[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 105 (Thursday, July 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H7013-H7023]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 392, I call up the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 392, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
July 26, 2005 at page H6562.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) each will control 
30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor).

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we bring before the House the conference agreement 
on H.R. 2361, the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006. I would like to thank all of 
the members of the Subcommittee for their support and guidance this 
year. I want to extend special thanks to the subcommittee vice 
chairman, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), and the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member and my good friend, for 
their assistance in shaping the bill. We are under last year, and we 
are under the allocation.
  The conference report balances many competitive and diverse needs. It 
provides funding for programs in the Department of the Interior, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, the Indian Health 
Agency, the Smithsonian Institution, and several other environmental 
and cultural agencies and commissions.
  With the ongoing war on terrorism and a sizable Federal debt, the 
American taxpayer demands fiscal prudence, yet entrusts us to continue 
the conservation and care of our Nation's natural resources, the 
protection of the environment, and critical programs for native 
Americans and other programs. The needs far outweigh the funds 
available, but I believe this bill addresses the most critical needs.
  The conference report is the product of a balanced, bipartisan, 
bicameral effort that resolves over 2,000 differences between the House 
and the Senate bills. Moreover, it addresses many of the key issues 
raised on the House floor in May and stays true to the fundamental 
issues that helped the bill pass overwhelmingly in the House. Here are 
a few of the highlights:
  Payments in Lieu of Taxes are $9 million over the enacted level. The 
arts and humanities are $5 million each over the enacted level. Funding 
for operations of the national parks has increased by $61 million. 
Restrictions remain in the bill for pesticide testing on human 
subjects. Funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Act is $900 
million, which is $50 million above the House level and $170 million 
above the budget request.
  The Forest Health Program, which is critical to reducing this 
Nation's risk of catastrophic wildfires, is restored to the enacted 
level.
  Finally, I am proud to say that this conference agreement contains 
$1.5 billion in critically needed funds for veterans medical care.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the priorities of the American people are 
reflected in the conference agreement, and I urge all of my colleagues 
to support it.
  I would like to thank staff on both sides of the aisle because, 
without their hard work, we would not be able to bring this bill 
forward at this time.
  At this time, I will include a table detailing the various accounts 
in the bill for insertion in the Record.

[[Page H7014]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.001



[[Page H7015]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.002



[[Page H7016]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.003



[[Page H7017]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.004



[[Page H7018]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY05.005



[[Page H7019]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I support this conference report on the fiscal year 2006 Interior and 
Environment Appropriations bill, and I will vote for it, in just a few 
minutes, I hope. 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.
  After we made a decision to add this $1.5 billion, I contacted back 
in the State of Washington the veterans hospital in Seattle and the one 
at American Lake to find out what the backlog was, and I was shocked to 
find out that there is a backlog of some 2,000 veterans who are waiting 
to get an initial appointment at those hospitals. So this money clearly 
is needed, and I am pleased that the other body selected the Interior 
appropriations to add this $1.5 billion to and that we were able to 
present it here today to the House.
  There are several areas of this bill that I believe are underfunded; 
however, I believe these funding decisions were the result of an 
inadequate allocation. Although the majority cannot escape 
responsibility for this allocation, I believe that we here in the 
minority have been treated fairly during the process of developing the 
2006 Interior appropriations.
  First of all, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Taylor), for the decision to provide the Park Service 
operating budget another year of healthy increases. Over the last 2 
years, we have provided more than $100 million in increases for the 
parks operating budget, and I am very proud of that accomplishment. We 
really were seeing a decline in some of the parks because they were not 
able to cover their fixed costs on an annual basis and had to lay off 
people and were unable to provide the American people with the services 
that they needed.
  However, I am disappointed with the overall amount for the Clean 
Water Act State Revolving Fund. I had hoped that the conference report 
would end up closer to the Senate mark of $1.1 billion, rather than at 
$900 million, which is only $50 million above the House mark. Over the 
last 2 years, this funding has been cut by 33 percent.
  I am also disappointed that we could not retain the full $10 million 
increase for the National Endowment for the Arts, which was approved on 
the House floor in an overwhelming vote, but I am gratified that we 
could agree to some increase for both the NEA and the NEH.
  I am glad to see this conference report contains increases over the 
House mark for both land acquisition and the State grant program. 
Although these programs are cut from last year, I agree with the 
decision to restore some of the funding; and I am sympathetic to the 
argument that, during a year with such a low allocation, it is most 
important to protect core programs and make land acquisition a more 
secondary goal.
  I am deeply appreciative of everyone's efforts to resolve the issue 
concerning the use of humans during pesticide testing. I think the 
conference report reflects the will of both the House and Senate to 
stop such tests until the EPA develops regulations reflecting the 
recommendation of the National Academy of Science and follows the 
Nuremburg protocols. In addition, these regulations will prohibit such 
testing on pregnant women, infants, and children.
  I also want to praise the compromise contained in this conference 
report on the Martin Luther King, Jr., memorial to be built on the 
National Mall. The conference report contains $10 million that must be 
matched by private donations. This matching requirement will spur 
increased private donations and reflects the thinking of the chairman, 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), who felt very strongly 
that we should try to raise as much money for the memorial from the 
private sector.
  Again, I want to say that the chairman has been very fair and his 
staff, led by Debbie Weatherly, has done an outstanding job in putting 
together this bill. I want to congratulate Mike Stevens and Pete Modoff 
of my staff for the exceptional work they did on this bill. I think 
this is, in a very difficult year, I think this is a bill that deserves 
our support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat of the full Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I would simply like to say that this is a close call on this bill 
as far as I am concerned; but weighing all of the conflicting 
pressures, I come down on the side of recommending a vote for the bill, 
primarily because of what it does to finally provide sufficient funding 
for veterans health care.
  With respect to that item, I would simply say to our friends on the 
majority side of the aisle, welcome aboard. We tried for the last year 
and a half to convince this administration and to convince the majority 
that the veterans health accounts were underfunded. Finally, the 
administration admitted that that was true; and, in fact, the amount 
being added to this bill today for veterans health care is exactly the 
amount that we had been asking be added to that program for that 
purpose for a long period of time.
  I want to make clear, the shortfall for veterans' health care is not 
the responsibility of the chairman of this subcommittee. This problem 
is supposed to be taken care of by another subcommittee; but, in fact, 
after running away from the problem for months and months, the majority 
party has finally decided that they did not want to go home in August 
and have to face the folks at the Legion hall or the VFW hall without 
finally doing something to fix the problem. So I am glad that they did.
  But even though I am going to vote for this bill because of what it 
does for veterans, I think we need to understand that in a number of 
other areas, this bill is far from where it ought to be if we are to 
meet the responsibilities that we have to this country's future. 
Overall, funding for the EPA declines by $291 million in this bill. The 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund has now been cut by 33 percent over 2 
years. Grants to States for conservation and recreation are reduced by 
two-thirds from fiscal year 2005. Every State suffers a 66 percent cut.
  In the year 2001, land acquisition funds in this bill were $442 
million. Today, they are $124 million. That is the lowest appropriation 
for this item in the past 20 years. Construction funding for national 
parks and refuges and forests has been reduced by about 10 percent from 
last year. The funding for Forest Service buildings, roads, and trails 
has been cut from $514 million to $441 million, a reduction of 14 
percent.
  BIA school construction is funded at a level $53 million below last 
year. Health facilities construction for Indian health services is 
funded at $38 million, a reduction of $50 million. I do not believe 
those numbers are numbers that we would be proud to take home.
  So we are stuck with a choice. We can cast a protest vote against the 
cuts in this bill, which many of us have already done; or we can 
recognize the fact that in a time of war we have an obligation to meet 
the health care needs of those who have risked everything for this 
country; and I think we, in the end, have no real choice but to come 
down in favor of voting for that increased veterans funding.
  But I hope that the general public will understand that the cuts in 
this bill do the Nation no favors. We are shortchanging our country's 
future. We are not meeting our stewardship responsibilities, and we 
will pay a long-term price for that, I regret to say.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say one other thing. I do want to express my 
appreciation to the subcommittee chairman for the fairness with which 
he has dealt with this bill. I may not agree with the priorities that 
the majority party budget resolution imposed on the subcommittee, but I 
do want to say that I think the chairman has been most fair in his 
dealing with the minority; and we appreciate that.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is one of the leaders 
in this House on budget matters.

[[Page H7020]]

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of the $1.5 billion in veterans 
health care funding for 2005, which was added on to this conference 
report. I am pleased that my colleagues on the other side have finally 
come around to our position on veterans funding and now acknowledge 
that their budgets have not funded this priority accurately or 
adequately.
  This shortfall has not occurred for lack of notice or foresight. Over 
warnings from veterans groups and our own strenuous objections, the 
budgets passed by this House have consistently, consistently, 
understated the cost of veterans health care.

                              {time}  1700

  This is the Veterans Administration borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, 
denying or delaying service until a supplement finally comes through. 
And then when the supplement comes through, it busts the spending caps 
imposed in the budget and adds to the deficit.
  This is no way to budget for veterans health care, and it is no way 
to budget generally. The White House just 2 weeks ago issued a 
midsession review of the budget, which we received with some 
skepticism. We observed that their projections of the deficit seemed 
better, partly because they omit the full cost of various policies like 
veterans health care, the ongoing cost of operations in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, and fixing the alternative minimum tax, extending other tax 
credits.
  In the short run, these omissions make the deficit look better, sure, 
but in the long run the true costs emerge, and the actual deficits turn 
out to be worse than projected.
  Here, for example, is what happened to veterans health care in the 
fiscal 2005 budget cycle. When we brought forth our budget resolutions 
on the Democratic side for 2005, we argued that the discretionary 
spending levels in the Republican resolution were too tight, not 
realistic, and would shortchange essential priorities like veterans 
health care.
  We were not alone. The chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee 
argued that more funding for veterans health care was badly needed, but 
our concerns went unheeded. Now we have to face the truth. The funding 
provided for veterans health care in the 2005 budget was, in fact, not 
sufficient.
  And since an accurate funding level was not built into the budget, 
today's bill will move discretionary spending for 2005 over the 
allocation included in the Republican budget. This misestimate, like 
others, was left out of the deficit projections that OMB announced just 
a couple of weeks ago.
  For the record, let me point out that the Democrats put forth a 
responsible budget for 2005. Our budget brought us to balance by the 
year 2012, yet we funded veterans health care priorities and other 
priorities adequately.
  Our budget provided $1.3 billion more for veterans health care in 
2005, and $1.5 billion more over a 5-year period of time. Unfortunately 
the same story is playing out, unfolding again in 2006. Once again, 
once again, this year we warned that the budget provided too little for 
veterans health care, and once again it was to no avail.
  Our resolution provided $1.5 billion more for veterans health care in 
2006, $16.4 billion more over 5 years, and a budget, mind you, that 
balanced by 2012. Just 3 months later, 3 months later, we are told that 
the VA appropriations bill for 2006 will have to exceed its budget 
allocation to accommodate the administration's amended request for 
veterans health care. And, of course, the deficit estimates for 2006 
will have to be revised upward accordingly.
  Mr. Speaker, I would gladly vote to raise veterans health care to the 
level it should have been to start with, but I urge that we learn a 
lesson from this experience and be forthright in the future about the 
cost of veterans health care. And in that connection, I would note that 
in the outyears, 2007, 2008 and onward, the official estimates of the 
Republican budget still grossly underfund veterans health care, they 
understate the deficit, and they definitely will have to do this all 
over again until the numbers are finally done right.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis), who has been a real leader on the issue of 
dealing with pesticides and their effect on humans.
  (Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Interior-Environment 
appropriations bill. I want to especially thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking, for their work on this 
legislation.
  I am particularly proud of the steps that Congress has taken today to 
require the application of stringent ethical and scientific safeguards 
of intentional human dosing studies, and to stop the testing of 
pesticides on pregnant women and children. And I would like to thank 
all of your staff for their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SOLIS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman on her 
hard work on this. I can remember when we had the amendment on the 
floor. It was adopted here in the House unanimously. And I think your 
work and the work of your colleague from California in the other body 
on this matter, where they also won a vote there, too, was very 
impressive.
  And, you know, this is the first year our committee has had 
jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency, so we are all 
learning about these issues. I want to congratulate you on your real 
leadership. And I think what you did will be something that will 
protect children and pregnant mothers and will bring better standards 
at EPA on this issue. I congratulate you on this effort.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to also 
submit that our staffs have worked very hard, and the outside 
organizations that worked in tandem with us, religious organizations, 
the scientific, environmental community, as well as activists. In fact, 
the United Farm Workers also submitted a letter of support.
  This should never have happened. It should never have taken place, 
the testing of pesticides on humans, and particularly children.
  So I know that I stand here before you in the Congress to say that 
this is a good moment for us in this particular time. Thank you very 
much.
  Mr. Speaker, as co-sponsor of this amendment, I rise today to support 
the application of stringent ethical and scientific safeguards to 
intentional human dosing studies of toxic chemicals and applaud the 
inclusion of this language in the Interior-Appropriation bill.
  This amendment forbids the EPA from considering any intentional human 
dosing study unless it meets the minimum ethical and scientific 
safeguards outlined in the February 2004 National Academy of Sciences 
report and the 1947 Nuremberg Code adopted after World War II. I am 
submitting copies of the NAS report and the Nuremberg Code into the 
Record.
  In particular, this amendment prohibits intentional human dosing on 
pregnant women, infants, or children, and requires the creation of a 
review board to evaluate the ethical and scientific propriety of 
intentional human dosing studies before they can be conducted, 
considered, or relied on. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences 
convened a panel to examine the issue of intentionally dosing human 
subjects with pesticides and other toxic substances.
  The report of the NAS, published in February 2004, recognized that 
these experiments can be ``troubling'' and in some cases ``repugnant.'' 
For this reason, the NAS concluded that to be ``ethically justified,'' 
a human pesticide experiment must pass ``rigorous scrutiny on both 
scientific and ethical grounds.''
  All of the studies currently pending before EPA are scientifically 
and ethically suspect and appear to fall far short of the stringent 
criteria for EPA consideration outlined by the NAS and the Nuremberg 
Code, and required in this amendment. EPA provided Congress with a list 
of all human intentional dosing tests under consideration by the 
agency. An extensive evaluation of these tests shows that they are rife 
with ethical and scientific flaws and do not approach the standard for 
acceptability.
  Representative Waxman and Senator Boxer evaluated the serious flaws 
in these studies in

[[Page H7021]]

a report released last month entitled Human Pesticide Experiments, 
which I am submitting into the Record.
  It is also clear that EPA's draft regulation regarding human testing 
similarly fails to meet the minimum criteria required in this 
amendment. EPA circulated internally a draft rule among the agency's 
various offices on June 20, 2005. EPA's draft rule, slated for proposal 
next month, would have allowed the systematic testing of pesticides on 
humans. The draft rule does not comply with the recommendations of the 
NAS and the Nuremberg Code, and it contains multiple loopholes that 
invite abuse.
  The EPA draft is inconsistent with the standards we require in this 
amendment. EPA originally commenced its rulemaking in response to a 
wave of industry pressure to permit intentional dosing of human test 
subjects with toxic chemicals.
  The pesticide industry has mounted a campaign to expand testing of 
pesticides on humans in order to weaken health standards. Because of 
the stricter requirements imposed by the Food Quality Protection Act of 
1996, the pesticide industry has been under growing pressure to reduce 
the risks that pesticides pose to infants and children. The industry 
has adopted a strategy to evade these requirements by testing 
pesticides on a small number of adult human subjects, and then cite 
these tests to argue that the chemicals are safe.
  EPA's proposed rule encourages this strategy and is contrary to the 
recommendations of the NAS and the ethical guidelines of the Nuremberg 
Code that we require in this amendment. I am submitting for the record 
a June 2005 report titled Flash Report: New EPA Proposal Encourages 
Human Pesticide Experiments.
  As outlined in more detail in this report, EPA's proposed rule 
violates the ethical and scientific safeguards now required by this 
amendment, by failing to establish a national review panel to prevent 
abusive experiments, and by failing to provide full protections for 
children and other vulnerable populations.
  Furthermore, the EPA draft rule does not clearly require that 
pesticide experiments comply with even its sub par standards. To the 
contrary, EPA proposed to accept all experiments as long as they 
``substantially'' comply. This provision overtly undercuts the 
protections in the rule. The vague standard of substantial compliance 
wrongly sends the signal that EPA will not demand strict adherence to 
ethical standards in human pesticide experiments.
  Intentional human toxicity testing has a troubling history that 
includes manipulation and abuse of the most vulnerable members of 
society. The amendment that I am supporting today will ensure that EPA 
may not consider or rely on any intentional human-dosing study that 
does not meet the minimum ethical and scientific criteria recommended 
by the NAS and expressed in the Nuremberg Code.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I will not consume very much 
time. I rise to express my deep appreciation one more time to my 
colleague and friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for his 
cooperating with me as we have gone through this initial conference 
process, but most importantly to congratulate both my colleague, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and my colleague, the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), for the fabulous job on this first of 
a series of conference reports that we expect to send to the 
President's desk.
  It is very early in the process, but the Interior bill will be on the 
President's desk, and I am very certain he will find it to be to his 
liking. So congratulations to each of you for your work.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important moment today 
that we are passing this conference report before the August recess. 
And I want to congratulate the chairman and ranking member, who has 
really worked tirelessly to work with the chairman to get these bills 
enacted.
  But I think there is absolutely no excuse not to try to do this and 
try to pass the rest of the bills in September and show the American 
people that we can get the job done before the start of the fiscal 
year.
  And I think every time we have a new chairman, we do better in this 
regard. The previous chairman, of course, had to deal with other 
problems. But I think the chairman has made this a big priority. I 
think it is important that we do this, and I want to congratulate him 
for his leadership as the new chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me 
further say that none of this would have been done as effectively and 
with the high quality reflected in the conference report without the 
great help of our staff. They have done a tremendous job. They are 
breaking records here. It is because of the cooperation of the entire 
committee, the Members and the staff working together.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I rise in 
opposition to this conference report. Let me explain. Mr. Speaker, this 
is a bad bill. It guts some of our most important environmental 
programs. It seems that the Republican majority realized what a bad 
bill it was and in order to win support for it, they put $1.5 billion 
in much needed funds for veterans' healthcare.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am a pragmatist. I realize that there is no 
perfect bill. Sometimes we have to settle for some good and some bad. 
The bill before us, however, is a close call.
  The problem is a simple one. You see, for years my Republican 
colleagues have been shortchanging our veterans. The number of veterans 
treated at VA facilities increased from 2.7 million to 4.7 million from 
1995 to 2004. The Department expects to treat 5.2 million veterans in 
2006. Currently, more than 50,000 veterans are waiting in line for at 
least 6 months for health services from the VA. Medical costs are 
increasing at nearly double the rate of inflation. Yet, over five 
years, the Republican budget for primarily veterans' health programs is 
funded $13.5 billion below the amount needed to maintain services at 
current levels.
  I am pleased that my Republican colleagues have finally seen the 
light and realized that we cannot ask our men and women in uniform to 
make the ultimate sacrifice only to come home and have the promise of 
quality and timely healthcare broken. However, I am angry as hell that 
they attached this much needed funding to a particularly appalling 
bill.
  You are probably saying, ``Dingell, how appalling could it be when we 
are finally getting this funding for our veterans?''
  Well, let me tell you.
  EPA has estimated that there is a $388 billion shortfall between 
needed clean water and drinking water investments and the current level 
of spending. What do my Republican colleagues do to address that 
shortfall, Mr. Speaker? They cut the Clean Water State Revolving Loan 
Fund by $200 million from the FY 05 enacted level! That is a 33 percent 
cut over the past two years. Moreover, the bill cuts water and sewer 
construction grants by more than 30 percent--a reduction of $107 
million from last year. This hardly seems like a reasonable response.
  Conservation and land acquisition got a $41 million reduction. This 
is 25 percent below last year's enacted level. Mr. Speaker, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have the dubious honor of 
providing the lowest appropriation for land and conservation programs 
in 20 years.
  Funding for construction at our National Parks, Refuges and Forests 
was cut by ten percent and funding for Forest Service buildings, roads 
and trails by 14 percent. Stateside grants for conservation and 
recreation got an amazing two-thirds cut, from $90 million last year to 
$30 million.
  So, you see the conundrum before us.
  It is with a heavy heart that I feel that I must stand against not 
only a bad bill, but also against the process. It is unconscionable 
that my friends on the other side of the aisle would link this 
critically important and much needed funding for our Nation's heroes to 
a bad bill.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this 
conference report.
  I am very reluctant to support this bill because it contains 
provisions I strongly oppose. Specifically, this bill contains harmful 
cuts to important interior and environmental priorities. It cuts $800 
million from last year's funding level for natural resources and the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental and management and 
science and technology accounts are severely cut in this bill. The bill 
cuts $107 million for water and sewer construction STAG grants, cuts 
$200 million from SRF clean water funds, and cuts $30 million from 
stateside grants to states for conservation and recreation.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress has a solemn obligation to protect our 
Nation's water, air and land resources for public health and safety. We 
must practice responsible stewardship of our natural resources and pass 
on to future generations a physical environment as bountiful as the one 
we have enjoyed. This bill fails this test miserably.
  I will vote for this bill because it contains desperately needed 
funding for veterans health care. Specifically, the conference report 
on H.R. 2631 contains $1.5 billion in veterans

[[Page H7022]]

health care funds to make up for the Administration's bogus budget 
proposals. Democrats in this House have been arguing for months that 
the Administration is shortchanging VA health care, and we should 
restore that funding in the proper legislation under regular order. A 
nation at war must take care of its veterans, and I will vote for this 
bill to provide this critical funding for veterans health care.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment with the 
Interior Appropriations bill that we are considering today. Although I 
will reluctantly vote for this legislation, I am concerned with the 
reduction in funding for many important domestic programs.
  While I am pleased that this conference bill does not completely 
eliminate the Land and Water Conservation Fun, (LWCF), as in the House-
passed version, I am still disappointed that this program only received 
$30 million, which is one-third of what it received last year.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund has been instrumental in 
assisting local and State governments preserve vital open spaces. This 
program was established in 1965 to address rapid overdevelopment by 
increasing the number of high quality recreation areas and facilities 
and by increasing the local involvement in land preservation. To 
achieve this goal, the fund was separated into two components, one 
portion of the fund serves as an account from which the Federal 
government draws from to acquire land and the other portion is 
distributed to states in a matching grant program.
  New Jersey has been active in seeking grants from this program and 
has received funds from the LWCF that were used to preserve treasures 
such as the Pinelands National Reserve and the Delaware National Scenic 
River. In addition, LWCF has provided more that $111 million in state 
and local grants to build softball fields, rehabilitate playgrounds and 
to expand state parks.
  Urban and highly developed regions, such as the region that I 
represent, will suffer the most from the elimination of the LWCF state 
grant program. The LWCF matching-grant program has proven to be a 
successful way to overcome the high cost of living that makes land 
acquisition and renewal projects costly in these regions. The steep 
reduction in funding for this program will leave local leaders without 
the capital necessary to enhance the quality of life in their 
communities.
  This bill also cuts other domestic programs that benefit all 
Americans and future generations. This legislation only provides $900 
million for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund--a reduction of $200 
million from last year. This is vitally important to keeping drinking 
water clean and safe by supporting wastewater treatment, nonpoint 
source pollution and watershed and estuary management. Additionally, 
this bill cuts Federal land acquisition funding by 25 percent and 
reduces funding for construction projects in our national parks, 
refuges and forests by 10 percent.
  Despite my reservations with cuts to important Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA, and the Department of Interior, DOI, programs, 
I am pleased that this bill does the right thing and finally provides 
the VA the funds it needs to continue the delivery of care to our 
veterans through the end of the current fiscal year. This month, our 
Nation marked the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Veterans' 
Administration, the forerunner of today's Department of Veterans 
Affairs. Even as we celebrate the VA's many achievements, particularly 
in the field of medical research, we should use this opportunity to ask 
if we, as a country, are truly putting our money where our mouth is 
regarding VA funding. Every day, VA doctors, nurses, technicians and 
other staff across our country work to try to deliver the best possible 
health care to our veterans. They face one critical and continuing 
obstacle--a VA medical system that is chronically, and needlessly, 
underfunded.

  I hope that the Congress will learn from this experience and pass 
mandatory funding legislation for the VA health care system. It's long 
past time for Congress to cease its band-aid approach to funding for 
veteran's health care, and I urge my colleagues to honor the request of 
the leaders of our Nation's veterans organizations to deal once and for 
all with this shameful and avoidable situation.
  Another positive provision in this bill is the modest increase in 
funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National 
Endowment for the Humanities. Although the final funding levels fall 
slightly short of the amount approved by the House in May, the 
additional money will allow the NEA and NEH to build programs that use 
the strength of the arts and our Nation's cultural life to enhance 
communities in every State and every county around America.
  It is clear that increasing funding for the arts and humanities are 
among the best investments that we as a society can make. They help our 
children learn. They give the elderly intellectual sustenance. They 
power economic development in regions that are down and out. They tie 
our diverse society and country together. I thank the conferees for 
recognizing the importance of this investment and giving the NEA and 
NEH the funds they need to advance our Nation's artistic and cultural 
life.
  Even though I strongly oppose cuts to certain programs in this 
appropriations bill, I will vote in favor of this legislation. I hope 
in the future we can provide sufficient funding to these programs that 
enhance our communities, provide the Nation with clean water, and 
protect our precious natural wonders.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
conference report to provide funding for the Department of the Interior 
and the Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 2006. Despite a 
tight allocation, the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Interior 
subcommittee performed an admirable task in providing the necessary 
funding for the continued management of federal lands and the operation 
of our country's environmental programs. I was disappointed to learn, 
however, that the bill does not provide much needed funding for a 
project I requested for the City of Houston and the University of 
Texas, Houston to conduct a risk assessment of air toxics in the 
Greater Houston area.
  The Houston Chronicle recently completed a five-part series titled 
``In Harm's Way'' that investigated air toxics in the ``fence-line'' 
communities near industrial facilities in Houston's East End. In 
particular, the series noted that the Texas Commission on Environmental 
Quality found that folks residing in some of these neighborhoods 
experience higher levels of potentially carcinogenic compounds than 
other areas.
  For many years, residents have had concerns and questions about the 
quality of the air in Houston's East End, the potential relationship to 
local industry, and the potential health effects on their families. The 
City of Houston, partnering with the University of Texas School of 
Public Health, is already working to characterize the science and weigh 
the evidence on health effects. Federal funding would allow us to 
broaden the scope of these efforts to ensure that we include the full 
range of risk assessment activities in our effort to improve the air in 
Houston.
  While I remain disappointed that the Appropriations Committee did not 
include a line-item appropriation for this project, I am pleased that 
my colleague from Washington, the Interior Subcommittee Ranking Member, 
recognized the need for this air toxics assessment and has agreed to 
work with me to encourage the EPA to include this assessment as part of 
its fiscal year 2006 operations.
  I thank my friend, Mr. Dicks, for his willingness to work with me on 
this effort. The folks in these fence-line communities--my 
constituents--are often the workers who produce many of the essential 
energy and petrochemical products we all use everyday, and they deserve 
accurate information about their environment.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that, ``You can put 
a dress on a pig, but it's still a pig.'' While I am happy that the 
FY06 Interior Appropriations Conference Report includes $1.5 billion to 
make up for the funding shortfall for the Veterans' Administration, VA, 
it does not mask the horrible choices that were made in the rest of 
this bill. It's still a pig. This legislation includes cuts to the 
Clean Water State Revolving Fund, decreases in the number of STAG 
grants, and completely eliminates many conservation grants.
  Ensuring that the VA has the funding it needs is one of my highest 
priorities, which is why I am so disappointed that this money was 
included in a bill that undermines our environment. It is sad that 
veterans' have been shortchanged by President Bush who was all to eager 
to send troops off to war, but failed to account for the cost of their 
care after they had dutifully served their country. The underestimation 
by the White House of $1.5 billion for this year is only the tip of the 
iceberg with the shortfall for next year already projected to be $2.6 
billion. Unfortunately, the shortsightedness of the Republican majority 
failed to include this spending where it should be, in the Military 
Quality of Life Appropriations bill.
  However, Mr. Speaker, in spite of the shortcomings for the 
environment, I will vote for this bill to support our troops.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the conference report on H.R. 2361, the Interior Appropriations 
bill. This important piece of legislation provides $1.5 billion to 
remedy the shortfall in veterans' health care for this year. Earlier 
this month, I stood here urging this body to step up to the plate when 
it comes to veterans. Our veterans must be our number one priority. By 
passing this measure, we take the first step in fulfilling our 
obligation to the men and women who have served our country with honor 
and dignity.
  Passage of this bill is a necessity--I will never turn my back to our 
Nation's veterans. However, I do want to take this opportunity to 
discuss my concerns with the larger measure

[[Page H7023]]

and its failure to address the land and water conservation and 
management needs of our nation. The Land and Water Conservation Fund 
has been a valuable program for my district. This has been a fund to 
assist communities in helping preserve open space to protect and 
conserve unique landscapes. The cut in funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund is a cut in land conservation for Colorado.
  For those who know, the 3rd Congressional District is comprised of 
rural communities containing millions of acres of public lands. These 
public lands are managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land 
Management, National Park Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
These agencies and public lands provide many benefits for the local 
communities in my district. I am disappointed with the decrease in 
funding to these agencies in this year's Interior Appropriations 
Conference Report. These agencies have to maintain a difficult balance 
of managing our nation's public lands with budget constraints. By 
cutting funding to these agencies it makes it very difficult for them 
to maintain their current management practices and leaves our nation's 
public lands in jeopardy.
  With that being said, this report does have some positive aspects. 
The funding of $5.6 billion for Indian programs is beneficial for 
school and hospital construction, education grants, human services 
programs, and law enforcement needs. These programs are essential for 
the Native American reservations within my district.
  More often than not, in the West, the Federal Government is not just 
your neighbor, it is the entire neighborhood. Since most of my district 
cannot raise taxes, Payment in Lieu of Funding is vital. These counties 
with public lands within their boundaries need this funding for 
schools, roads, and other infrastructure needs. This program has never 
been fully funded, yet my counties are dependent upon this program. I 
hope to see this program fully funded next year.
  I also want to see continued funding for the National Fire Plan and 
the forest health initiatives. These programs need to see increased 
funding due to the continued drought periods in the West and the 
current pine beetle epidemic. If the beetle infestations are not 
addressed, we will continue to see our forests decimated. These insects 
will continue to cause fire hazards in our nation's forests if we do 
not get them under control.
  I urge Congress next year to fully fund these agency budgets. This is 
critical to the Western States and our existence.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Representatives Obey and 
Dicks for their assistance in securing $100,000 for Montrose's City 
Hall Renovation Project. The City Hall building of Montrose was built 
in 1926 and has been well preserved throughout the years. However, as 
the City and County continues to grow, so too must the building in 
order to accommodate the needs of the people. Preserving and expanding 
the City Hall building in Montrose will allow us to keep a part of 
history alive for future generations of Colorado. Mr. Speaker once 
again I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. We 
need to sure up our VA budget so we can continue to provide critical 
health care services to our nation's veterans. In the future we need to 
restore the Land and Water Conservation funding and fully fund our 
agencies budgets.
  Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests 
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Without objection the 
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  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.

                          ____________________