[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. ____________________