[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 105 (Thursday, July 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H6941-H6943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2361, 
     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 392 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 392

       Resolved,  That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 
     be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 
     the bill (H.R. 2361) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Bishop) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  This resolution waives all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, we now have before us the first appropriations 
conference report. The gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) 
and those who have been working with him on the House side, as well as 
on the Senate side, should be applauded for taking this appropriation 
process and concept of prioritization and presenting the product that 
we have before us. The Interior conferees have produced a conference 
report which is fiscally responsible and does live within strict budget 
discipline. It recommends for the fiscal year 2006 budget $26.2 
billion, which is actually below last year's enacted level of $27 
billion.
  Even though the total number is lower, it still takes into account 
significant and important and high-priority items, such as wildland 
firefighting, $2.7 billion; a $61 million increase for our National 
Parks; a $31 million increase in our National Forest System; and $106 
million increase for the Indian Health Service. Indian programs have 
been represented at a record $5.6 billion, which means the funding will 
provide for schools and hospitals, construction, education, human 
service needs, as well as law enforcement there.
  With those increases there, it has to be significant, and there have 
to be offsetting balances somewhere else, and that is where the process 
of prioritization takes place. Once again, whether you like the total 
and the way it has been done, at least this committee has indeed done 
that process of prioritization.
  I commend the Subcommittee chairman (Mr. Taylor); the chairman of the 
full Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis); the ranking members who were involved in this, as well as all 
the conferees, for shepherding this measure, this funding measure 
through the conference process in a timely and orderly fashion in the 
midst of a very lean budget climate.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report is obviously not perfect; none of 
these ever are. We are not totally happy with all of the aspects of it. 
I, for example, still have a concern over our process that we are doing 
with Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or the PILT program. This House was wise 
enough to fund that program at $242 million; the conference funds it at 
$6 million less, at $236 million. That still is $30 million above what 
the Senate tried to accomplish. This program, for example, is the basic 
funding for rural communities; it is rent that is due on the land that 
is government owned. If the Federal Government is going to own the 
land, they need to be able to fully support that.
  Hope springs eternal, and we in the West will continue to work on 
this program in the future with the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Chairman Taylor), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and 
others to make sure that these programs are adequately addressed in the 
future as well.
  In closing, and notwithstanding these concerns, Mr. Speaker, the 
overall conference agreement is a good, bipartisan product. It has been 
done in a timely manner. It is the first one before us. It deserves our 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop) for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  As my colleague from the majority mentioned, the rule is typical to 
that for all conference reports, and I will not oppose it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today not in opposition to the Interior and 
Environmental Appropriations conference report, but, rather, in 
disappointment that we have not done enough. Indeed, we live in trying 
times with enormous fiscal constraints, many of which we have brought 
upon ourselves. As the chairman and ranking Democrat of the 
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies will 
probably note today, they did the best that they could with what they 
were given. Indeed, they did, Mr. Speaker.
  I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their hard and, perhaps most 
important, their bipartisan work on this legislation. I do believe that 
they did the best with what the majority gave them.
  The Interior conference report includes $84 million for Everglades 
restoration in my district and throughout

[[Page H6942]]

south Florida. It increases funding for the National Endowment of the 
Arts and Humanities, as well as operations at our national parks and 
Indian health care.
  The underlying report also includes a provision that I offered during 
floor consideration prohibiting funds in the bill from being used to 
work in contravention of a 1994 executive order requiring that Federal 
agencies take the necessary steps to achieve health and environmental 
equity across all community lines.
  The inclusion of this provision in the conference report sends a 
clear message to the Environmental Protection Agency that it must 
change the way it goes about doing business. On behalf of every 
community in the country which will benefit from this provision, I 
thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their commitment to working 
with me on this issue of critical importance.
  The conference report also includes a provision championed by my good 
friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), that stops EPA 
from intentionally exposing pregnant women and children to pesticides 
and requires the agency to establish standards which will come down on 
the side of public health.
  While I am pleased that the aforementioned is included in the 
conference report, I am greatly concerned about the report's major cuts 
in clean drinking water and conservation programs. These programs are 
essential to protecting our environment and the health of our citizens. 
It is offensive that this Congress has found the money for tax cuts for 
the best-off of us in our society, but not enough for these critical 
programs.
  Finally, this legislation includes $1.5 billion in emergency funding 
for veterans health care. Frankly, this money should have been 
appropriated before the July 4 recess. Instead, the majority played 
politics with the Senate, and our veterans were told no.
  More than 1 year ago, Democrats came to this floor with the former 
Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), arguing that the majority was 
shortchanging veterans health care by more than $1 billion. What did 
the majority do about our concerns? Absolutely nothing. Democrats got 
stonewalled, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) lost his job, 
and America's veterans got shafted.
  This spring, Mr. Speaker, our Democratic prophesy came true. The Bush 
administration finally admitted that it had pushed a budget which 
shortchanged veterans health care by some $1 billion. Democrats 
countered that $1 billion still was not enough, and the administration 
waffled. Eventually and embarrassingly, the Bush administration finally 
admitted that the actual shortfall was closer to $1.5 billion, the 
amount appropriated in this conference report.
  How is it that this body can willingly authorize sending our troops 
into harm's way, yet refuse to provide them with the health care 
benefits they were promised? I am pleased that the other body has the 
backbone to fix what is wrong, but I am not pleased by the efforts of 
the administration and House Republicans to cover up these shortfalls. 
Shame on all of us for letting this happen.
  Mr. Speaker, individuals on their own are not going to conduct major 
environmental restoration, force power companies to reduce toxic 
emissions from their smokestacks, or clean up our Nation's drinking 
water. But collectively, collectively, we can all make this happen.
  Enforcement is not free, and neither is environmental restoration. Is 
there anybody in this body who is unwilling to pay just a little more 
to ensure that every American has clean air to breath and safe drinking 
water? If given the chance, who would not be willing to pool his or her 
resources with others in their neighborhood to collectively ensure that 
everyone has safe drinking water, or that no child would be forced to 
grow up playing in backyards polluted by dangerous levels of mercury 
and other toxins?
  I will most likely support the underlying conference report, but I 
say to my colleagues, we had an opportunity to do more in this 
conference report. Our willingness to do so, however, was the missing 
ingredient.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I appreciate all of the hard work in crafting the Interior 
bill, the conference report; and I very much support it.
  I really rise today, though, to talk about something a little bit 
different. Mr. Speaker, in a few hours, U.S. Army Sergeant Arthur 
Raymond McGill will be laid to rest. A third district native, Sergeant 
McGill gave his life serving his country in Iraq when his convoy 
detonated an improvised device. I rise today to mourn this tragic loss 
and honor his courageous life.
  Sergeant McGill grew up in the northwest Arkansas communities of 
Gentry, Decatur, and Gravette. At the age of 17, he joined the National 
Guard and later enlisted in the Army. He was on his second tour of duty 
in Iraq when he was killed.
  Sergeant McGill valued family more than anything else and wanted to 
set a positive example for his daughter, Kaylee, who his aunt said was 
the love of his life. Though his life was cut short, Sergeant McGill 
did set a wonderful example for Kaylee and us all through his selfless 
and noble service to his country.
  Mr. Speaker, at the age of 26, Sergeant Arthur Raymond McGill made 
the ultimate sacrifice for his country. He is a true American hero, and 
I certainly ask my colleagues to remember his family, remember his 
friends in their thoughts and prayers during these very difficult 
times.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), my good friend that I serve with on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, when this House first considered the Department of 
Interior appropriations bill, I came to the floor to express my deep 
outrage that this legislation nearly eliminated funding for the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund.
  I join with my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), in urging that the House and 
the Senate conferees restore some level of funding for this vital 
program. I am pleased that 119 Members shared our concerns about this 
funding cut and signed on to our bipartisan letter. Mr. Speaker, I will 
insert the letter for the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been an enormous help to our 
local communities and the families who live in them. The Stateside 
grant program has helped to preserve open space, slow urban sprawl, and 
give our children safe places to play.

                              {time}  1030

  It is a true partnership with Federal grants requiring a full match 
from States and local communities. In all, the stateside program has 
helped communities by funding 40,000 projects nationally. Success 
stories can be found in every State and in 98 percent of U.S. counties.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is especially near and dear to 
my heart, having led the fight on the floor of the House back in 1999 
to restore $30 million for the stateside grant program in the fiscal 
year 2000 Interior appropriations bill after it had been zeroed out in 
1995.
  In my district, the Land and Water Conservation Fund State assistance 
grants have provided much-needed funds to restore the historic 
Worcester Common in Worcester, Massachusetts, and renovate the Briggs 
Pool in Attleboro, Massachusetts. We have literally preserved dozens of 
acres of open space that otherwise would have been sold off for 
development that would not have been conducive to these communities. It 
has also helped to complete construction this coming fall with the 
Princeton playing fields in Princeton, Massachusetts.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund is based upon a simple concept. 
It

[[Page H6943]]

takes revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling and invests them in 
our Nation's public land, letting States take the lead. For 40 years 
this program has a proven track record and benefited from strong 
bipartisan support.
  It was the same bipartisan support that proved successful here today. 
Clearly the level of funding provided in this bill is far from what is 
required. In fact, the level of funding is at the same level it was 
when we resuscitated the program back in 1999. So I am disappointed 
with that. However, any amount appropriated to this program, no matter 
how small or large, serves a valuable purpose.
  I commend my colleagues for their hard work. I thank those who helped 
reinsert funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund back into 
this bill. I hope that we can come to some sort of consensus that next 
year we will restore funding to a level that is adequate, and to a 
level that we all promised our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record the letter I referred to 
earlier.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, July 22, 2005.
       Dear Conferee: We are writing to request that, as you move 
     toward conference with the Senate on the FY 2006 Interior 
     Appropriations Bill, you support the funding levels that were 
     included for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in 
     the Senate passed version of the bill.
       Since its creation in 1964, the Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund (LWCF) has been a critical source of funding for the 
     National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of 
     Land Management, and Forest Service. This funding is used to 
     support the acquisition and maintenance of our national 
     wildlife refuges, parks, forests, and public domain lands.
       In addition, the LWCF also funds a matching grant program 
     to assist states and localities in acquiring recreational 
     lands and developing facilities. An integral part of the 
     LWCF, the state-side matching grant program has provided 
     state and local parks and recreation directors with the 
     desperately needed funding to help preserve open space and 
     develop recreational facilities. Over the years, these 
     matching grants have been used successfully to fund more than 
     37,000 state and local park and recreation projects, enabling 
     millions of Americans to hike through magnificent scenery and 
     view historic sites, bike along seaside and river trails, and 
     picnic and play ball at local parks.
       The Senate-passed FY 2006 Interior Appropriations Bill 
     provides $192 million for LWCF, which includes $30 million 
     for the state-side grant program and $162 million for the 
     federal program. This funding is absolutely essential for the 
     proper stewardship of our nation's magnificent natural 
     heritage, and therefore, we strongly urge you to maintain the 
     funding levels for LWCF state-side and federal grant programs 
     provided for in the Senate bill. Thank you for your 
     consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
         Jim McGovern, Rush Holt, Peter T. King, Jim Marshall, 
           Robert E. Andrews, Michael H. Michaud, Michael M. 
           Honda, Howard L. Berman, Rahm Emanuel, Barbara Lee, 
           Donald M. Payne, Dennis J. Kucinich, Joseph Crowley, 
           Richard E. Neal, Henry Cuellar, Rob Simmons, Rosa L. 
           DeLauro, Shelley Berkley, Allyson Y. Schwartz, Melvin 
           L. Watt, John Spratt, Jim Oberstar, John Lewis, Nick 
           Rahall, Scott Garrett, Dan Lipinski, Mike Doyle, Betty 
           McCollum, Harold Ford, John T. Salazar, Jim Langevin, 
           Leonard L. Boswell, Elijah E. Cummings, Lloyd Doggett, 
           Gene Green, Nancy L. Johnson, John Shimkus, Jo Bonner, 
           Spencer Bachus, Mike McIntyre, Julia Carson, Vito 
           Fossella, Adam Smith, Doris O. Matsui, Solomon P. 
           Ortiz, Brian Higgins, Silvestre Reyes, Tammy Baldwin, 
           Mike Thompson, Charles F. Bass, Tim Holden, Jay Inslee, 
           Frank Pallone, Jr., Martin Meehan, Juanita Millender-
           McDonald Ike Skelton, Grace F. Napolitano, Sander 
           Levin, Jerrold Nadler, Bernard Sanders, Chris Van 
           Hollen, John B. Larson, George Miller, Tom Lantos, Gary 
           L. Ackerman, Jim Matheson, Sherwood Boehlert, Ed Case, 
           Raul M. Grijalva, Dale E. Kildee, Jim McDermott, Earl 
           Blumenauer, Jim Saxton, Dennis Cardoza, Carolyn 
           McCarthy, Michael R. McNulty, Ellen O. Tauscher, 
           Timothy H. Bishop, Edolphus Towns, Peter DeFazio, 
           Anthony D. Weiner, John D. Dingell, Sherrod Brown, Wm. 
           Lacy Clay, William Delahunt, Louise Slaughter, Barney 
           Frank, Robert Menendez, Eliot L. Engel, Bobby Scott, 
           Ben Cardin, Tom Udall, Janice Schakowsky, Bart Gordon, 
           Lynn Woolsey, Stephen F. Lynch, Donna M. Christensen, 
           Thomas Allen, Thaddeus G. McCotter, Lois Capps, Emanuel 
           Cleaver, Mike Ferguson, Bart Stupak, David Price, Lane 
           Evans, Carolyn B. Maloney, Jeb Bradley, Steve Israel, 
           Pete Stark, Bob Etheridge, Mark Udall, Sue W. Kelly, 
           Jerry F. Costello, Luis V. Gutierrez, Christopher 
           Shays, Mike Ross, Charles A. Gonzalez, Neil 
           Abercrombie, Anna Eshoo.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the discussion that has gone through 
on this particular bill. We have had it on several different occasions. 
There are a lot of good things that are in this particular bill.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has mentioned the one 
portion of the $1.5 billion to solve the hole in the veterans funding 
area, that once the issue was validated could have been an easy chance 
for people to grandstand. But I am very proud of this entire Congress 
in a bipartisan way, who gave instructions in a bipartisanship way, 
which came as close to a unanimous vote as I have seen here on the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an appropriate step to do, to now take this and 
then review the process so that we can continue to go on. We have much 
to do in this particular area, but in each year that I have been here 
in this Congress, I have been very proud that we have tried to move 
forward in different areas and make progress to fully fund and fully 
maintain our commitments.
  The same thing has gone on with all of the other programs in this 
particular budget and this particular conference report. This committee 
has once again done a great job in trying to come up with the principle 
that all appropriators ought to be doing a prioritizing program. They 
have prioritized the programs. Mr. Speaker, overall, we can be very 
positive of that.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule to allow for 
the consideration of the conference report on the fiscal year 06 
Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. And I intend to intend to 
vote for the conference bill.
  Although I am critical of several aspects of this bill--including the 
low overall spending level--without a doubt this process has been fair 
and open. Because of the low allocation, there are some problem areas.
  But the overall conference report is well worth supporting. With the 
addition of $1.5 billion in spending for Veterans health care attached 
to this bill, I believe that this conference report will get widespread 
support in both the House and the Senate.
  The conference agreement contains another year of healthy increases 
in National Park Service operations funding. I do wish that the Clean 
Water Act State Revolving Fund was higher. I also wish that the 
Conference Report had retained the extra $10 million in NEA funding 
that the full House approved in a floor amendment last May. It is 
important to point out that this agreement contains successful 
compromises on the issue of pesticide testing on humans and on federal 
funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial to be built on the 
National Mall.
  Again I want to reiterate my strong support for this rule and the 
conference report on the fiscal year 06 Interior and Environment 
Appropriations bill. And I want to thank Chairman Taylor and his staff 
for including the minority throughout this process.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I urge the Members to support the rule that provides for 
consideration of this conference report to the accompanying H.R. 2361, 
and I move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________