
among some of our nation's greatest minds on these matters
will only serve the national interest. The biblical
admonition that iron sharpens iron rings true.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.
P.S. We as a nation must be successful in Afghanistan. We
owe this to our men and women in the military serving in
harm's way and to the American people.

[[Page H9900]]

____

Center for the Study of the

Presidency and Congress,

Washington, DC, June 1, 2011.
Hon. Frank Wolf,
U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Frank: To say that the May 2, 2011 targeted
elimination of Osama bin Laden by a team of U.S. Navy SEALs
was welcome news would be the understatement of the 21st
century. The death of a terrorist icon that had directed the
murder of thousands of American, European, and Muslim
civilians has also caused almost immediate speculation as to
what his demise will mean for the international mission in
Afghanistan.
Within hours of President Obama's announcement of bin
Laden's death, pundits and politicians from both the Right
and Left are calling for a speedier withdrawal in the wake of
the al-Qaeda leader's demise. However, many are concerned
that such a move would risk reversing the gains that have
been made by our nearly ten-year military effort and could
cause Afghanistan to once again remerge as a destabilizing
pariah that violates human rights and threatens international
security.
As the country becomes increasingly divided over the issue
of our involvement in Afghanistan, many questions have been
raised regarding our relationship with Pakistan. Despite
spending billions in aid and security assistance, America's
approval rating in Pakistan is a mere 17%. Furthermore the
discovery of Osama bin Laden in a compound located less than
a mile from the Pakistan Military Academy has dramatically
amplified concerns that elements of the Pakistani Inter-
Services Intelligence service may be maintaining links with
al-Qaeda and other violent extremist organizations. While
many understand that cutting off or reducing aid to Pakistan
would be risky, the American public is unlikely to tolerate
continued perceived double-dealing on the part of the
Pakistani security services. New creative and independent
thinking is needed to overcome the current deadlock.
As the country struggles to find the appropriate way
forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I am heartened by your
efforts to establish a bipartisan and independent
Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group that will take a
comprehensive look at America's current and future role in
the region.
I had the privilege of helping organize the Iraq Study
Group (ISG), which the proposed Af-Pak Study Group would be
modeled after, and feel that a similar such effort would be
of great help today.
Such a group can provide an effective unifying rallying
point that will enable the country to come together in
support of a comprehensive strategy that will guard our
interests in the region and foster a more stable and secure
world.
With warm regards,
Sincerely yours,
David Abshire.
____

Birmingham-Southern

College,

Birmingham, AL, July 25, 2011.
Congressman Frank R. Wolf,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Wolf: Thank you so much for your letter of
July, 20, 2011 forwarding me your letter to Secretary
Panetta. You asked for my thoughts on the proposed Af/Pak
Study Group and here they are:
I think you are spot on! It should be obvious to everyone
concerned that the time has come to do a professional
evaluation of the current policy in the region. When I
mention ``region'', I believe it is important to include
India. At the end of the day, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India
are inextricably linked. . . . you cannot establish policies
in a stove pipe manner. The Study Group will immediately
recognize that fact and accommodate it.
It is important to understand that conflict occurs at three
levels. . . . Strategic, Operational, and Tactical. Too often
we look at the tactical level . . . see the heroism and
accomplishments of our servicemen and women . . . and make
conclusions re. the conduct of the war. Unfortunately, that
is NOT the way to look at this current conflict. Like
Vietnam, we can do a solid job at the Tactical Level and lose
the war at the Operational and Strategic Levels. This is
where we find ourselves today in Afghanistan . . . and the
path to any kind of victory is closely linked to success in
Pakistan and India. The possibility of achieving such success
across all three countries is small . . . certainly following
the policies in place today (and yesterday.)
Again, I applaud your work and on behalf of those young men
and women who are sacrificing so far from home, I thank you.
Semper Fidelis,
Charles C. Krulak,
General, USMC (Ret.), 31th Commandant of the Marine Corps,
13th President, Birmingham-Southern College.
____

Secretary of Defense,

1000 Defense Pentagon,

Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Wolf: Thank you for your letters
regarding our strategy in Afghanistan and your proposal to
create an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group.
To address your main point, I have examined our policy with
fresh eyes, and I believe the current U.S. strategy is indeed
the best way forward. The United States and our Coalition
partners are seeing clear progress through our strategy in
Afghanistan, particularly in our core goal of disrupting,
dismantling, and ultimately defeating al-Qaida and its
extremist affiliates. Our surge forces, along with those of
our Allies and partners and the expanding Afghan National
Security Forces, have reversed the insurgency's momentum and
continue to build on our gains. There has also been a marked
decline in violence in Afghanistan so far in 2011, compared
to the same period last year. We have also made steady
progress in assisting Afghanistan's development of its own
forces, which have begun assuming the lead for security for
more than a quarter of the Afghan population, with the
transition of seven provinces and municipalities having
occurred this past summer.
I agree with your concern that one of the greatest risks to
the progress we have made is from terrorist and militant
groups who find safe havens in Pakistan. To that end, we are
working hard with Pakistan to improve the level of
cooperation to close these safe havens and promote the
emergence of a stable and durable political solution in
Afghanistan, which is beneficial not only to the United
States, but also to the region.
Given that the Coalition is making undeniable progress, the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I continue to think
that creating an Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group, as
described in your letter and amendment to the FY 2012 Defense
Appropriations bill, is not necessary. Our view is that the
establishment of such a group would divert attention and
resources from the implementation of our current strategy.
Additionally, this assessment requirement would duplicate
already ongoing, periodic assessments, such as the semi-
annual section 1230 ``Report on Progress Toward Security and
Stability in Afghanistan.''
In your letters, you also mention the work and writings of
Ambassador Peter Tomsen. In early October, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
Central Asia, David Sedney, spoke to Ambassador Tomsen at
length on a variety of issues, including Ambassador Tomsen's
recommendations in his book, The Wars of Afghanistan.
If you would like to discuss further the way forward in
Afghanistan and with Pakistan--and hear more about the
discussion with Ambassador Tomsen--please let the Department
know, and DASD David Sedney will provide you a comprehensive
brief.
Thank you again for your thoughtful letters, as well as for
your unwavering Support of our courageous men and women in
uniform.
Sincerely,
Leon E. Panetta,
Secretary of Defense.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to clarify the intent of
language included in the conference report on H.R. 2055, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY12, regarding the management of
forest roads.
In May of 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a final
ruling in NEDC v. Brown declaring for the first time that forest roads
used for timber management are point sources and must have permits
under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The State of Oregon and the
industry defendants have now asked the Supreme Court to review this
decision. On Monday, December 12, the Supreme Court issued an order
seeking the views of the Solicitor General signaling the possibility
that the Court will review the case. However, the Ninth Circuit's
decision remains in effect.
Section 429 of Division E exempts stormwater discharges from forest
roads and other forestry activities from any such permit requirement
for the rest of the fiscal year. This will ensure that neither EPA nor
any state is forced to impose a permitting requirement while the
Supreme Court is considering whether to review the Ninth Circuit's
decision. With such an abrupt change in interpretation of the Act, it
is important that there be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to
weigh in. We encourage the Supreme Court to proceed with its
determination of whether to review of the case, and this provision
should in no way deter the Court's proceedings.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, Yucca Mountain is the
repository for our nation's high level defense nuclear waste and spent
nuclear fuel under current law. This conference report does not change
that fact. Regardless of the politically-based preferences of the Obama
Administration, the Senate Majority Leader or the Chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, terminating Yucca Mountain would require
Congress to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Mr. Speaker, if it in fact were the position of Congress to support
termination of Yucca Mountain, surely we would have acted to amend the
law. Congress has not amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act--or even
considered terminating Yucca Mountain.
Decades were spent studying potential locations for a national
repository--and Yucca Mountain was determined to be the best solution.
Congress designated Yucca Mountain in 1987 as the national repository
and has voted

[[Page H9901]]

to reaffirm that decision several times. There is no science-based or
safety-based reason to abandon Yucca Mountain.
Those who work on nuclear waste issues will undoubtedly note that
this bill no longer contains explicit language adopted by the House
that prohibits the use of funds to close Yucca Mountain. Explicit
language like this, though, is not required as it continues to be
illegal for the Department of Energy to terminate the project--and thus
illegal for the Department to spend federal dollars for that purpose.
The Department of Energy has funding leftover from previous years
should it choose to comply with the law and continue the Yucca Mountain
licensing process regardless of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the final bill clarifies that the Chairman
of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission cannot terminate any project
without a majority vote of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should not
be overlooked. Over a year ago, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
rejected the Department of Energy's motion to withdraw the Yucca
license application. That ruling should have been finalized after the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted sustain it with two-to-two tie vote
with one Commissioner abstaining. The Chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission refused to release the results of their vote on
the matter for almost a year. Instead, the Chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has acted unilaterally to shut down the ongoing
review of the Yucca Mountain application. This unprecedented,
bureaucratic and orchestrated stall tactic has been questioned by
Congress and former and current members of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Unfortunately, in congressional hearings just this week we learned
that this abuse of power is the rule--not the exception--when it comes
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman. It extends well beyond
the policy and safety issue of Yucca Mountain and instead, absent
serious changes, it appears to be putting the entire mission of the NRC
at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I'm hopeful that Congress will continue vigorous
oversight over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and continue to take
all actions possible to ensure that the federal government keeps its
existing legal obligation to move forward with Yucca Mountain.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference
agreement. While it has many flaws, it represents a substantial
improvement from the grossly inadequate House spending bills.
Our top priority must be to grow our economy and create jobs, and the
underlying bill makes critical investments, including:
Providing the National Institutes of Health with an additional $299
million, which will inject $45 million into New York's economy;
Investing in early childhood education by maintaining Head Start
slots, child care grants, and continuing quality education programming
by supporting the Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
Increasing resources for the two major federal K-12 grants, Title I
and IDEA;
Continuing the maximum Pell Grant award of $5,500, which helps
approximately nine million students afford college; and
Restoring most of the proposed Republican reductions to youth and
adult job training services.
The bill also largely rejects the Republican assault on women's
health. Investing in family planning saves taxpayer dollars--every
dollar spent on family planning saves nearly four dollars in Medicaid
expenses--yet Republicans attempted to eliminate the program. The final
agreement restores most of the funds.
The conference report drops many of the mean-spirited policy riders
aimed at women, including those that would have prevented Planned
Parenthood from offering preventive care, allowed health professionals
to deny safe and legal care to women, blocked funding for the United
Nations Population Fund, and restored the global gag rule. While
removing these riders is a positive step, unfortunately the final bill
continues to prohibit the District of Columbia from using its own, non-
federal funds for a full range of reproductive health services.
Another area where the bill is significantly improved compared to the
extremely poor House proposal is homeland security, although it may
still be insufficient.
In these difficult fiscal times, federal homeland security resources
must be prioritized for those areas that face the highest threat of an
attack. I am pleased that the final agreement includes altered language
to ensure funds are distributed by the Secretary on the basis of
threat, vulnerability and consequence.
However, I am concerned about practical implementation of this new
block grant as it combines the State Homeland Security Grant Program,
which has a statutory minimum funding requirement for each state, with
risk-based programs such as the Urban Area Security Initiative.
The conference report continues funding for the Securing the Cities
program, a vital initiative building the capability for New York's
first responders to detect illicit radiological materials and weapons,
which is a top priority for Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, and
me.
It is unfortunate that during an economic crisis, some are fixated on
mining near the Grand Canyon, eliminating clear air protections, and
prioritizing fossil fuel technology. Ultimately the most egregious
environmental riders were removed, but we must do more to invest in
clean, renewable energy sources that will create high-paying research,
development, manufacturing, and servicing jobs and increase our
competitiveness in the global marketplace.
I am pleased that the Small Business Administration receives an
additional $189 million to support small businesses, provide disaster
assistance, and improve access to capital. In Westchester and Rockland
Counties, I have seen firsthand what government can do to create jobs.
Small Business Administration loan programs help economic development
organizations provide micro-loans to emerging small businesses, and SBA
7(a) and 504 loans help small businesses receive access to capital to
expand the create jobs.
In addition, Westchester and Rockland Counties benefit from the Long
Island Sound, which contributes almost $5 billion a year to the
regional economy through boating, commercial and sport fishing, and
tourism. This bill provides nearly $4 million for the EPA to continue
its program to clean the Long Island Sound and strengthen its ecosystem
for generations to come, as well as funds to clean up and improve
navigable waterways, including the Hudson River.
As the ranking member of the subcommittee on State and Foreign
Operations, the bill will help maintain our global leadership, protect
national security and promote economic growth.
Our wise investments in better health and education systems, economic
opportunity in the developing world, humanitarian assistance,
international financial institutions, development assistance, economic
support funds, and international family planning will help to save
lives, develop the next generation of U.S. trading partners to boost
job growth domestically, and confront the conditions that foster the
radicalism and instability that threaten the long-term security of the
United States.

This bill also fully funds our agreements with vital allies including
Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and supports governance and development
activities in Egypt to aid the transition to democracy.
However, we do not write blank checks. Stringent conditions on
continued assistance for Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, Pakistan and
Afghanistan will help ensure accountability and responsible use of tax-
payer dollars.
The bill is far from perfect, but it is a reasonable compromise. I
urge your support.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
reauthorization of the Lautenberg Amendment, a lifeline for Iranian
Jews, Christians, Baha'is and other religious minorities under threat
of the Iranian regime.
Life in Iran for Jews, Christians and Baha'is is dangerous. Each
year, the State Department cites Iran as a ``Country of Particular
Concern'' for its ``systematic and egregious violations of religious
freedom.'' President Ahmadinejad has engaged in a campaign of virulent
anti-Semitism, and according to the 2011 Annual Report of the United
States Commission on International Religious Freedom, ``Since the
disputed June 12, 2009 elections, human rights and religious freedom
conditions in Iran have regressed to a point not seen since the early
days of the Islamic revolution.'' The regime has a history of targeting
religious minorities for harassment, imprisonment or worse.
The Lautenberg Amendment provides an escape route for these
vulnerable individuals. First enacted in 1989, and extended to include
Iran in 2003, the provision establishes a presumption of refugee
eligibility for certain categories of historically religiously
persecuted minorities.
The Fiscal Year 2011 funding measure only authorized the program for
45 days, leaving thousands of Iranians seeking escape at great risk
when it expired on June 1. Although I oppose this Fiscal Year 2012
spending bill due to its deep cuts to programs, and its riders
prohibiting the use of federal funds for reproductive health services
in the District of Columbia, needle exchange programs and enforcement
of light bulb efficiency standards, I welcome the reinstatement of this
critical provision.
Our nation was founded by individuals escaping religious persecution.
Their experience, and desire to practice their beliefs freely,
undergirds our shared values of religious liberty and tolerance. The
United States has a long and proud history of welcoming groups escaping
religious discrimination--and emigrating so that they may worship
freely--and the Lautenberg Amendment is an extension of this tradition.
I applaud the reauthorization of this critical program.

[[Page H9902]]

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, The nation's fiscal footing is serious
business. It is too bad, then, that so much of the conversation around
funding the federal government was consumed by policy riders and petty
projects championed by narrow interest groups. Congress should be
investing in the foundations of American prosperity and the
infrastructure that supports the success of individual Americans.
Rebuilding and renewing our nation's badly eroded infrastructure,
strengthening our nation's healthcare system, protecting our
environment, streamlining and reforming the Department of Defense, and
ensuring that our financial watchdogs have the resources they need to
rein in financial bad actors are all necessary investments and key
obligations of our nation's government. I'm pleased that this funding
package dropped many of the damaging and narrow riders that would have
hurt our environment, women, and our diplomatic relationships, and,
while I am still disappointed that Congress could not do more, this
compromise marks a step forward from the terrible choices outlined in
the Republican budget earlier this year.

Defense

One of the greatest areas of disappointment for me in this
legislation is defense spending. This bill provides more funding for
our military than nearly the rest of the world combined, and represents
a missed opportunity for much needed reform. The greatest threat to our
future is losing control of our ability to make tough decisions that
will enable us to sustain our military and, more importantly, to
sustain the economy. Wasteful weapons programs that continue to arm us
for the Cold War, unsustainable deployment strategies, and the tragic
ongoing funding for an unwinnable war in Afghanistan could have been
addressed. Sadly, this bill fails to set down a marker for real change,
and forfeits and opportunity to lead responsibly.

Education

I am pleased that this bill protects the Pell Grant program and
maintains the current $4,860 maximum. In addition, the small increases
in IDEA and Title I funding, while far less than what are necessary,
are a significant improvement compared to earlier Republican proposals.
While many of the programs are facing cuts, I appreciate the continued
funding for the Arts in Education program, as well as the programs that
support teacher development and special education.

Environment and Energy

With regard to environment and energy, this bill could have been
worse. I'm pleased that many of the most egregious riders were removed
from the Interior-Environment and Energy and Water titles. It is
inappropriate to use the appropriations process to make policy and
score political points. I am strongly opposed to the legislative riders
that remain, including language that would stop the Department of
Energy from enforcing new efficiency standards for light bulbs. These
standards stemmed from a non-controversial and bi-partisan initiative
in 2005 and this rider is sadly indicative of how partisan and
politically-motivated the legislative process has become.
I am also extremely disappointed in the funding levels for important
environmental and public health protections. The Environmental
Protection Agency suffers an almost 20 percent cut, including
significant reductions for Clean Water and Drinking Water State
Revolving Funds and climate and air research programs that are used by
states. These reductions undermine the Federal partnership with local
communities and will make it more difficult to clean the air and water
and protect important public lands.
While overall I am concerned about the funding levels for the
Environmental Protection Agency, I am pleased that the Committee
maintained funding for EPA's Office of Smart Growth, part of the
Interagency Partnership between HUD, DOT and EPA. The funds allocated
to the Office of Smart Growth and the Interagency Partnership recognize
the model that the Partnership presents. At a time of dwindling
government funds, we need to ensure that our programs are working in
concert, that we reduce red tape when possible, and that we are
encouraging communities to use federal dollars to address multiple
areas: economic development, public health, transportation planning,
environmental protection, affordable housing and community planning. I
am pleased that the Committee has recognized the importance of the
Office of Smart Growth and its associated offices at HUD and DOT.
With bipartisan support including that of President George W. Bush,
Congress amended the Lacey Act--which bars trade in illegal wildlife
products--in 2008 to include a ban on illegally harvested wood. These
amendments have helped U.S. businesses compete on a level playing
field, saved over $1 billion annually, and protected thousands of U.S.
jobs. Crucial to continuing these successes comes from investing in the
enforcement of this law. I am happy to see $200 million for
enforcement, but it's my belief that we ought to be making a greater
investment.

Financial Services

Excessive risk-taking by banks coupled with lax regulations
contributed to the financial crisis that devastated millions of
families. Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act to give federal regulatory
agencies the tools they need to protect consumers and the global
financial system. This bill increases the resources of the Securities
Exchange Commission by 8 percent, which will aid enforcement and
implementation of Dodd-Frank. Despite some improvements, I retain
significant concerns with the legislation. I urge my colleagues to
continue buttressing the budgets of critical agencies like the Internal
Revenue Service, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission, to ensure adequate policing of
financial markets and limit the risk of another global financial
collapse.

Public Broadcasting

The omnibus legislation takes a refreshing break from partisan
politics when it comes to making a critical investment in our public
broadcasting system. After a long year of fighting hard to protect
funding and to depoliticize this issue, I am extremely pleased to see
$445 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, CPB, the
advanced appropriation for CPB, Fiscal Year 2013 funding untouched, and
flat-level funding for Ready to Learn, a program which brings award-
winning educational content into underserved classrooms.

Unexploded Ordnance

As the founder and co-chairman of the Unexploded Ordnance, UXO,
Caucus, which aims to raise awareness in Congress of the heath, safety,
and environmental risks of UXO and the challenges faced by communities
and the federal government to clean up UXO on former military sites, I
am very pleased to see our government willing to lead by example and
invest in necessary environmental cleanup. For too long, former
military bases are left littered with dangerous, unexploded munitions
and toxic chemicals. The government has a responsibility to clean up
theses sites and return the land to the local community so it can put
it to use and boost their economy.

Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene

Water is essential to just about every kind of development
assistance. If developing countries don't have access to clean water or
adequate sanitation facilities, it doesn't matter how many schools we
build or vaccines we pass out. Those investments are wasted because
children can't learn if they have to stay home to collect water, or
can't ingest retroviral medications because of waterborne disease.
Water must be a priority in any development discussion, and I extremely
pleased to see this legislation do just that by setting aside $315
million to provide greater access for the world's poorest.
It is vital that Congress renew its focus on investing in the
infrastructure that underpins America's growth. I reluctantly support
this legislation but I urge my colleagues to redouble their efforts to
renew and rebuild America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 500, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the conference report.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas
and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
will be postponed.

____________________