Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act

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. 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.

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.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

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.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

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. 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. 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

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. 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.

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.