Conference Report on H.R. 2361, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2361, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - July 28, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov