[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21326-21332]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES 
              APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to consideration of the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 2055, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to 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, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to 
     the same with an amendment and the Senate agree to the same. 
     Signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of Thursday, December 15, 2011.)
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 15 minutes of debate with 5 minutes each for the Senator from 
Hawaii, Mr. Inouye; the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran; and the 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the omnibus bill the Senate considers this 
morning represents a victory for compromise, a victory for American 
taxpayers, and a victory for the appropriations process.
  The measure before us funds everything from our men and women in 
uniform to students who strive to improve their future through higher 
education, from environmental protection to protecting our children 
from harmful products, and from homeland security to the Securities and 
Exchange Commission.
  With the exception of the Department of Defense, all these agencies 
have been running on a continuing resolution for well over a year. Mr. 
President, this must stop because it is no way to run a government, 
particularly one that must learn to do more with less. How can an 
agency be more efficient when it is operating under budget plans that 
were developed 2 or even 3 years ago?
  Last year, the Congress enacted only one appropriations measure--the 
Defense bill. This year, we have passed a minibus containing three 
bills, and we are now considering the final package incorporating the 
nine remaining bills. While it is true we again fall short of regular 
order, it is also true, if the Senate passes this measure and the 
President signs it into law, we will have succeeded in enacting each of 
our bills prior to the end of the calendar year for the first time 
since 2009.
  I would note for my colleagues that in the Senate, the Appropriations 
Committee reported 11 bills, 9 of them with overwhelming bipartisan 
support, and by that I mean 30 to 0 or 29 to 1. We moved four of our 
bills across the Senate floor with an opportunity for every Senator to 
provide amendments. We accomplish all of this at a time when 
partisanship is high and the desire by some to delay even the most 
innocuous of bills has made it difficult to get any measure to the 
President.
  As chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, I would like to take a few 
minutes to discuss this portion of the bill.
  The Omnibus appropriations bill includes $633.3 billion for the 
Department of Defense. This amount includes a $20.8 billion reduction 
from the President's request for the base defense budget and a 
reduction of $2.5 billion from the overseas contingency operations 
request.
  Although these substantial reductions in the defense budget mean many 
tough decisions had to be made, I wish to assure my colleagues that all 
recommendations in the Defense bill were made in a fully bipartisan, 
bicameral manner.
  Most importantly, let me assure my colleagues this agreement takes 
care of our men and women in uniform and their families, fully supports 
military readiness, protects the forces, and maintains our 
technological edge. It complies with the earmark moratorium and 
contains no congressionally directed spending items.
  At the same time, it reins in defense spending and takes important 
steps to improve the Department's fiscal accountability. The conference 
agreement recommends 775 reductions to individual programs primarily 
due to program terminations or delays or changes to policies of 
programs since the submission of the budget 10 months ago.
  As the chairman of the full committee, I am proud of the work done on 
these nine bills by the Appropriations Committee, its members, and its 
staff, each of whom have worked diligently late into the night for many 
months to arrive to this point. All of the subcommittee chairmen and 
ranking members should be recognized for their leadership and 
achievement in completing these nine remaining bills.
  I also wish to recognize the dedicated staff on both sides of the 
aisle for their months of effort and their commitment to completing 
their individual bills.
  Mr. President, this is a strong, bipartisan bill, and I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes and send it to the 
President for his signature.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me say I am pleased to join the 
chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, in 
urging approval of the Omnibus appropriations bill as well as the bill 
to provide funds for disaster relief. These bills fully comply with the 
requirements of the Budget Control Act. The process for reviewing 
requests for provisions in this bill were held in open public hearings. 
Senators testified before our committee. Others from around the country 
came to Washington to express their views.
  Together with appropriations bills that have already been enacted, 
the omnibus brings appropriations for the basic operations of our 
government to $1.043 trillion. The disaster bill provides an additional 
$8 billion for disaster relief in response to damages incurred from 
floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes that have plagued much of the country 
during the spring and summer months. These funds are within the limits 
established in the Budget Control Act, specifically for disaster 
relief. Total discretionary spending carried in all of the fiscal year 
2012 appropriations bills will be $31 billion below last year's level.
  I would have to say our committee opened its hearing rooms to those 
who wanted to express views on the funding levels of all of the 
programs that were important throughout our Federal budget process. 
There are some dramatic reductions in spending, such as the Independent 
Payment Advisory Board and the co-op program created in the health care 
bill. We zeroed out funding for some of the energy credit subsidy 
provisions of this bill. That was hard to do, but savings were needed 
and the committee responded to those needs.
  The bill eliminates 22 programs in the Labor-HHS chapter for a 
savings of over $\1/4\ billion. But we don't hear about that. People 
don't brag about reducing funding. But this committee did that because 
it was responsible, in our judgment, to do it.
  I am very pleased to have had the honor of working closely with the 
chairman of the committee, one of the finest Members of this Senate, 
and we urge the approval of this legislation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.

[[Page 21327]]


  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before my friend from Arizona speaks, I ask 
unanimous consent that the next three votes in order be 10 minutes in 
duration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to yield 2 minutes of my 5 
minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Here we are again, a bill that is 1,221 pages long that not one 
Member of this body has read. These 1,221 pages represent $915 billion 
in taxpayer money. Yet here we are with not one amendment. We do, 
however, have 15 minutes of debate in which to consider a document that 
is 1,221 pages long, representing $915 billion of taxpayer money, which 
is filled with unauthorized, unrequested money.
  Now, I haven't had a chance, like the rest of my colleagues, to look 
at all of this 1,200-page bill, but we have looked at the defense 
section. There is $3.5 billion of unrequested, unauthorized funding by 
the authorizing committee--projects such as this one for Guam.
  Here are a couple of my favorites. You thought the bridge to nowhere 
was bad? Well, there are 53 civilian schoolbuses and 53 repair kits for 
$10.7 million and $12.7 million for a cultural artifacts repository. 
That is in the name of defense. That is in the name of defense--
schoolbuses and a cultural artifact repository.
  Here is $100 million for the Next Generation Bomber, which the Air 
Force says they do not want and they do not need. How about this 
cockamamie outfit--the Combat Dragon, which will be crop dusters 
equipped with weapons. Or the C-17s--$225 million additional for C-17s 
that long ago the military said they did not need.
  There is $3.5 billion just in the DOD provisions alone. It is 
outrageous. It is outrageous.
  I have amendments associated with this bill that will save the 
taxpayers billions of dollars. But, never mind, because we are going to 
go home for Christmas.
  Well, let me tell you, I am going home to a State where they do not 
have enough in the food banks to take care of the homeless this year. I 
am going home to a State where half of the homes are underwater. Yet 
what have we done? We have just wasted billions and billions and 
billions of taxpayer money on projects that are unneeded, unwanted, and 
unrequested.
  This system is broken. This system is broken. We should have taken up 
these bills one by one, with amendments, with debate and discussion. I 
want to tell the majority leader and the Republican leader that next 
year, we will have a plan, a group of us, to say we must do that.
  We owe it to the taxpayers of America.
  I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I have a question for my colleagues. Are we proud of this 
process? Have we fulfilled the responsibility to the citizens of this 
country with this process? Nobody can answer yes to that. And yet 
nothing seems to change.
  You know, $3.5 billion worth of phony earmarks totally puts an 
earmark ban on its head. The idea that parochialism trumps our Nation's 
vital interests puts our responsibility and our oath on its head.
  I know the hearts of everybody here. They are great. The intentions 
are great. With this bill, we have failed America. We failed America in 
the process, we failed America in our oath. This next year is going to 
be much more difficult than anybody can anticipate. At a time when we 
are facing our national survival, business as usual occurs. That is a 
reflection of lousy leadership by all of us, including me. It means I 
didn't make my case big enough about what the priorities should be in 
our country.
  It is a great time for reflection. We are going to go home. We are 
going to pass this bill that is going to be far less than what this 
country needs in terms of its integrity and its actions. Hopefully, we 
will think and return with a renewed spirit to fix the ship of state 
and do what is in the best interest of the Nation, not what is in the 
best interest of our parochial political careers.
  I yield the floor.


                              boiler mact

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I would like to thank the senior Senator 
from Alaska and the senior Senator from Tennessee for joining me to 
discuss an issue of great concern to manufacturers across the country, 
the Environmental Protection Agency's Boiler MACT regulations. I am 
pleased to serve with both Senators on the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee on which the Senator from Alaska serves as the Ranking 
Member.
  It has been our shared goal to ensure that rules crafted by the EPA 
with regard to industrial boilers be achievable, affordable, and 
protective of public health and the environment while not costing 
thousands of jobs that we can ill-afford to lose. Unfortunately, EPA 
did not begin its rulemaking with these goals in mind.
  To provide EPA with the time the agency itself said it needed to 
rewrite the rules to better serve the public interest, I introduced the 
EPA Regulatory Relief Act earlier this year, which now has the support 
of 41 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. A nearly identical 
bill passed the House of Representatives with bipartisan support this 
fall.
  With the reconsideration process, EPA has taken steps to respond to 
some of the concerns raised by U.S. manufacturers. EPA's re-proposed 
rules, however, still do not address the serious and real concerns of 
the mills that will be most directly affected by these regulations. 
Legislative action is still needed to ensure achievable rules, to allow 
adequate compliance time, and to reduce the risk to business posed by 
pending litigation.
  For these reasons, I was very troubled when the statement of the 
managers for Division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 
included the following:

       Boiler MACT.--The conferees are encouraged by the outcome 
     of EPA's reconsideration of the Boiler MACT rule and offer no 
     directives regarding Boiler MACT standards. The proposed rule 
     addresses substantive concerns by including additional 
     flexibility with respect to compliance costs, and a biomass 
     exemption.

  Could the Senator from Alaska clarify that this language in no way is 
an endorsement by the conferees of any particular rulemaking concerning 
the Boiler MACT issue?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. As a cosponsor of S. 1392, the EPA Regulatory Reform 
Act, I know how important this issue is to my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle. The Senator is correct that this language is not intended 
by the conferees to convey an endorsement of any EPA Boiler MACT 
rulemaking proposal.
  Ms. COLLINS. I thank the senior Senator from Alaska for clarifying 
the intent of this language. I remain committed to working with my 
Senate colleagues and the EPA to help ensure that the Boiler MACT rules 
are crafted to protect public health without harming the forest 
products industry, which is the lifeblood of many small, rural 
communities. Would my friend the senior Senator from Tennessee, who is 
also an original co-sponsor of the Boiler MACT legislation, like to 
address this disappointing conference language?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. This issue is of particular importance to me as well. 
I strongly object to the language included in the Interior 
Appropriations bill regarding Boiler MACT. The Boiler MACT is an 
unworkable regulation that will reduce pollutants like mercury, which 
is good policy, but forces those reductions in a way that is not 
realistic for companies to comply. This regulation could result in the 
loss of 340,000 jobs nationwide and cost Tennessee companies $530 
million. My support for the Omnibus bill does not change my position on 
this issue, and I will continue to push for the passage of strong 
bipartisan legislation that will overturn the terrible Boiler MACT 
regulation and find a better way to accomplish the pollution reductions 
that are needed. I thank Senator Collins for her leadership on this 
issue and I also

[[Page 21328]]

appreciate the Senator from Alaska clarifying the intent of this 
language.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. chairman, as Chairman of the Department of State and 
Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I want to speak briefly about the 
agreement that I and the ranking member, Senator Lindsey Graham, have 
reached with the House and that is reflected in division I of this 
Omnibus bill.
  I want to thank Senator Graham, along with House Subcommittee chair 
Kay Granger and ranking member Nita Lowey and their staffs, for working 
in such a bipartisan way to resolve our many differences. It is a good 
example of how a divided Congress can deal with controversial issues 
and produce an outcome that protects a broad range of interests.
  The Department of State and Foreign Operations conference agreement 
is a compromise. It is neither a Democratic nor Republican bill. It 
will not make anyone completely happy. But while it does not include 
everything that I or Senator Graham wanted, it does a good job of 
addressing the key national security needs of the country.
  This is a must-pass bill. The alternative is another year of a 
continuing resolution, which would force drastic cuts in funding for 
programs about which Republicans and Democrats feel strongly.
  This conference agreement does many things. It supports the Nation's 
counterterrorism efforts in South Asia, the Horn of Africa, and East 
Asia; responds to turbulent events in the Middle East and north Africa 
and threats on the Mexican border; combats transnational crime, piracy 
of intellectual property, and the denial of fundamental freedoms; 
promotes access for U.S. companies to foreign markets; operates and 
secures our embassies and consulates that serve millions of Americans 
traveling, working, and studying overseas; preserves U.S. influence in 
key international organizations and alliances; supports economic 
development, governance, and the rule of law in Africa, Latin America, 
and Asia; and responds to a massive famine in Somalia, floods in El 
Salvador, and other humanitarian disasters.
  We do this and much more with a base budget allocation that is $8.7 
billion below the President's request and a combined base and overseas 
contingency operations total that is $6.1 billion below the President's 
request.
  These are not Democratic or Republican issues. The funds in this 
conference agreement will determine whether the United States remains 
the global leader it has been since the Second World War.
  Just as past generations rallied to meet the formidable challenges of 
the Great Depression, the Nazis, and the Cold War, we will bear 
responsibility if we fail to meet the challenges of today.
  It is no wonder that other countries--our allies and our 
competitors--are spending more each year to project their influence 
around the world and to compete in the global marketplace.
  Our leadership is being challenged unlike at any time since the Cold 
War. In Latin America, which is a larger market for U.S. exports than 
any other region except the European Union, our share is shrinking 
while China's is growing. It is the same story everywhere.
  There is simply no substitute for U.S. global leadership. The world 
is changing profoundly, and we cannot afford to retrench or succumb to 
isolationism.
  The funding in this conference agreement enables us to engage with 
our allies and deter our adversaries and competitors. It is similar to 
what was reported by the Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan vote 
of 28 to 2. For those who are focused on reducing Federal spending, it 
cuts base spending by $6 billion below the fiscal year 2011 continuing 
resolution. It freezes spending or scales back many Department of State 
and U.S. Agency for International Development operations and programs 
and will force reductions in planned expenditures.
  To the extent that there are funding increases in this bill, they are 
primarily due to the transition from military to civilian operations in 
Iraq which will mean billions of dollars in savings to American 
taxpayers, and to meet pledges to the international financial 
institutions.
  I doubt there is a single Member of Congress who does not care if the 
United States becomes a second-or third-rate power. As a Vermonter, I 
know the people of my State want the United States to live up to its 
ideals, to set an example for the rest of the world. We expect the 
United States to lead, to build alliances, to help American companies 
compete successfully, and to protect the interests and security of its 
citizens.
  Yet there are unmistakable signs that our global influence is already 
waning. It is not preordained that the United States will remain the 
world's dominant power. As former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice 
said, ``If we don't lead, somebody else will.''
  We need to stop acting like these investments do not matter; that the 
State Department is not important; that we do not need the United 
Nations; that what happens in Brazil, Russia, the Philippines, Somalia, 
or other countries does not matter; and that global threats to the 
environment, public health, and safety will somehow be solved by 
others.
  This conference agreement balances our priorities. Again, funding for 
these programs was requested by Republicans and Democrats.
  This country is at a crossroads. We can retreat from the world, as 
some in the other body seem to want while China and our other 
competitors continue to expand their influence, or we can remain a 
leader. The conference agreement adopts the latter course, and Members 
on both sides of the aisle deserve credit for that.
  Mr. President, the funding in this bill is strongly supported by the 
Department of Defense. Along with the U.S. military, it is the best 
form of insurance the American people have.
  Finally, I want to thank Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran, 
as well as the majority and minority leaders for their support in 
completing this omnibus bill.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this omnibus appropriations bill funds 
the Federal Government through September 30, 2012, at the level of 
spending agreed to this past August in the Budget Control Act, which 
reduces overall spending by $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years.
  If Congress continues to follow the terms of the Budget Control Act, 
discretionary spending--which is 39 percent of the Federal budget--will 
increase at about the rate of inflation over the next nine years.
  Unfortunately, mandatory entitlement spending--which is 55 percent of 
the Federal budget--is out of control and is growing at the rate of 3 
to 4 times inflation over the next 9 years according to the Bipartisan 
Policy Center.
  There are some good reasons to support this spending bill.
  One good reason to support the bill is to support House Republicans. 
Now that they are in the majority, they are changing the priorities of 
the spending bills in important places, and that is a good start at 
reducing spending and changing the priorities of the government.
  Another good reason is that the bill is consistent with the Budget 
Control Act. The Omnibus brings total discretionary spending to $1.043 
trillion, and it brings total disaster spending to $10.4 billion. Both 
of those figures are consistent with the Budget Control Act and are a 
good first step toward getting discretionary spending under control 
over the next decade.
  The bill also supports several important national priorities: It 
provides an additional $5.1 billion for defense and a $338 million 
increase for nuclear weapons modernization; increases border security; 
fully funds veterans' healthcare; and shows Congress can lead by 
example by cutting our own budget by 5.2 percent.
  The bill denies the administration carte blanche on running the 
government and allows Congress to set priorities as it should in our 
constitutional system. The omnibus cuts the Environmental Protection 
Agency's budget by $233 million, cuts the National Labor Relations 
Board's budget by $4 million,

[[Page 21329]]

and supports the development of Small Modular Reactors.
  This year there have been 12 disasters that caused more than $1 
billion in damage--the highest on record. Families are struggling to 
recover from historic tornado outbreaks, flooding, wildfires, and other 
natural disasters in virtually every part of the country.
  The omnibus brings total disaster spending for fiscal year 2012 to 
$10.4 billion. The Budget Control Act allows Congress to spend up to an 
additional $11.3 billion in fiscal year 2012 for disasters. Although 
this means there is only $900 million left to address any additional 
disasters in fiscal year 2012, it shows that Congress is starting to 
take the issue of spending and debt seriously by living within an 
agreed upon framework for total spending.
  Even though the Budget Control Act does not require disaster spending 
to be offset--some argue that it should be--the Budget Control Act 
ensures disaster spending is really for disasters and keeps Congress 
from spending more than the historical average. The House has proposed 
to offset this spending with a 1.83 percent across-the-board cut to all 
discretionary spending, excluding defense programs, military 
construction projects and veterans funding.
  I do not believe that an across-the-board cut is a wise way to reduce 
spending. Congress should identify wasteful spending, like the credit 
loan subsidies we eliminated in the Energy and Water Appropriations 
bill, and find specific ways to cut spending and make government more 
effective.
  Any bill of this size will include things we don't support. We do not 
do enough to reduce duplicative programs, and many programs that should 
be eliminated are still funded.
  But there is one provision in the manager's report that I really want 
to take exception to.
  I strongly object to the language included in the Interior 
Appropriations bill regarding Boiler MACT. The Boiler MACT is a 
regulation that will reduce pollutants like mercury, which is a good 
goal, but forces reductions in a way that is not realistic for 
companies to comply. This unworkable regulation could result in the 
loss of 340,000 jobs nationwide and cost Tennessee companies $530 
million.
  My support for the omnibus bill does not change my position on this 
issue, and I will continue to push for the passage of strong bipartisan 
legislation that will overturn the terrible Boiler MACT regulation and 
find a better way to accomplish the pollution reductions that are 
needed.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wish to comment on two specific issues 
regarding the conference report to H.R. 2055, the omnibus spending 
measure before us.
  First, I am pleased that the conference report includes $22 million 
for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, or FRIB, at Michigan State 
University. While this is less than the amount in the administration's 
budget request, it is a clear endorsement by Congress to move forward 
with this facility.
  FRIB is critical to maintaining America's worldwide preeminence in 
nuclear physics and a major component of Michigan's economic future. 
MSU has solid and well-known expertise in the field of rare isotopes 
and nuclear physics. It has the largest nuclear physics faculty in the 
Nation and a nuclear physics graduate program ranked No. 1 in the 
country. Those were some of the reasons it was selected by the 
Department of Energy for design, construction, and operation of FRIB 
after an extensive competition over a multiyear period.
  I am encouraged that particularly in these difficult budget times the 
Congress has endorsed the importance of this facility. Second, I would 
point to another critical component of my State's economic future, the 
Great Lakes.
  I am disappointed that Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding has 
been reduced from the originally planned funding levels. I am relieved, 
however, that $300 million is included in the conference report, $50 
million more than the amount in the House bill.
  The conference report includes two important provisions related to 
Asian carp and other invasive species that present significant threats 
to the Great Lakes. The conference report includes a provision I have 
requested authorizing the Army Corps of Engineers to implement 
emergency measures to prevent Asian carp and other invasive species 
from entering the Great Lakes. Also welcome is an increase of about $5 
million in funding to operate electric dispersal barriers designed to 
prevent these fish from entering the Great Lakes, bringing funding for 
the barriers to $23.6 million. The conference report also includes 
about $3 million to continue study of possible separation of the Great 
Lakes from the Mississippi River watershed, which would significantly 
reduce risk to the Great Lakes from Asian carp. I will continue to work 
with colleagues to urge the Army Corps to accelerate this study.
  I am disappointed that projects enabling Great Lakes harbor dredging 
continue to receive reduced funding. The conference report acknowledges 
that funding levels are inadequate to meet existing needs. I welcome 
the conferees' decision to include an additional $173 million in 
funding for navigation projects nationwide, and I will work to ensure 
that the Great Lakes, which face a substantial backlog of dredging and 
other operations and maintenance needs, receive a share of this funding 
consistent with the high level of need.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of both the omnibus 
appropriations bill and the bill to provide funds for disaster relief. 
They have been approved by the other body by overwhelming, bipartisan 
votes. I urge the Senate to approve these bills.
  They fully comply with the requirements of the Budget Control Act. 
Together with appropriations bills already enacted, the omnibus brings 
appropriations for the basic operations of government to the $1.043 
trillion level established in the Act. The disaster bill provides an 
additional $8 billion for disaster relief in response to the floods, 
tornados and hurricanes that plagued much of the country during the 
spring and summer months. These funds are within the limits established 
in the BCA specifically for disaster relief. Total discretionary 
spending carried in all of the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bills 
will be $31 billion below last year's level.
  Within the omnibus there are many adjustments in funding levels for 
individual programs. The bill increases the base budget for the 
Department of Defense by $5 billion. It provides increases for border 
security, nuclear weapons modernization, the National Institutes of 
Health, and veterans medical care. The bill maintains the maximum Pell 
grant award at its current level, but pays for that with a series of 
needed reforms.
  The bill reduces funding for the National Labor Relations Board, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, FEMA grants, and the Election 
Assistance Commission. It cuts the Independent Payment Advisory Board 
and the co-op program created in the health care bill. It zeroes out 
funding for energy credit subsidies. It eliminates 22 programs in the 
Labor-HHS chapter for a savings of a quarter of a billion dollars.
  This conference report also carries a number of policy provisions 
that are important to members on my side of the aisle. These include 
limitations on funding for needle exchange programs and certain 
Department of Labor regulations. There is language to maintain a 
balanced permitting process for grazing on Federal lands, construction 
of logging roads, and domestic oil and gas production.
  I sincerely wish that it were not necessary to act on an omnibus 
bill. I prefer that all Members have the opportunity to consider, 
amend, and vote on appropriations bills individually.
  The Appropriations Committee has consistently produced bills in a 
timely manner for consideration in the Senate and in the House, but we 
are sometimes unable to advance bills to the floor due to circumstances 
beyond our control. This year, our efforts were complicated greatly by 
the absence of a budget resolution and a protracted, summer-long battle 
over the debt ceiling bill.
  Many members on my side of the aisle have decried the fact that it 
has

[[Page 21330]]

been nearly 1,000 days since the Senate last approved a budget 
resolution. That criticism is absolutely valid. It is deplorable that 
at a time of fiscal crisis we have not adopted a comprehensive budget 
in so long.
  What we do have, however, is a budget for discretionary spending that 
was laid out in the Budget Control Act. That Act included caps that 
lock in recent cuts in discretionary spending and hold future 
discretionary growth below the rate of inflation.
  The Appropriations Committee did not write the Budget Control Act. 
Some members of our committee voted for it, some against. But 74 
members of the Senate did vote for it, including a majority of members 
on both sides of the aisle. That is more votes than I can recall any 
budget resolution ever receiving.
  So now it is time to implement the Budget Control Act through the 
enactment of the remaining fiscal year 2012 appropriations bills. A 
bipartisan, bicameral agreement has been reached. There is no money to 
be saved by resorting to a year-long Continuing Resolution. It would be 
an omnibus bill itself, and would result in overspending in some areas 
and underinvestment in others.
  I am pleased to have worked with Chairman Inouye, our committee 
members, and the conferees in the other body to negotiate this 
legislation.
  The Senate did not win every argument with the other body. But this 
conference report is a fair compromise with many positive features, and 
it is consistent with the guidance in the Budget Control Act. I hope 
that it will be a stepping stone toward the more timely and measured 
consideration of appropriations bills in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report and the 
disaster relief bill.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, as chairman of the Interior, Environment, 
and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I would like to take a few moments 
to highlight some of the provisions of the Interior division of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012.
  The subcommittee's conference allocation totaled $29.175 billion. 
Although the Interior Subcommittee received a fair allocation, that 
number nevertheless represents a real cut of approximately 4 percent 
below the commensurate 2011 funding level. Despite the size of the cut, 
overall we were still able to fund critically needed infrastructure 
that will provide jobs for thousands of Americans in every State in our 
Nation.
  Let me start with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. The 
conference report contains $8.5 billion in new budget authority. That 
is a reduction of approximately 3.5 percent below the equivalent 2011 
level, but still a significant investment in our scientific research 
capabilities, our environmental programs, and critically needed water 
and sewer infrastructure.
  Included in the funding for EPA is $1.4 billion for the Clean Water 
State Revolving Fund and $919 million for the Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund. Combined, this is nearly $800 million more than was 
initially provided by the House. The investments we are making in the 
clean water fund will lead to the start of approximately 473 new 
wastewater projects nationwide and will put more than 81,000 Americans 
to work when combined with State matching funds. In addition, the 
funding provided for the drinking water fund translates into 353 new 
drinking water projects nationwide and more than 50,000 jobs all across 
the country when combined with State matching funds.
  This is a tremendous economic boost for every State in the Nation and 
one that I am pleased that we could deliver. In addition to the 
funding, we have ensured that Davis-Bacon wage protections will be 
permanently applied to the use of these funds.
  No less important than the EPA are the land management agencies that 
account for the majority of the Interior bill. The conference report 
provides $5.9 billion for basic operational expenses for the National 
Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and 
the Bureau of Land Management. That amount is virtually identical to 
the 2011 enacted level and ensures that each of those agencies will be 
able to continue to operate and maintain their facilities as the 
American people expect.
  The conference agreement includes $197.5 million for the new Bureau 
of Safety and Environmental Enforcement. Included in this amount is an 
additional $62 million for offshore oil and gas inspections that will 
be available from inspection fees assessed to the industry, which is 
appropriate given the tremendous profits generated by the industry.
  The conference report also provides $322 million for the protection 
of land and other environmentally sensitive areas through the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. This represents an increase of 7 percent over 
the current enacted level.
  For Native Americans, the bill provides $6.8 billion to help improve 
the quality and accessibility of education, health care, and law 
enforcement programs for some of this Nation's most vulnerable 
populations. Included in that amount is $3.8 billion for Indian health 
services, an increase of more than 5 percent over last year. These 
funds will allow those in Indian Country to receive the necessary care 
they deserve and will go a long way toward stemming the crisis in 
health care.
  The conference report provides more than $1.3 billion for our 
cultural and arts agencies, including $146 million for each of the 
National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities; $811 million for the 
Smithsonian Institution, including funding to begin construction of the 
African-American History and Culture Museum; and $36 million for the 
Kennedy Center.
  All in all, this bill represents sound investments in the scientific, 
natural, and cultural resources that come under the jurisdiction of 
this subcommittee. Given resources at hand, not everyone will be 
satisfied, but I am confident that we have made wise funding decisions 
that will maximize our limited dollars.
  It is also important to note what is not included in the conference 
report.
  It is no secret that the Interior and Environment appropriations bill 
attracted more than its fair share of legislative riders that were 
designed to prohibit the EPA, and in some cases the Department of the 
Interior, from undertaking their responsibilities to protect public 
health and our natural resources. The bill that was considered by the 
House this summer was replete with riders that do not belong in an 
appropriations measure. This bill has eliminated or modified these 
legislative proposals so that agencies can continue to function 
effectively.
  Finally, I wish to thank the subcommittee's ranking member, Senator 
Murkowski, for all the assistance she provided throughout our 
conference negotiations with the House. She has provided invaluable 
assistance to me this year because of her unique insights into the 
issues that are central to this bill. I sincerely appreciate having had 
the benefit of her thoughts. I also want to commend and thank the staff 
of the Interior Subcommittee--Peter Kiefhaber, Virginia James, Rachael 
Taylor, and Ryan Hunt of the majority staff and Leif Fonnesbeck of the 
minority staff--for their work, service, and sacrifice.
  I also want to comment on a few items in the other divisions of this 
conference report. My colleagues who led the negotiations on these 
parts of the bill also faced enormous challenges in reaching agreement 
with the House, and I commend them for their efforts under difficult 
circumstances.
  With respect to Labor, Health and Human Services, HHS, and Education, 
I am pleased that the conference report maintains the maximum Pell 
grant at $5,550 and continues funding the campus-based aid programs at 
last year's levels. Absent this Federal student aid, millions of 
Americans would not be able to afford college. Unfortunately, in order 
to maintain the maximum grant, tough sacrifices were made. The 
conference report rolls back provisions that I fought for to make the 
financial aid process easier and more substantial for families with 
modest incomes.

[[Page 21331]]

Among other things, the conference report lowers the annual income 
threshold to automatically qualify for the maximum grant from $30,000 
to $23,000. While I believe it is important to maintain support for the 
maximum Pell grant, I am troubled by the hurdles being erected to 
qualify for this assistance.
  I am pleased that the conference agreement includes $28.7 million for 
literacy and school library programs. I want to thank Chairman Harkin, 
Vice Chairman Cochran, as well as Senators Grassley, Stabenow, Wicker, 
and Snowe, who have worked with me to maintain Federal investments in 
these programs because they recognize that literacy remains at the core 
of academic achievement for all children and is a strong indicator for 
long-term success and opportunity. The conference report also provides 
$3.48 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 
LIHEAP. While that level is $900 million more than the President's 
request, it nonetheless represents a $1.2 billion or 25-percent cut for 
the main Federal program that assists low-income households with their 
energy bills.
  Given the high price of energy, dropping winter temperatures, and the 
tough economy, I hope that we can revisit this issue. To that end, I 
have been joined by Senators Snowe and Sanders and other colleagues in 
introducing the LIHEAP Protection Act, which would maintain level 
funding for the LIHEAP at last year's level of $4.7 billion. We are 
urging leadership to bring up this bill soon so Congress can take 
prompt action to fully restore this funding.
  Finally, the Labor, HHS, and Education division of the conference 
report includes nearly $560 million, a $34 million increase, for States 
to purchase immunizations for the uninsured and underinsured. I 
strongly support this wise investment since every dollar invested in 
the seven recommended pediatric vaccines saves $16.50 in direct and 
indirect health care costs.
  Under the Energy and Water division, I am pleased that the bill 
increases the funding for the Army Corp's Continuing Authorities 
Program from the levels provided by the Senate and the House. I want to 
thank and commend Chairman Feinstein for working to boost the Section 
205 flood control program from $5 million to more than $18.7 million.
  As with LIHEAP, the Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, which 
helps low-income families improve the energy efficiency of their homes 
and saves each participant an estimated $437 annually in energy costs, 
experienced a significant reduction from the fiscal year 2011 level, 
dropping 61 percent from $174 million to $68 million. This is the 
lowest funding level since 1978, the year after the program's inception 
in 1977, and I hope that next year we can begin to restore this 
funding.
  The Financial Services and General Government division carries 
funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, and other 
financial regulators. I know that Chairman Durbin shares my concern and 
frustration over the efforts of House Republicans to deprive these 
regulators of the authority and funding to oversee financial markets.
  Regrettably, the conference report cuts SEC funding by $86 million 
from the administration's request and the Senate-passed appropriations 
bill. In addition, the conference report rescinds $25 million from an 
SEC reserve fund that Senator Shelby and I created outside of the 
appropriations process in order to ensure that the SEC would always 
have access to the funds it needs for technology and long-term funding 
needs. These cuts were made despite the fact that the SEC's budget is 
completely paid for by fees it collects on the securities industry and 
is off-budget. In other words, decreasing the SEC's funding has no 
effect on our budget deficit; it only serves to hamstring the SEC and 
to slow implementation of the Wall Street Reform Act.
  I do want to acknowledge the fact that while the conference report 
does not add resources to what was provided under the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission, CFTC, under the Agriculture Appropriations Act, it 
does grant CFTC limit transfer authority so that it will not have to 
lay off personnel. This is not enough to make the CFTC the cop on the 
beat we need it to be, but it is a critical change.
  As the months pass and the financial crisis of 2008 seems further 
away, we should not and cannot forget that the failure to effectively 
regulate the financial sector came at tremendous cost to the average 
American. We must remind ourselves of why we passed the Wall Street 
Reform Act, and why it needs to be robustly funded, so that we never 
have to endure such staggering costs again.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, the conference report we are voting on 
is far from perfect, but recognizing the limited resources available 
and the challenge of negotiating with the House, it is a reasonable 
agreement.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of H.R. 2055, the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2012, and H.R. 3672, the Disaster Relief 
Appropriations Act, 2012.
  H.R. 2055 includes the conference report to accompany Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2012, as well as legislation for the eight remaining 
appropriations bills. H.R. 3672 provides disaster relief funding and 
additional program integrity funding.
  H.R. 2055 is divided into nine divisions, one for each of the 
appropriations bills it contains. Each division will be considered 
separately for budget enforcement purposes.
  Each of the divisions of H.R. 2055 is within its respective 
subcommittee's allocation for budget authority and outlays. The bill is 
within security and nonsecurity budget authority limits established by 
the Budget Control Act.
  In addition to regular funding, H.R. 2055 includes $126.5 billion 
that has been designated as being for Overseas Contingency Operations. 
H.R. 3672 includes $8.1 billion in funding designated as being for 
disaster relief and $483 million in additional program integrity 
funding. Pursuant to section 106(d) of the Budget Control Act, an 
adjustment to the Appropriations Committee's 302(a) allocation and to 
budgetary aggregates has been made for these amounts in budget 
authority and for the outlays flowing therefrom.
  Section 1401 of Division G of H.R. 2055, Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 2012, makes a change to a mandatory program that 
results in an increase in direct spending in years following the budget 
year, 2013-2021. This provision is subject to a point of order 
established by Section 314 of the 2009 Budget Resolution. H.R. 2055 is 
not subject to any other budget points of order.
  H.R. 3672 is not subject to any budget points of order.
  I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    H.R. 2055, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012, AND H.R. 3672,
                DISASTER RELIEF APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
   [Spending comparisons--Conference-Report (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Non-
                                     Security     Security      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division A: Department of Defense
 Appropriations Act, 2012
Conference-Report:
    Budget Authority.............      633,229            0      633,229
    Outlays......................      647,602           10      647,612
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget Authority.............      633,230            0           --
    Outlays......................           --           --      654,737
Division A Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority.............           -1            0           --
    Outlays......................           --           --       -7,125
Division B: Energy and Water
 Development and Related Agencies
 Appropriations Act, 2012
Conference-Report:\1\
    Budget Authority.............       11,000       22,734       33,734
    Outlays......................       11,146       35,276       46,422
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget Authority.............       11,000       22,734           --
    Outlays......................           --           --       46,522
Division B Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority.............            0            0           --
    Outlays......................           --           --         -100
Division C: Financial Services
 and General Government
 Appropriations Act, 2012
Conference-Report:
    Budget Authority.............            0       19,526       19,526
    Outlays......................            0       23,735       23,735
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget Authority.............            0       21,526           --

[[Page 21332]]

 
    Outlays......................           --           --       25,735
Division C Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:\2\
    Budget Authority.............            0       -2,000           --
    Outlays......................           --           --       -2,000
Division D: Departments of
 Homeland Security Appropriations
 Act, 2012
Conference-Report:\1\
    Budget Authority.............       46,258            0       46,258
    Outlays......................       45,360            0       45,360
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget Authority.............       46,258            0           --
    Outlays......................           --           --       45,360
Division D Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority.............            0            0           --
    Outlays......................           --           --            0
Division E: Department of
 Interior and Related Agencies
 Appropriations Act, 2012
Conference-Report:
    Budget Authority.............            0       29,175       29,175
    Outlays......................            0       30,866       30,866
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget Authority.............            0       29,175           --
    Outlays......................           --           --       30,866
Division E Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority.............            0            0           --
    Outlays......................           --           --            0
Division F: Departments of Labor,
 Health and Human Services,
 Education and Related Agencies
 Appropriations Act, 2012
Conference-Report:\3\
    Budget Authority.............            0      156,767      156,767
    Outlays......................            0      179,569      179,569
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget Authority.............            0      156,767           --
    Outlays......................           --           --      179,569
Division F Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority.............            0            0           --
    Outlays......................           --           --            0
Division G: Legislative Branch
 Appropriations Act , 2012
Conference-Report:
    Budget Authority.............           10        4,297        4,307
    Outlays......................           10        4,326        4,336
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget Authority.............           10        4,297           --
    Outlays......................           --           --        4,336
Division G Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority.............            0            0           --
    Outlays......................           --           --            0
Division H: Military Construction
 and Veterans Affairs and Related
 Agencies Appropriations Act,
 2012
Conference-Report:
    Budget Authority.............       71,511          236       71,747
    Outlays......................       78,125          289       78,414
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget Authority.............       71,511          236           --
    Outlays......................           --           --       78,414
Division H Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority.............            0            0           --
    Outlays......................           --           --            0
Division I: Department of State,
 Foreign Operations and Related
 Programs Appropriations Act,
 2012
Conference-Report:
    Budget Authority.............       53,207          136       53,343
    Outlays......................       52,681          199       52,880
Senate 302(b) Allocation:
    Budget Authority.............       53,207          136           --
    Outlays......................           --           --       52,880
Division I Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget Authority.............            0            0           --
    Outlays......................           --           --           0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total includes disaster relief funding provided in H.R. 3672.
\2\P.L. 112-33. Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, delayed a statutory
  requirement for the Postal Service to make a payment to the Postal
  Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund. Because the payment was
  originally required in 2011, the provision scores as $2 billion in on-
  budget savings for 2012.
\3\Total includes program integrity funding provided in H.R. 3672.



                          ____________________