madam chairman , i have come to the reluctant conclusion that this bill does not deserve approval , and so i will not vote for it . 
this is not a criticism of chairman taylor , congressman dicks , and the other members of the appropriations committee who had the unenviable task of developing the bill . 
the budget authority allocated to the interior and environment subcommittee fell far short of the amount needed to adequately fund the agencies and activities within their jurisdiction . 
that in turn was the result of the unrealistic and inadequate budget resolution that the republican leadership pushed through the congress earlier this year . 
but while the shortcomings of the bill are understandable , they are nonetheless so serious that i can not vote for it . 
among the worst are its severe reductions in funding for the environmental protection agency . 
it cuts epa 's clean water state revolving fund by $ 242 million below the 2005 funding level . 
this will mean that many communities in colorado and elsewhere will be adversely affected as projects that have already been approved by state water authorities for future funding probably will be rejected , scaled back , or substantially delayed . 
the wrong-headedness of this is clear when we recall that just two years ago epa administrator whitman issued a formal report , entitled the `` water gap analysis , '' which estimated the twenty-year fiscal shortfall between what we are currently spending and what is required at $ 388 billion . 
further , the bill includes cuts beyond those required by the budget resolution . 
perhaps the most notable is the reduction of $ 190 million of land and water conservation act funding , including funding for all new federal land acquisitions as well as all assistance to states . 
this , too , is something that i can not support . 
in colorado and across the county there is a need for wise reinvestments of the funds coming into the treasury from oil and gas development on the outer continental shelf and elsewhere . 
the wise principle of the land and water conservation fund act is that these short-term gains should be used to provide long-term assets for the american people . 
this bill turns its back on that principle . 
of course , there are some good things in this bill . 
i am particularly glad that because of the adoption of an amendment i sponsored along with mrs. cubin , mr. rahall , and mr. cannon it includes $ 242 million for the payments in lieu of taxes -- or pilt -- program that is so important to local governments in colorado and across the country . 
this is only about 80 percent of the amount authorized for pilt , but it is a great improvement over the amount proposed by the administration -- which sought a cut of $ 26 million below last year 's level . 
nonetheless , overall , the bill falls woefully short of what is needed and i do not think it deserves to pass . 
