[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.

                          ____________________