[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 106 (Friday, July 29, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1720]
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

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 28, 2005

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this conference 
report--but only because it includes an essential immediate increase in 
funding for veterans health care.
  This has been a long time coming. Last September, many of us sought 
to provide a $2.5 billion increase over the Bush Administration's 
budget for veterans' health care. Earlier this year, Members on our 
side of the aisle made an unsuccessful effort to add $1.2 billion for 
veterans' health care to the emergency supplemental appropriations for 
military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. And over the last month, 
the Republican leadership led successful efforts to block consideration 
of amendments to add the needed funds for VA health care.
  Things finally changed when the Bush Administration finally 
acknowledged a $1 billion shortfall in veterans' health care for FY 
2005, which had been well known since spring. When that happened, the 
Senate added $1.5 billion in supplemental funding to this bill because 
it was the most convenient legislative vehicle--and the conferees 
wisely agreed to retain it in the conference report.
  This additional $1.5 billion is essential if we are to make any claim 
to meeting our moral obligation to America's veterans and returning 
soldiers. Because of its inclusion, I will vote for the conference 
report, even though the rest of the conference report does not deserve 
to pass.
  Except for the veterans' health funding, this conference report falls 
short across the board.
  It once again fails to provide the authorized funding for the 
payments-in-lieu-of-taxes program, shortchanging the counties and other 
local governments in Colorado and across the country for whom these 
``PILT'' payments are so important.
  It does not provide enough funds to enable the Bureau of Land 
Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park 
Service, or the Forest Service to properly manage the federal lands for 
which they are responsible.
  And it inadequately funds many other agencies as well, particularly 
the Environmental Protection Agency, which will be cut by about 3 
percent from this fiscal year. I am particularly concerned about deep 
cuts to EPA's state grants (down nearly $400 million from fiscal 2005), 
which support environmental protection programs through grants to 
State, local and tribal governments, and a $24 million shortfall for 
EPA science and technology research.

  Of course, Colorado will benefit from funding earmarked for projects 
in several parts of the state. But the needs of many communities will 
go unmet, and opportunities to acquire high-priority lands such as 
those in the Beaver Brook watershed in Clear Creek County will be 
missed.
  Finally, the bill includes extensive legislative provisions 
authorizing the Forest Service to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise 
convey lands that the Forest Service identifies as ``administrative 
sites''--including forest headquarters, ranger stations, research 
stations, or laboratories, among many other kinds of sites.
  Mr. Speaker, this part of the conference report originated in the 
Senate. Inclusion of such legislative provisions in a general 
appropriation bill is contrary to the House rules, because it properly 
should be handled by the authorizing committee--the Committee on 
Resources--in an orderly fashion that allows for hearings and the 
consideration of amendments.
  It would have been far better for the House conferees to have 
rejected it and enabled our committee to consider it in that fashion. 
However, I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the 
conferees did make very important changes in the Senate-passed 
language.
  In particular, I am glad that they included an explicit requirement 
for the Forest Service to consult with affected local governments and 
to provide public notice regarding their plans for disposing of 
properties covered by this part of the conference report. And I think 
that excluding visitor centers and potential inholdings as well as 
lands providing access to other lands or waters were valuable changes, 
as was the requirement that the Forest Service provide advance notice 
to Congress of planned disposals and the reaffirmation that 
environmental analysis of proposed disposals include consideration of 
the ``no action'' alternative as required by NEPA.
  While this legislation will remain in effect only through fiscal 
2008, the statement of managers clearly signals an expectation that 
Congress will be asked to renew it or perhaps even make it permanent. 
If that should occur, I will do all I can to make sure that the 
Resources Committee is responsible for considering such legislation and 
that it is not accomplished by inclusion of legislation in an 
appropriations measure.

                          ____________________