[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19108-19114]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
equally divided on the conference report accompanying H.R. 2361.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Interior 
appropriations conference report and to speak about two key provisions: 
one to protect our veterans and one to protect our kids.
  First, the conference report includes a much needed $1.5 billion 
supplemental spending package for veterans health care. This $1.5 
billion will cover the massive budgetary shortfall that Congress only 
recently discovered, and I hope this will prevent the loss of some 
important veterans health care services.
  Earlier this year, I, along with my Democratic colleagues on the 
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, repeatedly asked the Department of 
Veterans Affairs if the President's budget provided sufficient funds 
for veterans health care. The response we received was yes, the funds 
are sufficient.
  Unfortunately, that response was not consistent with what folks on 
the ground were saying about VA health care services. They complained 
of long waiting periods for doctor's appointments, reduced office hours 
at veterans clinics, an increased demand for services, and reduced 
access. These voices were too loud to ignore, so I joined my colleagues 
Senator Murray and Senator Akaka here on the floor of the Senate to ask 
for additional funding for VA health care. Those efforts were defeated, 
but we knew that a possible crisis was on its way.
  That crisis became a reality when it was discovered that the VA was 
more than $1.5 billion in the hole on its health care funding. Like 
many of my colleagues in the Senate, I was shocked by that admission.
  I was pleased to join Senator Murray in cosponsoring both a stand-
alone bill and an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill to get 
veterans the funding they need so they can get the health care that 
they have earned and deserve.
  The $1.5 billion appropriated by today's Interior appropriations 
conference report will help ensure that our Nation's veterans get that 
health care. With this funding, our veterans facilities also will get 
the maintenance they need, and I hope the VA will be able to keep its 
hands out of its rainy day fund.
  I don't think there is sone person in this Senate who would want to 
tell a returning soldier who fought and bled for our country: Sorry, 
but when it comes to getting health care, you are on your own.
  I was right. The inclusion of this provision in the conference report 
proves that we can work together to do what is necessary for our 
Nation's veterans.
  I thank Senator Murray, Senator Craig, and Senator Akaka for their 
leadership on this issue. I hope we can work together--as we do today--
to ensure that veterans are not shortchanged next year. They deserve 
better.
  Second, I want to thank my colleagues for including an amendment in 
the conference report that is important to parents of small children 
all over the country but particularly in my hometown of Chicago. I am 
referring to my amendment prohibiting EPA from spending tax dollars to 
delay the promulgation of regulations that are now 9 years overdue. 
These regulations, when promulgated, would require contractors to 
reduce lead paint exposure during home renovation and remodeling.
  I have raised this issue with EPA on numerous occasions and reminded 
them of the serious health dangers that high blood lead levels pose for 
children. Now, reluctantly, EPA officials have promised me these rules 
will be issued by the end of the year. I intend to use this amendment 
to hold them to their word. So today when we pass this funding bill, I 
can tell the youngest, poorest citizens of Illinois that Congress is 
doing its part to keep them safe from lead paint exposure.
  I ask unanimous consent that my letter to EPA Administrator Johnson 
regarding this issue be printed into the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2005.
     Hon. Stephen L. Johnson,
     Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator Johnson: As you may know, I have been 
     concerned about the failure of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2682(c)(3). This provision requires EPA to issue rules 
     for contractors to reduce lead exposure during home 
     renovation and remodeling by October 1996. Almost nine years 
     later, these rules still have not been issued, and I have 
     spent the past few months trying to understand why.
       When your nomination was considered by the Senate 
     Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee in April, I 
     asked you when EPA was going to issue these rules. You stated 
     that EPA was focusing on a voluntary education and outreach 
     program and ``will evaluate the effectiveness of this effort 
     and will determine what additional steps may be necessary, 
     including regulation.'' Of course, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2682(c)(3) 
     does not give EPA the option of whether to promulgate 
     regulations.
       In May, Sen. Boxer, Rep. Waxman, and I wrote a follow-up 
     letter to you, asking once again when EPA would issue these 
     rules on lead. We received no response for two months.
       In June, I included an amendment in the EPA appropriations 
     bill that would prohibit the agency from spending any funds 
     to delay the implementation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2682(c)(3). 
     That bill passed the Senate unanimously.

[[Page 19109]]

       When Deputy Administrator-designate Marcus Peacock appeared 
     before the EPW Committee two weeks ago, I asked him about the 
     status of these lead rules. Responding to written questions 
     that I submitted to him after the hearing, Mr. Peacock 
     stated: ``As I understand it, the Agency will announce by the 
     end of this year a comprehensive program, which will include 
     a proposed regulation, as well as an extensive education and 
     outreach campaign aimed at the renovation, repair, and 
     painting industry and the consumer.''
       I am pleased by Mr. Peacock's statement, which is a 
     significant departure from your response in April. I am also 
     encouraged by a letter I received last week from Susan Hazen, 
     Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, responding to my 
     May letter. Ms. Hazen reiterated that ``the Agency plans to 
     announce by the end of this year, a comprehensive program 
     that will include a proposed rule.''
       In light of the commitments I received from Mr. Peacock and 
     Ms. Hazen, I voted last Wednesday to confirm Mr. Peacock for 
     the deputy administrator position. However, I want you to 
     know that I will be closely monitoring EPA's actions 
     regarding lead paint and will expect you to honor your 
     commitment to issue these proposed rules by December 31, 
     2005.
       I look forward to working with you on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Barack Obama,
                                            United States Senator.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Interior appropriations conference 
report before us today is a very important piece of legislation. This 
conference report contains over $26.2 billion to fund the Department of 
the Interior, the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Indian Health Service, among 
many others. This represents an increase of approximately $500 million 
over the administration's budget request. While I appreciate the 
importance of funding the programs in this legislation, I am 
disappointed that we have once again exceeded the requested level of 
spending.
  One bright note of this bill is the correction of the funding 
shortfall for the Department of Veterans Affairs' health care programs 
that was only recently brought to the attention of Congress. I am 
pleased that we have all acted quickly to provide an additional $1.5 
billion in emergency funding for the VA.
  This bill contains several accounts which are designated as 
``Congressional Priorities.'' I fully recognize that Congress has a 
responsibility to fund important projects, but we need to follow the 
proper process in doing so. To put it simply, if there is a 
congressional priority that is not included in the administration's 
request, we should get it authorized through the appropriate committee 
and then set aside the necessary funds.
  It has become standard practice around here to forgo the authorizing 
process and simply do everything on appropriations. That is wrong and 
it needs to stop. Congressional priorities should be subjected to the 
scrutiny of public hearings and debate--they should not be held up as 
some type of sacred cows that are not to be questioned. We can no 
longer afford to fund every pet project simply because a Member of 
Congress considers it to be imperative.
  Let me highlight a few of the projects that are contained in this 
bill: $1.2 million for eider and sea otter recovery at the Alaska Sea 
Life Center; $200,000 for landscaping at the Gettysburg Military Park 
in Pennsylvania; $200,000 for the George Washington Memorial Parkway 
right here in the Washington, DC, area; $450,000 for the Automobile 
National Heritage area in Detroit, MI; $150,000 for the Actors Theatre 
in Kentucky; $150,000 for the Black Horse Tavern in Pennsylvania; over 
$6 million to rehabilitate bathhouses at the Hot Springs National Park 
in Arkansas; $2.5 million for the Southwest Pennsylvania Heritage 
Commission; $11.1 million for the Old Faithful Inn at Yellowstone 
National Park; $5.3 million for Sleeping Bear Dunes in Michigan; 
$200,000 for a diamondback terrapin study. That's one expensive turtle; 
$400,000 to survey and monitor the ivory-billed woodpecker in Arkansas; 
$150,000 for the Alaska Whaling Commission; $98,000 for the Alaska Sea 
Otter Commission; $200,000 for maple research in Vermont; $1.8 million 
for restoration of the Long Island Sound; $4 million for water system 
technology in Kentucky, New Hampshire, Alaska, Pennsylvania, Missouri, 
Montana, Illinois, and Mississippi. Interesting--what is it that all of 
these States have in common? The answer is that they are all 
represented by a member of the Appropriations Committee; $350,000 for a 
tree planting program in Milwaukee, WI; $500,000 for the Hinkle Creek 
watershed study in Oregon; $500,000 for a hardwood scanning center at 
Purdue University in Indiana; and $400,000 for a wood technology center 
in Ketchikan, AK.
  Another troubling aspect of the appropriations process is the way in 
which we have become complacent with the routine violations of the 
rules of both the Senate and the House that occur on these bills. The 
rules of both bodies clearly state that it is not in order to legislate 
on an appropriations bill. Senate rule XVI states, ``The Committee on 
Appropriations shall not report an appropriation bill containing 
amendments to such bill proposing new or general legislation . . .'' 
And House rule XXI states, ``A provision changing existing law may not 
be reported in a general appropriation bill.'' Sadly, these directives 
are routinely ignored in this process by the inclusion of legislative 
language and policy changes on appropriations bills.
  Let me point out just a few examples of these violations that are 
contained in this conference report: Language prohibiting the closure 
of the underground lunchroom at Carlsbad Caverns National Park in New 
Mexico. Language prohibiting the demolition of a bridge between New 
Jersey and Ellis Island. Language authorizing the Secretary of the 
Interior to acquire lands for the operation of Ellis, Governors, and 
Liberty Islands. Language prohibiting the demolition of structures on 
the Zephyr Shoals property in Lake Tahoe, NV.
  So as not to be viewed as unappreciative, I would like to comment on 
one aspect of this measure with which I was pleased. In this bill, 
there is over $3.2 billion for the State and Tribal Assistance Grant 
Program. These funds are earmarked for 257 various projects around the 
country. Last year, this same account contained 667 earmarks. I have 
long been critical of the number of earmarks contained in this section, 
and I commend the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for their 
restraint in this area.
  I am, however, still concerned with the number of earmarks contained 
in this and many of the other annual appropriations bills. Mr. 
President, the process of earmarking funds in appropriations bills has 
simply lurched out of control. According to a report issued by the 
Congressional Research Service, in fiscal year 1994 there were 4,126 
earmarks in the then 13 annual appropriations bills. That number grew 
to 14,040 earmarks in fiscal year 2004. That is an increase of 240 
percent in just 10 years.
  It is clear that, with our ever-growing mandatory entitlement 
spending coupled with our shrinking discretionary accounts, we are on 
the road to fiscal disaster. At a conference in February 2005, David 
Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said this:

       If we continue on our present path, we'll see pressure for 
     deep spending cuts or dramatic tax increases. GAO's long-term 
     budget simulations paint a chilling picture. If we do 
     nothing, by 2040 we may have to cut federal spending by more 
     than half or raise federal taxes by more than two and a half 
     times to balance the budget. Clearly, the status quo is both 
     unsustainable and difficult choices are unavoidable. And the 
     longer we wait, the more onerous our options will become and 
     the less transition time we will have.

  Is that really the kind of legacy we should leave to future 
generations of Americans?
  Referring to our economic outlook, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan testified before Congress that:

       (T)he dimension of the challenge is enormous. The one 
     certainty is that the resolution of this situation will 
     require difficult choices and that the future performance of 
     the economy will depend on those choices. No changes will be 
     easy, as they all will involve lowering claims on resources 
     or raising financial obligations. It falls on the Congress to 
     determine how best to address the competing claims.

  It falls on the Congress, my friends. The head of the Government's 
chief

[[Page 19110]]

watch-dog agency and the Nation's chief economist agree--we are in real 
trouble.
  The time has come to stop the practice of earmarking unauthorized 
funds and let the cabinet officials responsible for the various 
agencies of our government determine where and how our dwindling 
discretionary funds are to be spent. If we in the Congress are not 
willing to do our jobs and authorize our spending priorities, we should 
at least be willing to trust the President's Cabinet, who we voted to 
confirm to their positions, to do their jobs and appropriately fund 
their respective agencies' needs without our interference.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, exactly 1 month ago I praised the 
Appropriations Committee's efforts to fund the State Revolving Fund for 
Wastewater Treatment and for Drinking Water at the highest possible 
levels. Today, however, I am gravely concerned about the overall cut in 
environmental spending contained in the bill before us today and 
specifically with a large cut in the clean water program.
  First, let me say that I intend to vote for this conference report, 
as it contains a $1.5 billion supplemental spending package to cover a 
shortfall in veterans health care funding.
  I was highly disappointed to learn last month of the shortfall in 
funding for veterans health care. It was particularly outrageous that 
this announcement followed on the heels of assurances from the 
Veterans' Administration and President Bush that the additional funding 
we attempted to add in the emergency supplemental funding bill was not 
needed. Clearly, this was not the case. I am pleased that the Senate 
moved immediately to rectify this problem and dealt with this problem 
while we still had a chance.
  I am frustrated, however, that the funding to combat this shortfall 
was not attached to the more appropriate vehicle. At a time when our 
soldiers are returning from war and veterans are coming into the VA in 
record numbers, our veterans and our local VA hospitals need and 
deserve this funding. I only hope that we have learned our lesson from 
this unfortunate sequence of events and that we will do what is 
necessary in the future to ensure that the essential funds are provided 
for our veterans in a timely manner and following appropriate 
procedures. Our veterans deserve no less.
  A clean and healthy environment may be our most important legacy for 
our children. It saddens me to think that under the guise of fiscal 
responsibility, the bill before us today cuts spending at the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to levels not seen since fiscal 
year 2001. This bill funds the EPA at about $7.7 billion. As recently 
as fiscal year 2004, the EPA received $8.365 billion. This is a cut of 
over $600 million in just 2 years.
  Because of the administration's fiscal policies and priorities, which 
have led to record deficits, we are now going to underfund many 
programs that are important to the protection of public health and the 
environment. There are many programs I could touch on, but let me focus 
my remarks on the sad state of the clean water State revolving fund, 
CWSRF.
  The CWSRF offers long-term, low-interest loans to State and local 
governments to help them meet Federal water quality standards by fixing 
old, decaying sewer pipelines, building and repairing wastewater 
treatment plants, and controlling other sources of water pollution. The 
conference report before us today funds the CWSRF at about $900 
million, down from almost $1.1 billion last year and over $1.3 billion 
in FY 2004. This huge drop in spending is occurring at a time when 
nearly half of America's rivers and lakes do not meet basic Clean Water 
Act standards.
  Furthermore, municipalities are currently struggling to fix old water 
and sewage pipes. The EPA estimates that clean water infrastructure 
needs nationwide will cost $390 billion over the next 15 years. The 
aging of the Nation's sewage treatment infrastructure has a direct 
effect on our waters and the people who come into contact with them. 
Many systems have exceeded their effective lives and are decaying 
because they were designed and built decades ago when urban areas were 
more compact and had much smaller populations.
  I intend to carry on this fight for increased spending on water 
infrastructure and other important environmental programs. I hope that 
we can come to our senses before it is too late.


               expanding the oil and gas leasing program

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as we prepare to accept the conference 
report on the fiscal year 2006 Interior appropriations spending bill, I 
want to raise an issue regarding the implementation of a pilot project 
in the State of Utah to determine the feasibility of expanding the oil 
and gas leasing program to include online auctioning of leases.
  There is a very active oil and gas lease trading market in the 
private sector. Many of these leases are bought and sold online in an 
auction process quite similar to other auction processes on the 
Internet. Information about the individual lease sale is made available 
to the public with accompanying documentation, prices are set and bids 
are accepted, sales and transactions are completed all online. The 
system operates very efficiently and expands the opportunity to 
participate to potential bidders all across the country.
  BLM is currently limited to conducting oil and gas lease auctions 
orally. However, under the Government Performances Result Act, or GPRA, 
Federal agencies are allowed to conduct pilot studies to identify 
opportunities to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
their business processes. Under GPRA, a pilot program which tested the 
feasibility of both oral and online auctions might help BLM increase 
the efficiency of the auction process and increase the exposure of 
leases to a broader number of participants.
  However, the BLM does not currently have the capability to implement 
a program like this. But were they to develop a partnership with the 
private sector to develop an online component of the oil and gas 
leasing program, the program becomes much more feasible.
  With that in mind, I requested funds for the BLM State office in Utah 
to conduct a pilot program with a private sector partner to develop a 
potential online oil and gas leasing project and to conduct a series of 
tests to see if this idea is workable. The Senate included funding for 
this program in the State of Utah. However, the committee did not 
specify that BLM should try to identify a private sector partner that 
has experience in conducting online oil and gas lease auctions.
  Would it be the opinion of the chairman that BLM should identify and 
work with a partner in the private sector to proceed forward quickly 
with the development of a pilot program in Utah?
  Mr. BURNS. The Senator is correct. The Bureau of Land Management 
currently does not have the mechanism in place to implement a pilot 
project like this. However, there are entities in the private sector 
that have a well-established history of conducting oil and gas lease 
auctions online. I would encourage BLM in Utah to quickly identify a 
private sector partner and develop a pilot program in Utah for online 
oil and gas lease auctions and encourage the director of the BLM to 
make sure that the necessary resources are devoted to implementing this 
project in a timely manner.
  Mr. BENNETT. I appreciate that clarification.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to take just a moment to 
comment on the Interior appropriations conference report now before the 
Senate.
  First, let me congratulate Senator Burns, chairman of the Intenor 
Subcommittee and his ranking member, Senator Dorgan, for their work on 
finishing this important piece of legislation before we adjourn for the 
August recess. My home State of Idaho has great interest in the 
Interior appropriations bill every year. And timely completion of this 
legislation is welcome news to my constituents.
  As odd as this may sound, though, I do not wish to speak about 
Interior matters in this bill. Rather, I want to say a few words about 
the $1.5 billion included in this legislation for fiscal year 2005 
supplemental funding for the

[[Page 19111]]

Department of Veterans Affairs health care system.
  I know all of my colleagues are aware of the notice I received a 
little over 1 month ago that VA funding for this fiscal year was 
severely strained. And that, as a result, this Congress was going to 
need to move fast to provide an infusion of resources to ensure our 
veterans continued to receive high-quality, timely health care from VA.
  Working with Senators Hutchison, Cochran, Murray, Feinstein, Akaka, 
and others, the Senate voted unanimously to add $1.5 billion for VA 
health care to this Interior appropriations bill. We did so because we 
were confident this legislation would be completed in time to get this 
bill to the President's desk--and more importantly get the money to VA 
for veterans' health care--before the August recess. As is evident with 
the expected passage of this bill today, we have accomplished that 
goal.
  Certainly this victory has not come without some hard work and 
negotiations. It was extremely difficult to get the administration to 
provide us with accurate budget numbers in any timely fashion. I spoke 
several times with VA Secretary Jim Nicholson and with OMB about the 
need to get the information to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and 
the Appropriations Committee fast and to get it right with respect to 
fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 so that we would not be back here 
again in 6 months talking about shortfalls.
  I am cautiously optimistic that VA and OMB have gotten it right this 
time. Working with Congress, they submitted a fiscal year 2005 and 2006 
budget amendment that identified the need for an additional $2.952 
billion. This bill provides a $1.5 billion down payment that goes 
towards meeting that identified need.
  In addition, Senators Hutchison and Feinstein are working on VA's 
funding need for fiscal year 2006 in the military construction/VA 
appropriations bill that was recently sent to the Senate floor by the 
full Appropriations Committee. We will all have a chance to vote on 
that measure after the recess.
  I also want to tell my colleagues that I was very unhappy with the 
way in which all of this information about VA's shortfalls came to my 
attention. As chairman of the Veterans Committee, I take very seriously 
my responsibility to provide oversight of the VA and its financial 
picture on behalf of the Senate. And I want each of you to know that I 
have received personal assurances from Secretary Nicholson that he will 
provide quarterly reports throughout the fiscal year on VA's financial 
picture so that Senators can be certain that VA is on track and on 
budget.
  Working together with Members on both sides of the aisle, I believe 
we can conduct the proper oversight of VA's health care budget and make 
certain that adequate finances are provided for the health care needs 
of our Nation's veterans.
  Again, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for all of their support, 
especially Chairman Cochran and Ranking Member Byrd of the full 
Appropriations Committee. Their unwavering commitment in the face of 
VA's shortfalls made this substantial supplemental increase possible.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, while I voted in favor of the fiscal 
year 2006 Interior appropriations conference report, which contains 
funding for a number of important programs, including vital funding for 
veterans health care, I am disappointed in the lack of adequate 
investment in the clean water State revolving fund. This program has 
been helpful to communities all over Wisconsin, and across the country, 
in their efforts to safeguard their water supplies and to comply with 
new standards for drinking water contaminants like arsenic and radium. 
I was concerned earlier this year when the President requested a 33 
percent cut for the clean water State revolving fund for his fiscal 
year 2006 budget. Because of my concern, I joined a bipartisan group of 
Senators in asking the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to ignore 
the requested cut in funds and instead provide $1.35 billion for this 
program. The Senate bill included $1.1 billion for the revolving fund, 
and I am disappointed that the conferees did not retain this more 
favorable funding level.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to address the conference 
report on the Interior appropriations bill. Indeed, our efforts in the 
Senate to add $1.5 billion in funding for VA this year have borne 
fruit. I again laud our bipartisan effort to address the funding crisis 
in VA health care.
  I also wish to thank my colleague, the Democratic leader, Senator 
Reid, for his determination to ensure that $1.5 billion was the final 
amount of fuhding for this year. Though some were willing to accept 
less, he and I understand that every last dollar of this amount is 
needed to provide the highest quality of care to all veterans--be they 
older veterans in VA nursing homes or younger service members just 
returning from Iraq and seeking VA care for the first time.
  We all know that while many of us have been saying that VA needs more 
money since the early part of the year, the administration needed to be 
pressed to own up to the shortfall. As I have said before, I hope in 
the future all Members reach out to VA nurses and doctors and reach out 
to the veterans service organizations. We need not wait for the 
administration to make an official pronouncement about something that 
is so obvious. I do believe that the administration has lost its 
credibility in forecasting demand and expected costs. I believe this is 
true for its estimates of this year's funding, as well as next year.
  The battle for next year's funding will be upon on us shortly. During 
the budget resolution I debate in March, I offered an amendment to 
increase VA's funding by $2.8 billion for next year. I stood before 
this body and outlined the case for a significant increase for VA. But 
we were I rejected because the administration claimed VA needed far 
less.
  The administration wants us to now believe that VA needs a certain 
amount for fiscal year 2005 and 2006. They now want to convince us that 
they have a handle on the numbers. I remain skeptical.
  VA rightly admits the fiscal year 2006 budget was off-the-mark in its 
estimate of the number of returning service members who will come for 
VA care. We know from experience how much it costs to treat a returning 
service member. Yet, the administration wants to now convince us that, 
in fact, the cost of treating a patient is less than half of this 
amount.
  My original estimate of a need for $3 billion in VA health care 
spending for next year remains correct. The VA appropriations bill must 
contain the full amount for VA health care next year. If not, our 
veterans will find this nightmare repeated once again.
  Along those lines, I appreciate the work that Senators Craig and 
Hutchison and our other colleagues are doing to tackle this problem. I 
believe we can find a solution, together.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, within the conference report on the 
interior appropriations bill is an essential provision to provide $1.5 
billion to address the current shortfall in funding for VA health care. 
The Interior appropriations conference report was selected as the 
quickest legislative vehicle to address this immediate and compelling 
lack of funding for VA.
  With our country in combat in various regions around the world, 
including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is greatly disturbing that the VA is 
facing such a severe shortfall. I am proud that the Senate prevailed in 
securing the $1.5 billion needed to respond to urgent health care needs 
of veterans now--both veterans returning from current conflicts and 
aging veterans needing long-term care. While we are addressing this 
compelling need today, this crisis could have--and should have--been 
averted. The administration should have proposed a better budget for VA 
in February of 2005. The administration could have supported Senator 
Murray's amendment to the Iraq supplemental in April of 2005 to add 
$1.97 billion for VA health care. Neither happened, and it is troubling 
that VA blames use of old models and early estimates on VA health care 
needs beginning in 2002. Our heroic service men

[[Page 19112]]

and women have been serving in Iraq since 2003, and the VA budget 
officials should have known to rework and review the VA health care 
budgets. It is a sad excuse for VA officials to tell Congress in April 
that VA health care funding is adequate and fine, and then have VA 
officials come to Congress at the end of June of 2005 to suggest a 
shortfall of at least $1.5 billion in the VA health care programs. We 
simply must have a better budget process at the VA to measure and 
adjust any estimates over time so that our veterans get the health care 
they have earned with their brave service.
  Military personnel--Active Duty members and especially members of the 
National Guard and Reserves--respond to the call of duty. They risk 
their lives in service to our Nation, and they, and their families, 
endure enormous sacrifices due to their service. A new survey from the 
Army suggest that as many as 30 percent of those military personnel 
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan will face mental health concerns, like 
post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, at the time of their return due 
to the violence and experiences they face. I have hosted private 
roundtables throughout West Virginia to meet with returning veterans 
from Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe that they have compelling 
needs for mental health care due to the overwhelming stress of serving 
in such a challenging combat situation. Even service personnel who are 
supposedly not in combat zones face attacks from car bombs and suicide 
bombers. It is sad and tragic, and of course it affects our troops. The 
stories from West Virginia veterans about their service have convinced 
me that we must invest in more resources for mental health care, 
counseling, and our vet centers.
  Knowing this, and knowing this for several years, we simply must 
ensure that VA health care get the funding it needs to serve all our 
veterans, Active Duty as well as National Guard and Reserves. But 
caring for our new veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan cannot 
be at the expense of serving veterans of other eras, Vietnam, Korea, 
and World War II and all the times in between.
  Our aging veterans have huge long-term care concerns, and VA has an 
obligation to serve them. Part of our current shortfall was a lack of 
long-term care funding. While we did not know about the Iraq war in 
2002, surely we should have been aware of the demographics of the VA 
population and the looming need for health care. This issue will not go 
away, and VA must serve all of our veterans.
  Since coming to the Senate in 1985, I have been proud to serve on the 
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and I treasure this opportunity to 
work on behalf of veterans in West Virginia and throughout our country. 
Today's passage of the $1.5 billion provision for VA health care in the 
Interior appropriations package is an important step to address the VA 
health care shortfall. But honestly, this is merely a downpayment, and 
much more must be done to strengthen the process and the funding for VA 
health care. This Senator is fully committed to finding a real solution 
to the chronic problems of insufficient funding for VA health care. Our 
dedicated veterans deserve no less.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I commend Chairman Conrad Burns and the 
ranking member, Senator Byron Dorgan, on their work on this 
legislation. I am pleased that this conference report includes the full 
$1.5 billion proposed by the Senate to make up the current 2005 fiscal 
year shortfall in funding for veterans health care. The Interior bill 
may seem a strange vehicle for this funding, but it was the first 
vehicle available once the administration confirmed the funding crisis 
in VA health care, and I thank the managers for preserving this 
provision in their conference report.
  It is critically important that the President sign this conference 
report into law quickly so that this money can be used to replenish the 
coffers of the VA and make sure that there is no interruption in the 
VA's ability to provide medical services to our Nation's veterans.
  Make no mistake about it, this money is needed now--now. We know the 
VA anticipates an even greater shortfall in fiscal year 2006, and the 
Senate Appropriations Committee has addressed that problem in the 2006 
Military Construction and VA appropriations bill by providing $1.977 
billion in emergency funding for VA health care in 2006.
  The $1.5 billion that is provided in this conference report is 
specifically intended to address the current--the current--2005 crisis 
in VA health care funding. The precise amount of the current shortfall 
remains somewhat murky. The administration, after months and months of 
denying that a shortfall even existed, first pegged it as $975 million, 
and then upped--upped--the estimate to $1.275 billion.
  The Senate, however, fully mindful of the VA's dismal track record in 
estimating shortfalls, and wisely skeptical of the administration's 
fluctuating estimates, voted to include a total of $1.5 billion in this 
bill, with the proviso--get this--with the proviso that the funds would 
be available both this year and next. This was in sharp contrast to the 
House, which provided only $975 million in a separate bill to cover the 
fiscal year 2005 shortfall in VA funding.
  It is a victory for our Nation's veterans. Hallelujah. It is a 
victory for our Nation's veterans that the conferees agreed on the 
Senate level of $1.5 billion, but it will be merely a Pyrrhic victory 
if the White House tries to balance the books by shortchanging veterans 
in 2005 to make up some of the anticipated shortfall in 2006. Do not 
let it happen.
  It is worth repeating: The Senate Appropriations Committee has 
addressed the 2006 shortfall by adding $1.977 billion in emergency 
funding to the 2006 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
appropriations bill. The entire amount of the VA funding included in 
the Interior bill--$1.5 billion--is available for 2005--for 2005--and I 
strongly urge the administration, I strongly urge the White House, to 
spend up to that amount to meet the current health care needs of our 
veterans.
  The Senate voted twice, both unanimous votes, to provide $1.5 billion 
to make up the 2005 shortfall in veterans health care. I think the 
Senate made its position crystal clear. We did not vote to bank the 
money for some future rainy day. We voted to provide adequate funding 
to address an exiting crisis in the veterans health care system, and I, 
for one, fully expect--I fully expect--the administration to use this 
funding for the current crisis, and not attempt to horde it--horde it--
horde it--for the future.
  America's veterans have given much for their country. We have an 
obligation to give back to them something and to provide for their 
health care needs. This conference report is a good first step in 
shoring up the VA's health care budget and, hopefully, leading the way 
toward more realistic and adequate budgeting for the needs of our 
veterans in the future.
  Now, Mr. President, there is another part of this conference report 
for which the Senate can be very proud. Just a few weeks ago, this body 
voted unanimously--unanimously--to approve an amendment that I offered, 
along with Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Senator John Warner 
of Virginia, to provide $10 million--$10 million--to the national 
memorial to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. That funding 
remains part of this final conference report before the Senate.
  There are many in this country who, during his life, did not 
appreciate the passion that Dr. King stirred in people. There are many 
who believed his goals could be achieved through different means. And I 
was one of those people, Robert C. Byrd. I was one of them. And I was 
wrong. I was wrong. I have come to admire Dr. King. I have come to 
recognize that his dream--his dream--truly is the American dream.
  Dr. King spoke of a day when children, regardless of color, 
regardless of creed, regardless of religious belief, would walk 
together in peace. Oh, how we need that message today, how we need that 
spirit today, as religious beliefs are used to divide our people, not 
to unite us, and as terrorist attacks breed distrust for people who 
come from different lands. Oh, how we need

[[Page 19113]]

to recall the lessons that the late Dr. King taught some 40 years ago.
  During the conference negotiations on this legislation, Mr. 
President, there was a great discussion on how the Congress could 
encourage more Americans to contribute to the construction of the King 
Memorial. This legislation will help. This legislation says that every 
dollar raised in the private sector will be matched with a dollar from 
the U.S. Government, up to $10 million. That is why I urge those who 
believe in the message of Dr. King to take just a few minutes and 
contribute to this national memorial.
  Now, Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, the gracious Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Thad Cochran, for 
his support and for his work on behalf of this memorial. Without his 
support we would not have had this in the bill. We would not be at this 
moment without his strong efforts.
  I also thank the senior Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, Mr. John Warner, for his work, too. Right 
from the start, Senator Warner stood up and cosponsored this amendment. 
His influence and his support were vital to this effort.
  I also thank Senator Pete Domenici for his support of this effort.
  Finally, let me thank the tens of millions of Americans who continue 
to build the dream--the dream; ah, how great the dream--that Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr., voiced some 40 years ago. Achieving that dream is not 
easy. Despite efforts to put the past behind us and move forward 
together, there remain those who are determined to look backward. There 
remain those who would rather promote fear and division than build 
unity and common purpose. I hope this memorial to the legacy of the 
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will remind all of us--all of 
us--that there is far more strength in unity, far more strength in 
resolve, far more strength in love of one's fellow man than there ever 
can be in division, in discord, and in disunity.
  And so, Mr. President, I thank those who have been so helpful. And I 
hope that one of Dr. King's favorite Bible passages, which is also one 
of mine, comes to be a reality. And I have seen it coming to be a 
reality. It comes from the Book of Isaiah.

       Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert 
     a highway for our God.
       Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill 
     shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, 
     and the rough places plain:
       And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh 
     shall see it together:. . . .

  That was one of Dr. Martin Luther King's favorite Scriptures. And so 
I look forward to that day, Mr. President. That day was the hope of Dr. 
King. And that day is my hope as well.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and thank all Senators.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the Record a list of the Senate cosponsors of the 
Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                            cosponsors list

       Amendment Number: SP1053.
       Cosponsors: Cochran, Warner, Kennedy, Mikulski, Landrieu, 
     Johnson, Stabenow, Murray, Bingaman, Jeffords, Rockefeller, 
     Obama, Feinstein, Schumer, Sarbanes, Boxer, Harkin, Corzine, 
     Brownback, DeWine, Levin, McConnell, McCain, Biden, Nelson of 
     FL, Clinton, Bayh, Kerry, Roberts, Leahy, Allen, Pryor, 
     Durbin, Martinez, Lieberman, Feingold, Hutchison.
       Total Cosponsors: 37.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield back any remaining time on the 
Interior conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back all remaining time on 
the Interior conference report.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Interior conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Coburn
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, when I came to work this morning, as I 
pulled into the Capitol, there were dogs under Capitol police control, 
sniffing to find out if there were explosives in the cars coming into 
the Capitol. There was an officer with a semiautomatic shotgun. As I 
proceeded, there was an officer on the Capitol steps with an assault 
rifle. As I came into the Capitol, there were police officers at the 
door. These are the same type of officers as the two who were gunned 
down, Chestnut and Gibson, a few years ago. These were police officers 
protecting us.
  In this Chamber today, there are plain clothes Capitol police 
officers here for our protection. All of these police officers are 
trained to put our lives ahead of theirs.
  When we, in recent days, have been directed to leave the Capitol, 
taken from the Capitol, there are police officers who wait behind to 
make sure everyone is out before whatever wrong is supposed to happen 
happens. They are the last here before the doors are closed.
  I was a Capitol policeman. I was not trained to do any of the things 
these men and women are trained to do today. We are in an extremely 
vulnerable situation here in the United States Capitol complex. In 
every one of the office buildings, every place we go in the Capitol 
complex, there are evil people who are trying to do harm to us and the 
millions of visitors who come here every year.
  That is why, as I read this morning the language in the Legislative 
Branch appropriation bill, I was offended. I was offended by the 
language in that bill, the insulting language about our Capitol Police. 
They are our Capitol Police.
  This legislation is going forward. As a member of the Appropriations 
Committee--I was chairman of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
Subcommittee for a number of years, and I enjoyed the service greatly--
I feel that the Capitol Police have been wronged in this appropriations 
bill. The Capitol Police is an imperfect organization, similar to every 
organization. It is a big organization. I am sure the administration 
makes mistakes and things happen that should not happen within the 
Capitol Police force. However, I repeat, the men and women who put 
their lives on the line for us every day, 24 hours a day--for each of 
us, for the staff here, as I said before, for the thousands of people 
who are visiting today in this Capitol--their support, their protection 
is consistent and strong.

[[Page 19114]]

  I resent this libel, by vague generality, that is contained in this 
conference report. The language in the Senate version of the 
Legislative Branch bill contained a number of constructive clauses and 
areas of improvement for the police, written in a way that is 
completely appropriate in an appropriations bill. What is returned from 
the conference is an anti-Capitol Hill Police screed that is 
unacceptable.
  I am pleased the Senate was largely able to prevail on fiscal issues 
in this conference report. The Capitol Police will have most of the 
resources they need to protect Members, staff, and the visitors who 
come here. However, it seems that our conferees were forced, obviously, 
to swallow nasty report language about the Chief of Police, his 
deputies, and other police administrators in order to get adequate 
funding for them. This is absurd. I am happy to have the funding, but 
the trade is ridiculous.
  It is unwarranted. There are problems in all large organizations. 
Let's work to solve them together, but not have the nasty tone of this 
conference report. For whatever reason, we have had a succession of 
people in the House of Representatives who do not like the Capitol 
Police force. They have stated so publicly and privately. But it is not 
getting better; it is getting worse.
  This is the last year I will accept it. Maybe others will, but I will 
not. Let me be very clear. I will never ever allow a Legislative Branch 
conference report that is as nasty and relentlessly negative toward our 
Capitol Police as this one that is going to become law. One will never 
become law again. I am going to reach out to my friends on the House 
side, Congressman Lewis and the Speaker and others, to see what we can 
do to improve this.
  I support Chief Gainer, his deputies, his staff, and all his 
officers. They have my support and my devotion because they protect my 
life every day. They risk their lives every day to protect this 
institution, and they deserve better than the pettiness that I have 
read in these pages.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the next three 
rollcall votes be 10-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2985, the 
Legislative Branch appropriations bill. The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield to the minority to speak first. 
Are there any additional comments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chairman again for his hard work on the bill, 
and I agree with Senator Reid in every word he has said. What is in 
this conference committee report about the Capitol Police is totally 
undeserved and unwarranted. It is a shame there are some people in this 
Capitol, not necessarily on this side of the Rotunda, who unfortunately 
put that language in here. Remember, we are here safely today because 
they are literally risking their lives as we do our work. For goodness 
sakes, they deserve our appreciation, and they do not deserve the 
condemnation that is part of this conference committee report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I think we have a good bill for us. I ask 
everybody to vote ``aye'' on the conference report. We have been very 
generous with the police. We all recognize the hard work and sacrifice 
they have made on behalf of all of us, our staffs, and the many 
visitors who come to the Capitol.
  We have taken a very strong position in support of the Capitol Police 
on this side of the Capitol. We worked closely with the minority side 
and appreciate their input as we move forward with this particular 
piece of legislation.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Coburn
     Conrad
     Ensign
     Inhofe
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________