H.Res. 500

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 500 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 500 provides for the consideration of three measures that will ensure that the government is funded through the end of the fiscal year; and this rule, as was outlined by the reading Clerk, provides very important tools to deal with important issues that have yet to be resolved.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we all know that, as we sit here at 3 minutes of 10 o'clock this morning, we are faced at midnight tonight with the prospect of a government shutdown. There is a bipartisan consensus on the need to ensure that we don't face a government shutdown; and it's very important that we take action to prevent that from taking place, and that's exactly what our opportunity is here today.

At the same time, it's important for us to realize that it is absolutely imperative, if we are going to get our economy growing and create jobs, for us to reduce the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government. That's the message the American people have sent to us overwhelmingly, and that's why I have to say that I believe this bipartisan compromise, which has been worked out with Members of the House and the Senate and the White House, moves us in the direction of doing just that.

Why? Because we are actually bringing about in this conference report a $95 billion reduction in discretionary spending, merely a drop in the bucket. We all recognize that it's not enough. We all recognize that much, much more remains to be done, but, Mr. Speaker, this is an important first step. And the fact that it's been done in a bipartisan, bicameral way, working not only with the first but the second branch of government as well, is, I believe, a positive indicator for us.

As I think about the challenges that we have--and I said this during the management of our jobs bill that we had, the so-called extenders measure that deals with the question of extending unemployment insurance, doing everything we possibly can to keep taxes low by extending for a year the payroll tax holiday, ensuring that people have access to Medicare dollars, and, of course, focusing on job creation by proceeding with the Keystone XL pipeline. As I pointed out during that debate, right now, our job is jobs. The American people want us to focus on job creation and economic growth, and I believe that this bipartisan, bicameral compromise will help us in that quest.

It hasn't been pretty getting here. We all know the famous Otto von Bismarck line, that you don't want to watch sausage or laws being made. This has been ugly.

And, actually, I was not going to say what I'm about to say right now, Mr. Speaker, but I am going to proceed and I will explain to you why.

It's been a painful and difficult and ugly and messy process which, frankly, is exactly what James Madison wanted. He is looking down at us saying, The process is working just as I envisaged it, because he wanted there to be this clash of ideas and a struggle. But, at the end of the day, he wanted there to be a compromise; and he wanted there to be an agreement at the end of the day, recognizing that that needed to be done.

We know that the chairs of the Committee on Appropriations, Messrs. Rogers and Inouye, shook hands on Monday and had an agreement. Again, I was not going to say this; but the Rules Committee completed its work early this morning, and I got a few hours of sleep, and I woke up to National Public Radio, which I do. That's what wakes me up in the morning, Mr. Speaker. And I know that there are some of my Republican friends who are not fans of National Public Radio. I like to watch MSNBC TV and listen to National Public Radio. It keeps my blood circulating very well, Mr. Speaker.

But I woke up this morning to listen to a report on this conference agreement. I am very happy to see my good friend from Seattle, the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, arrive on the floor. And I wasn't going to say this, but because of this report on NPR, I'm going to share it.

Tamara Keith, who is the congressional correspondent for NPR on Morning Edition, characterized why it is that we are here on Friday rather than having met the 3-day layover requirement and all these things that we wanted to do when the agreement was struck on Monday, and what she said was that Senate Democrats held this bill hostage. Those are not my words, again, Mr. Speaker. Those are the words of Tamara Keith who reported on National Public Radio this morning that this measure was held hostage by Senate Democrats. And she went on a second time, using the word ``hostage.'' She said, Well, finally the hostages have been released. Again, those are not my words. Those are the words of National Public Radio.

So some people wanted me to say it, but I decided not to say it myself. But when I heard it early this morning, I couldn't help but say it. So that's the reason I'm looking across the Chamber right now at 3,000 pages stacked this high right next to the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, right across the aisle from the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Speaker, we've had to waive the 3-day layover requirement because, again, according to NPR, we had this conference report held hostage, but we've finally gotten here. Now that we're here, I'm happy to say that, while I'm not ecstatic with every measure in it--just as I know that Mr. Dicks is not ecstatic with every measure in it; I know that Ms. Slaughter is not ecstatic with every measure in it; I'm not ecstatic with the process that has gotten us here because of the challenges and ugliness and messiness we've gone through this week. We are here because it is absolutely essential that we not see the government shut down in several hours at midnight tonight.

So I believe that we need to realize--and I know Mr. Dicks and I have had this conversation repeatedly, along with our friend Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations--that we want a clean slate as we head into next year so that Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers will be able to go through regular order, bring the appropriations bills to the floor and, we hope and pray, get each bill done ad seriatim, the way they're supposed to be done, rather than dealing with what has been characterized as an

omnibus, a mini-bus, a megabus. But the term that I like that was given by the distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations last night is this is ``the rest of the bus.'' And that's really where we are.

But it's essential for the American people, for those who are representing us so diligently around the world in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other spots, for people who rely and need to have support from government programs that do exist, it's essential that we get this measure passed, and pass it with what I hope will be strong bipartisan support.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to say that I am happy that we are doing the things that will be outlined, I know, very thoughtfully by the distinguished former chair and current ranking member of the Committee on Rules. I will say that we have got 3,000 pages.

By the way, I should say, before my friend begins this, that on Monday, virtually all of that was available, and it was put online at 12:30 Wednesday night. Right after midnight Wednesday, it was made available online. And so while we have not actually met the exact 3-day layover requirement, I should point to the fact that we always said-- and I'm so proud of the fact that we have been able to do it. But when we faced what is really a very, very important deadline, that being the closure of the government that would take place 14 hours from now, I think it is very important that we take this action and do it as quickly and as well as we possibly can.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as my good friends from the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks, congratulate each other in the well, I will ask them to move out of the well so that I am able to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Grandfather Community, who left the Rules Committee at 1 o'clock this morning and went down to her office to work before going down to the White House at 7:30 for a tour for her constituents.

So I underscore the fact that Virginia Foxx is extraordinarily dedicated, and for that reason and many others, I am happy to yield her 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield my colleague an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to simply make a couple of very important points, and that is we are here faced with this situation because of the inability of our colleagues in the other body, the United States Senate, to act.

I am just looking at the list of the conferees, and I listened to my friends criticize the bill--and I actually don't know whether my friend from Rochester is going to end up supporting the conference report or not. I didn't get a conclusion on that--but I will say that every single House Member, Democrat and Republican, every subcommittee chairman, every ranking member of a subcommittee, the so-called cardinals, the chairs of the subcommittees, signed this conference report. It is bipartisan.

Unfortunately, in the Senate, we have a number of Members of the Senate who didn't sign the conference report. But I believe that we need to realize that we went for 963 days--nearly 1,000 days, Mr. Speaker--without a budget having passed from the United States Senate. We know, Mr. Speaker, that we didn't have any appropriations bills done last year. We're trying to clean this process up.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a very thoughtful, diligent new member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Lawrenceville, Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Will the gentleman yield?

I look forward to it.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I say to my friend from Rochester, would you yield time to the gentleman so I can engage in a discussion with him?

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'd like to yield to my friend from Worcester to engage in a discussion. I'm sorry, would the gentlewoman like me to yield? I'm happy to yield to my friend from Rochester if she would like me to yield. Would the gentlewoman like me to yield to her? I've just been recognized.

Would the gentlewoman from New York like me to yield to her, Mr. Speaker?

Then I will reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Rochester if she would like to ask me a question or ask the Chair a question. I am more than happy to yield to her, I would say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, in the spirit of recognizing that we need to ensure that the government doesn't shut down at midnight, I'd like to engage in a discussion with my friend from Worcester, as I was trying to when he was in the well, to say a few things.

First of all, as we all know, last year no appropriations bills were passed. Nothing was completed in the last Congress--nothing at all. And we have spent, with Mr. Rogers and Mr. Dicks, virtually this entire year cleaning up the work of the last Congress. And the gentleman will recognize that, I'm sure. I mean, the gentleman acknowledges that, Mr. Speaker, that we have spent this year working to clean up the fact that no appropriations work was done last year.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Yes, absolutely. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, I would say absolutely, we're talking about this year. And the responsibility that was thrust on us this year was so overwhelming because last year nothing was done, nothing was accomplished. And so what's happened, Mr. Speaker, is we are in a position where the appropriators have been shouldering this responsibility. And, unfortunately, our colleagues in the other body, the majority leadership there, Senator Reid and others, according to the National Public Radio report, as I discussed this morning, as others have acknowledged, it was pointed out in the publications out this morning, this was held hostage, and that's why we are where we are.

Now, my friends are enjoying holding up the 2,300-page conference report and the additional 700 pages of the joint managers' report that is included in there. But guess what, Mr. Speaker, all of that was available on Monday, 5 days ago. And the only exception in this measure is one item has been pulled out. That one item pulled out happens to be the Cuba language that was there, and there was obviously a lot of concern about that. That was pulled out. Then one item was added, and that has to do with the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation. And so, as our colleagues hold up these thousands of pages, we need to realize it's been available since Monday. This is Friday, Mr. Speaker. That's more than the 3-day layover requirement. And we've pointed to these minor modifications.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished chair of the Committee on Appropriations, my very good friend from Somerset, Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds. And I would ask my friend to yield to me, if he would.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I would like to just say that I misspoke. The agreement was reached between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Inouye on Monday, and the pages were not made available until it was filed at 12:27, at just after midnight on Wednesday.

I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

So I just want to say that I did misspeak when I said the agreement was struck on Monday. It was made available after midnight on Wednesday.

I would like to yield an additional 30 seconds to my friend from Somerset.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I say to my friend, first of all, happy birthday.

And the great birthday present is that we will not shut the government down, and we obviously will see this measure passed today.

I also want to say to my friend that I believe we've made history here. To have any Member of the House stand up, especially on his birthday, Mr. Speaker, and speak in complimentary ways of the other body is, in fact, historic in and of itself.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Bainbridge Township, Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of my friend how many speakers she has remaining on her side.

I plan to close and then move the previous question so we can move ahead to ensure we don't shut down the government.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We all know that the American people are hurting. We have a protracted unemployment problem that has gone on for an extended period of time, the longest period of time since the Great Depression, and it's important for us to realize the reasons for this.

One of the very important reasons for this is that we have seen a dramatic expansion of the size and scope and reach of government. During the 4 years that my friends on the other side of the aisle were in the majority, we witnessed an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending.

We now have a $15 trillion national debt, and I think Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge that that cannot be sustained.

As I've been saying throughout this week, our job is jobs. Right now our job is jobs. We need to have a laser-like focus on creating job opportunities for our fellow Americans, people who are so frustrated they've given up the effort to look for work.

So that's why the things that we're dealing with today are so critically important to address those needs.

Now, since there has been bipartisan recognition that we can't continue down the road with an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending which we witnessed over the past several years, it's important for us to come together, and that's exactly what's happened.

This is Norm Dicks' birthday, and we're very happy about that. We're happy that on his birthday we're going to see a bipartisan agreement that will bring about a $95 billion reduction in non-defense discretionary spending. And that's what this work product does, Mr. Speaker.

And again, bipartisan recognition and even bicameral recognition, and even recognition from down Pennsylvania Avenue with the second branch

of government, that we are right now altering the course that we had been on of dramatically increasing spending. And we're doing it, Mr. Speaker, in a very fair and balanced and open way.

I don't like the process that got us to where we are right now. I said earlier that I believe that this multi-thousand-page package was available on Monday; it was agreed to on Monday; but it wasn't made available until early Thursday morning. Yet we are where we are, and there was an agreement. Mr. Inouye and Mr. Rogers came to this agreement on Monday.

We could have done this earlier, but we know that our friends in the other body chose--and as I said, I wasn't going to say it earlier, but it has been characterized in the media as having held hostage this very important appropriations bill. We also dealt with the threat of a government shutdown that would take place 13 hours from now. We are not going to see that happen. We are not going to see that happen because Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers and other members of the Appropriations Committees in both bodies--and the leadership--came together to ensure that that doesn't happen.

We still have a long way to go. We still have much work that needs to be done. But by the passage of this measure today, Mr. Speaker, we are going to do exactly what is necessary. We are going to finally have a clean slate. We've all commiserated over the fact that we've had this mess to clean up of the past. It's been ugly and it's been difficult; but we have, in fact, by virtue of this agreement cleaned it up so that we can continue to work down this path towards balancing the budget, getting our fiscal house in order, and doing what we need to do--our jobs, which is to create jobs.

I think we have a chance to do that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule, and I urge support of the previous question so that we can move ahead and make sure that we have what's necessary to meet this very important deadline by midnight.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.044

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.047

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.048

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.049

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.050

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.052

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.053

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.054

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.055

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.057

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.058

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.060

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.061

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.065

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH16DE11.066

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chair of the State-Foreign Ops Subcommittee, the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a very hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Washington that I have no further requests for time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge an ``aye'' vote on the measure.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.)

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, Mr. Price.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the Financial Services Subcommittee, Mr. Serrano.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the State-Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Mrs. Lowey.

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.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, Mr. Honda.

Will the gentleman yield?

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. 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.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, the ranking member of the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee, Mr. Bishop.

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.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) for a colloquy.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I urge an ``aye'' vote too.