Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of my fundamental principles is that government not interfere with the basic freedoms of our families, and a basic freedom for the health of women includes reproductive health choices. This legislation threatens that freedom by inappropriately intervening in the decisions of patients and their doctors. Late-term abortions are, as has been demonstrated time and again, accepted medical practice that at times is the only procedure available to protect a woman's life and her ability to safely have a healthy baby in the future. Years ago, when we first started debating this legislation on the floor of this House, I was struck that while proponents try to horrify people, I was indeed struck by the real cases of real families that would be devastated by this amendment, as was pointed out by the gentlewoman from New York. This legislation further is part of an insidious ongoing assault to erode not just reproductive freedoms, but perpetuate a trend as shocking as it is unfortunate of some in this Congress, imposing their theology on our citizens, regardless of other people's own strongly held beliefs and individual needs. Only weeks ago, this Congress, because of a theological clash with science, voted to make it illegal to use potentially life-saving therapies to help with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other degenerative or traumatic diseases, leaving people crippled and dying. The vote was not just to deny scientific research here, but deny access to medicines developed anywhere else. They would make our loved ones suffer in their zeal to make their point. People who oppose abortion should not have one. Nothing would make me happier than for every American woman to have the knowledge, the well- being, the medical care and the good fortune so that there would never have to be another abortion. But until such a day comes, it is wrong to prevent a woman's doctor from offering professional skills so that she and her family can determine the safest and most appropriate medical care for their family.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the United States flag is one of the two most enduring symbols of our freedom and liberty. I believe that those who desecrate the flag degrade themselves and I find it a reprehensible act. So too, it is reprehensible for people to express hateful language against our country and some of our citizens. One of the values our flag represents is the freedom of expression. The United States and our cherished freedom are strong enough to withstand assaults of the crude, the bigoted and the hateful. The strength to withstand assaults comes from the other enduring symbol of our liberty: the Constitution. We should not trivialize the importance of that document, especially the freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment, by rushing to change the Great Document when we are offended by acts. Because Americans honor this cherished symbol, I understand the rage and disgust most of us feel towards those who made their points by trampling on our flag. It is important to note that flag burning today is not a major problem. Throughout my years in Congress, only one constituent has voiced his concerns regarding flag burning, and none back home in Oregon. The proposed constitutional amendment is the wrong way to protect the flag. Ironically, it would be the fastest way to make the very rare occurrences of flag burning more frequent. After all the publicity surrounding ratification by the states occurs, we will have made our flag the target for every publicity-seeking protester in America. Burning the flag will be the fastest way to go to court, perhaps to jail, but certainly the evening news. Because we cherish our flag and our Constitution, we should reject this amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman's point is compelling. He has seen examples of cooperative action with fisheries' interests in the State of California. We have seen in the Pacific Northwest, particularly in Alaska, there are some pretty good examples of where these independent fisher-people have been able to work together in a cooperative fashion with the scientists, with government, to be able to make a difference. The ocean can heal. Fishing stocks can be replenished. We saw what happened to the North Atlantic fishing stocks during World War II. Sadly, it was a war that disrupted the fishing, but the fish nonetheless came back under a combination of thoughtful policies, reducing the catch, managing the resource, having areas that are protected; and the United States controls more surface area of oceans in terms of our zone of influence than any other country in the world. It is a half again larger than the entire surface area of the United States. It is a tremendous opportunity to strategically allow these species to recover.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's eloquence. I think that says it all. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few minutes focusing on what is going to be a big week here on Capitol Hill, focusing on this unique opportunity to deal with the attention that it deserves to protect our oceans, to be able to bring people together across the country, different philosophies, different geographies, different political parties to understand the opportunities to protect our quality of life. By doing the things we need to do on the land and in terms of our habits under the sea, we can restore the vibrance of our fisheries, and we can protect the quality of the tourist experience. We can have the regenerative power of these waterways, and we can make sure that we flex some of our problem-solving muscles that can help us in the international arena and here at home on larger issues of war and peace and climate change. So I appreciate the opportunity to share this information this evening.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I was going to give the gentleman one last word, if I might, because the gentleman wears another hat here in Congress. Well, actually he wears a number of them, but one I know he has spent a lot of time on is the Travel and Tourism Caucus. The gentleman cochairs this with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), and the two of you have a commitment, in part I think because your two States have economies that are dramatically impacted by tourism, and I wondered if the gentleman wanted to just make one brief comment about the connection. I know it sounds a little crass, but we are suffering some difficult economic times now.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Could the gentleman comment on the significance of our failure to have ratified this 210 years ago?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Truly phenomenal resources for individual citizens or policy-makers that want to be able to understand what these challenges are. The gentleman referenced the outstanding program at Oregon State University. Dr. Jane Lubchenco is one of the members of the Pew Commission who will be with us here in Washington, D.C., this week, not only with the announcement of the Pew Report and with our friend Leon Panetta, the Chair, but will be meeting with men and women here on Capitol Hill. The approach is simple: Deal with the information that is available to us; change the philosophy from one of exploitation which, sadly, we have not been able for a variety of forces to do something on public lands in this country. Sadly, the Mining Act of 1872 exists virtually identically to the bill that was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant 131 years ago. This is an opportunity for us to move past that, changing the philosophy from one of exploitation to one of conservation and protection. To be able to reduce the pressures on fisheries and environment, these are things that are within our power. We do not have to wait. What just happened in Canada where the cod fisheries collapsed and they had to stop all fishing because it got to the point where they had verged on destroying the species. It does not have to get to that point. Being able to focus on protection of coastal areas, and in many cases what we need to do to protect those estuaries, those rivers, those beach fronts are exactly the same thing that our communities are crying out for to protect against sprawl, congestion, bad air and loss of open space. So we will be able to satisfy the needs of the ocean by listening to our constituents right now. Being able to make the marine sanctuaries, which really are not sanctuaries, transform them into real reserves and connect them in a system so that the fish can migrate from one to another, and as the gentleman mentioned a moment ago, very important, the fish do not recognize the boundaries. So, in effect, we will be reseeding the oceans. Finally, a commitment of the United States to international leadership. Maybe we can start by ratifying the convention of the oceans.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's observation, and I think he is correct. We can sit here and talk in ominous tones about some of the very negative things that have occurred, and it truly is disturbing, but there is better information, greater awareness. We have the United States population concentrated in the coastal areas in a way that we have not seen since the founding of the republic. The gentleman mentioned some of the work of the Pew Oceans Commission. It is not just the report that is coming forth in the next 36 hours, but there are some fantastic science reports that the commission has contracted with a distinguished group of scientists and expects to write reports outlining some of the major threats to coastal and ocean resources, offering recommendations for addressing the threats from the perspective of science, the professionals, to assist their own commissioners in forming this report to help the Bush administration and Congress meet its responsibilities. I had a chance to review, as I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has, the materials, Managing Marine Fisheries in the United States; Ecological Effects of Fishing in Marine Ecosystems; Marine Reserves, a powerful tool for ecosystem management and conservation from a professor at Stanford University. They have dealt with, in a realistic way, the best report I have seen, on marine pollution, both accomplishments and future challenges, an area that the gentleman and I have been working on in our own respective spheres of influence now for over 20 years, dealing with coastal sprawl, the impact that urban design has on aquatic ecosystems in our country. The gentleman has been a champion, I know, in terms of the California Coastal Conservation Commission, the work that he has done as a local county commissioner, as a legislator and here in Congress; and then there is great research on invasive species and the impact of marine aquaculture, looking at the environmental impacts and policy options. Having these reports available to us to go along with the two commissions, the work here in Congress and, most important, to be able to raise the awareness of the public, he is 200 percent correct. The ocean belongs to us all. No single person owns those rights. It is truly an international problem, but the United States has the greatest leverage. Not only are we the richest Nation, but we have more control over oceans than any other country. It cries out for that sort of cooperative solution.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. It was some of my colleagues, particularly providing coastal leadership, I get confused, I apologize, but bringing this to the forefront. I appreciate the gentleman's career-long commitment to being able to protect these treasures.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Absolutely. But what the gentleman has done in his own career in terms of dealing with issues of marine sanctuaries and marine reserves, we need to be able to make sure that there are some areas where the sea can rest, the fisheries can be restored, much like we do with farmland, where, in some of the areas where I think people are justly proud, we have been conserving some of our farmland. We are being able to zone and protect it. We are looking at ways to revitalize it, working with scientists and with farmers, with citizens. This is part of what needs to happen. The gentleman went through some of the list of problems that we are facing, like nonpoint pollution. We have problems with point source pollution, like the massive hog farms that we see in some of our coastal States and along some of our major river systems that dump effluent into our waterways. He has referenced the issue of invasive species. There are problems of aquaculture. If we are not careful, aquaculture will end up, or if it is not done appropriately, it can produce a great deal of not just pollution, but the potential, for example, where we have had areas where there have been tens of thousands of farm-bred salmon escaping into the ocean. We have had situations where coastal development, where it is not done in a thoughtful and careful way, severely damages fragile bays and estuaries and river habitat, which are important nesting and breeding grounds. It is where fishing stock is restored. It purifies water. We alter that habitat.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I think the gentleman is absolutely correct, Madam Speaker, in dealing with the analogy to some of our successes on the land and some of our failures. Sadly, the Stratton Commission in the late 1960s offered up a vision of how we manage the sea that was more of one of exploitation: how did we extract the bounty of the ocean and not deal with the fragility of resources, the finite nature, the impact of technology and mechanization and of many countries industrializing this extraction, instead of it being a small family enterprise, like happened in the beautiful coastal area that the gentleman represents in California, the fisheries that we have seen in the Southwest, in the Northeast as well; the impact of industrialized fishing, for instance. We need to look at some of our successes, and understanding that we have to balance interests, that we have to look at competing pressures, that we can work together in a cooperative and thoughtful fashion to be able to make sure that everybody is actually better off. There are certain areas of our land area, one could think that the way that some people howl about wilderness, we would think that most of the United States is off limits; but as the gentleman and I know, it is only about 5 percent, but it is a critical 5 percent.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, it is interesting to review the ebb and flow of the political tides, as we have had here this evening, where we here on Capitol Hill deal with the ebb and flow of various political crises, whether it is the struggle against global terrorism, whether it is the battle of the economy, budgets and tax cuts, where the economy is hopefully a short-term problem, where the perversion of tax and budget priorities hopefully is temporary in nature, and it is, after all, within our power to change priorities to adjust tax rates and make infrastructure investments. There is, Madam Speaker, however, a greater battle, and one over which, if we are not careful, we may not be able to exercise such control. I am speaking, of course, of the struggle to preserve and protect our environment, because we are watching the slow, relentless poisoning of air and water, the destruction of habitat, which puts millions of people at risk on a daily basis and inflicts permanent damage. The World Health Organization, for example, suggests that water-borne diseases kill at least 3.5 million people every year. That is more than three times as many people who were lost in the World Trade Center, who die every day, 365 days a year. It is within our power, our capacity, to do something about it. It was my privilege to be in South Africa last fall as the world came together, the largest United Nations conference in history, making commitments to what we were going to do to try and make changes like that to protect the environment. I watched as the United States joined with over 104 other heads of state, 194 countries in all, to make commitments, for instance, that over 1 million people who do not have access to clean drinking water, we would cut that amount in half in the next 15 years. I think a number of people felt uncomfortable with that, thinking about how many people would be sentenced to unnecessary death and disease, but it was an important goal. But that goal suggests that we are going to provide, even that modest goal, 211,000 people per day, clean drinking water who do not have it, in order to reach that 15-year goal of just cutting it in half. It is an example of these threats that we face to the environment. I would like to reflect for a few moments this evening about what we are doing dealing with these two great global threats. We have focused our attention on the greater environment in terms of the atmosphere and our oceans. Fifty years ago space was our proxy in a struggle against communism. Ten years later, we had the Stratton Commission, ushering in a new era for the space under our oceans' surfaces. We have spent billions of dollars trying to penetrate deep space, a somewhat lesser amount dealing with our oceans, while we as a planet continue to affect weather patterns, affect global climate change, global warming and disease. Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to be able to focus on what we can do to make a difference in those areas. I have often on this floor dealt with issues dealing with global warming. The scientific consensus is agreed to, although it is slow in dawning on Members of Congress, and our policies do not yet reflect it. But when you deal with objective members of science, 15 years ago what was a debatable proposition that we were affecting the Earth's climate in cataclysmic ways, now the vast scientific consensus, including the commission that wrote the report from the National Academy of Sciences 2 years ago requested by President Bush, confirms that we now know that global warming and this climate change is a reality; that it is, in all likelihood, a world where our children will inherit a Glacier National Park with no glaciers, indeed, no glaciers at all in the continental United States. The sudden occurrence of open water at the North Pole for the first time in recorded history is now being followed by evidence of rapid melting of the polar areas, and we face consequences like the extinction of polar bears within our children's lifetime. But the problems are not just with trophy species and signature landmarks like mountain glaciers. We are changing the envelope, as Professor Holden, Director of the Program on Science and Technology and Public Policy at Harvard University, expresses it, the envelope in which all other environmental conditions and processes operate. It will be impacting the productivity of our farms, our forests and fisheries, the livability of our cities in summer, and damages from storms, floods and wildfires. People in States like yours, Madam Speaker, are going to be experiencing dramatic changes as sea levels increase, as issues that relate to the Everglades, something we have all come together to try and do something about, become more acute, because of what we are doing to the global climate, the issue of sudden weather events. Those who follow the news are intrigued, I think, that on a regular basis now there are recordings not just of hurricanes and tornadoes, storm surges and floods, but the descriptions of these items: in Australia this last year, the worst drought; flooding in Morocco, the worst in a third of a century; the severe storms that we have had across the United States, in the Carolinas and the Northeast this last year; 6 inches of rain that fell on Central Park last December, more than double the amount of rain recorded through all the prior winter. Time and time again we are watching these occurrences that are of catastrophic proportions. And what we are finding from our friends in the scientific community is that this is a small taste of one of the most serious consequences of global warming: that these sudden, unpredictable, disruptive and terrifying events are going to be predictable in terms of their occurrence, and nobody is going to be safe; the disruption of the food supply chain, habitats that are going to be migrating north, shifting patterns of wealth, sustainability, all subjected to more uncertainty. We are going to have people living in harm's way in flood plains, whether it is in Florida, in Manhattan, in Bangladesh, that is going to test and best the ability of people to adapt. And tragically, it is going to be those people in the poorest areas of the world that are going to pay the highest price, have the greatest difficulty in adapting. There are things within our power to start making some modest adjustments. I will be working in this next month, hopefully, we will be able to have brought to the floor of this Chamber some modification of flood insurance, something that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I have been working on for years, where we have an un- actuarially sound program that subsidizes people to live in areas where God repeatedly shows they are not wanted, putting them in harm's way, concentrating almost 40 percent of our payments to 2 percent of repetitive flood losses. A simple adjustment is something that will send the right signals to people to modify their behavior, to move out of harm's way, to save money, to save lives, and to start making adjustments before global warming makes that problem even worse. There are special responsibilities for the United States as both the wealthiest Nation and the largest polluter in terms of greenhouse gasses to step forward and do something about it. Well, we have been less than totally successful, one must admit. We have walked away from not only the Kyoto Treaty, but any opportunity for the United States to assume leadership by offering an alternative, to step forward if we do not like the treaty, to be able to indicate what we can do to enter into partnership with countries like China and India. It is not acceptable to just simply say, Well, these people are going to have to step forward and change their lifestyles before we as the richest, most powerful Nation and the biggest polluter, is willing to do anything. Because they are, although massive in population, they are in fact dealing with significant greenhouse gas emissions now. They are on a trajectory, Madam Speaker; if we do not, as a world, work together to be able to reduce them, if they follow the pattern of development of the United States, China and India have the potential in a short period, a few short years, of having a devastating impact on the world's climate. The world cannot sustain the United States, China and India all following this very destructive pattern. But it is in the area of protection of our oceans that I find some interesting optimism in the midst of some depressing news. We have all witnessed in recent days studies, for example, the Canadian Study in Nature, that talks about what has happened with our fisheries around the world, where we have destroyed 90 percent of the trophy fish since the 1950s, only 10 percent of the populations of tuna, swordfish, marlin and other prize species remain in the ocean; that we have created a dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi River now, every year, that has grown. When I first came to Congress, it was only the size of Rhode Island. Now, in less than a decade, it is larger than the State of Massachusetts, with devastating impact for the fisheries in the Gulf area. Time and time again we look at these dangerous signals that are an important wake-up call to those of us who care about the world's environment. It has been my privilege since I have been in Congress to understand the scope, direction and nature of these threats to our oceans. I have been privileged to work with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who was the driving force behind the first Oceans Conference, a gentleman who has been active in creating marine sanctuaries, who has been focusing on the fact that we spend eight times more studying space, which is interesting and has positive aspects, but only one-eighth of that expenditure is spent on our oceans, upon which our climate and our very existence depends; and as the gentleman is fond of pointing out, that a lot of this research that is attributed to NOAA and oceans is actually atmospheric study of the weather. I am privileged to note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is with us here this evening for a discussion of how we can focus on opportunities dealing with our oceans. I am particularly honored that he would join with me in the discussion this evening, because, as he is well aware, in fact his predecessor is Chair of a commission, the Pew Oceans Commission, that is the first comprehensive study of oceans policy of the United States and its global implications in over one-third of a century. I am honored that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is here. I am privileged to work with the gentleman. I deeply appreciate the gentleman's leadership and insight here in Congress, perhaps one of the strongest, if not the strongest, at least in the House, as it deals with oceans policy and its consequences for our future. I welcome the opportunity to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for his thoughts and observations.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The Oceans Caucus.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate that explanation and the gentleman's continued leadership. As one of the cochairs of the coastal caucus.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. If the gentleman would let me add for one moment on that precise point, the recent study from the National Academy of Sciences estimates that that runoff the gentleman talks about from our driveways, our parking lots and our roads, these oils, solvents that wash into our rivers, estuaries, and oceans are the equivalent of one Exxon Valdez every 8 months, almost 11 million gallons of oil and gasoline in the course of a year, an Exxon Valdez and a half every year.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman coming forward this evening to spend a few minutes via one of the avenues of public expression that is still available to us to be able to talk to people about this. The gentleman's comments a moment ago with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) touched a nerve with me. We have been watching this issue slowly bubble in the background, move into the public consciousness. We have all expressed and we have all experienced an outpouring in our own districts, our own correspondence, phone calls, e-mails. It is fascinating to me that over the last 6 months I have not had one Oregonian express to me support for the direction the FCC has taken, not one. One would think that for something that is this momentous, there would be at some point, on some level, some indication that ordinary men and women, that business people, government leaders, that somebody would be there expressing the case for this relatively radical approach. To the contrary, we have seen in our community the same deep bipartisan apprehension and opposition that has been expressed here this evening. People know on several levels that competition matters, that we benefit from a diversity of voices. Certainly, in this Chamber there are a variety of different points of view. I think on those occasions when we are actually able to express it, I think we do our jobs better and the American public is better served. But the people that I work with are aware that today almost every television station, whether we go to Nashville, Redmond, Washington, or Burlington, Vermont, the news sounds the same. They have the same air- brushed approach. They have basically the same television accents. They use the same media consultants to craft the sets that they use. They all use the same gyrations, putting forth everything from the weather to on-the-spot news. The same formats ensue because people are being driven by the same media consultants and the pressures from advertisers. Now, as the gentleman points out, we are going to have the ultimate homogeneous force, and that is concentration of ownership into a handful of conglomerates that are going to be dictating it. It seems to me that there will be no reason for our news to be indistinguishable, distorted pabulum that is more entertainment than delivering information. I have one short, final point to make. I think the gentleman's expression here this evening, bringing forward others, indicates why I do not think this is going to be the last word on this subject. The House and the Senate have the opportunity. They were the ones that originally decided that the people's airwaves, the public airwaves, were going to be given to commercial broadcasters in return for some public benefit. Since we passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we have seen these competitive forces eroded away, people forgetting the public benefit; and I think that the issues that you are focusing on here will produce such a backlash it will be possible for us to be responsive to the public, and hopefully we will see some action that will reverse this egregious act.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Oregon's highest unemployment rate in the Nation gives me more than 139,800 reasons to be concerned. This extension is one of the most important things we can do to help people in my State. It is ironic that the bill to extend these benefits is being debated on the same day as we are poised to pass a massive tax cut. The contrast between the economic effect of the two pieces of legislation and the people they benefit are stark. Each new dollar in the unemployment benefits program quickly boosts the economy by $1.73, while the cut in dividend taxes enriches the economy by only 9 cents per dollar. Republican leadership priorities are made clear when it takes an extraordinary effort to extend $6.5 billion in benefits for those struggling to find work, while approving $350 billion--sure to be a trillion dollars if the authors of the tax cut have their way--in tax cuts that, in large part, benefit the wealthiest and worsen our ever spiraling national deficit. After fighting for this extension for months I'm pleased we will pass this legislation before benefits expire this weekend, but it is once again, too little too late. What about the thousands of Oregonians who have had their benefits lapse? They will not be eligible for any benefits under this legislation. The Democratic substitute, which will not be allowed under the restrictive rule for debate today, would have assisted these workers. Our amendment would also have helped states improve coverage of low-wage earners and part-time workers, who pay unemployment taxes but often fail to qualify for benefits upon losing their jobs. Unfortunately, we will not even be able to debate this proposal today, instead forced to vote for half a solution. I hope we can reach the point where the House appreciates that unemployment benefits are too critical to be political cannon fodder. Unemployed Oregonians struggling to provide for their families deserve better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I welcome the gentleman's offer to do so and to correlate that with what the Secretary of the Interior has actually ruled in this case. I welcome it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I have dealt with the Department of Defense, the Fish and Wildlife Service and have gone to the court records. I do not know how it is being distorted.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Yes. Absolutely. This limited area, 840 acres out of 125,000 acres, is available to amphibious landings, according to the information we have received. And it only applies out of 6 months. The real problem is you have got a freeway, you have got a nuclear power plant, you have got a State park. There never was a legal restriction ever.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, providing national defense is one of the federal government's most significant functions, and today it is more important than ever. Our military superiority, as demonstrated during the war in Iraq, is unmatched. In terms of numbers, the United States spends more on defense than the next 25 nations combined. Yet this $400 billion authorization, the largest defense allocation in history, does not sufficiently address long term threats to our national security. In fact, it takes us in the wrong direction by exempting the Pentagon from its future environmental responsibilities and not providing adequate resources to clean up the legacy of past defense-related pollution. With such an enormous authorization of resources, we must make sure that the money is being spent wisely. Unfortunately, we have not eliminated unnecessary, wasteful programs that do little to enhance the security of the United States. Despite agreement on the need for deep and lasting changes to military strategy, doctrine, and force structure, the Pentagon's focus so far has been on acquiring new capabilities rather than on re-evaluating current questionable priorities and programs. While the Pentagon identified only $24.3 billion to fund ``transformation goals,'' roughly one third of that amount is also budgeted for missile defense, a Reagan era program that continues to suffer from technological difficulties and cost overruns. This is misdirected funding taking away from other defense commitments and ignores the fact that we are more at risk from terrorist with trucks, suitcases and motorboats than missiles. We are not meeting our commitments to ``hometown security.'' More of this money should be directed to our struggling communities to address the real security threats they are facing, as demonstrated by the current code orange security status. We are not meeting our commitments to our veterans. Our spending priorities should include funding concurrent receipts, which enable retirees who were injured in the line of duty to receive both their deserved retirement pay and disability payments. The number one issue I hear about from military retirees in my district is veterans' health care funding, which has vast unmet needs. We are not meeting our environmental commitments. We should not lay the burden on our communities of cleaning up the Department of Defense's toxic legacy. In particular, we should fund remedies to the problem of unexploded ordnance. There are some 2,000 former military properties in every state and nearly every congressional district where these hidden dangers lurk. This is a prime example of the need for the federal government to be a better partner and clean up after itself. In addition to the unwise and wasteful expenditures in this bill, it also authorizes unnecessary and destructive waivers of important environmental protections essential to the health of Americans and the health of our land and water. The bill would weaken one of the key provisions of the Endangered Species Act involving critical habitat protection. It would also weaken the definition of ``harassment'' in the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Unfortunately these laws apply to all ocean users, not just the Department of Defense. If we exempt the largest landowner in the country from environmental regulations, how can we expect anyone else to follow our laws? Instead of addressing real threats to readiness, the Bush administration and Republican leadership are taking on an easier target: endangered species. Using national defense as cover, the Republicans propose to make changes to environmental laws in ways that have nothing to do with defense readiness, suggesting that was not their goal in the first place. The provision in this bill are too broad to protect the environment, yet too narrow to deal with the wide range of problems that hinder military readiness, like encroachment and sprawl. This is the same sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens our farms and forestlands, pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways. There is much that we could do to strengthen and better protect America with the enormous resources authorized in this bill. There are too many items authorized that threaten Americans' health and safety or waste tax dollars with no tangible benefit. We must do better in shaping our Nation's defense policy and honoring our existing commitments to veterans, the environment, and our community.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, when facing a 2003 budget deficit that will likely exceed a record $400 billion, Congress should be looking for ways to cut red ink. Instead the Republican leadership is cutting taxes by $350 billion and adding more to our debt. Neutral observers agree this tax cut package will do little to stimulate our sagging national economy and do little to help the 139,800 unemployed Oregonians. This tax cut package and the new budget is leading us towards a $1 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. My constituents are clear about their priorities as witnessed by a difficult decision to raise taxes that will provide the necessary local revenues to help fund education, social services and safety programs. Oregon understands that targeted infrastructure investments can put people to work tomorrow and better our communities. Oregon's crumbling bridges, which jeopardize the economy and safety, will cost over $4 billion to repair but would provide 190,000 jobs and $25 billion in economic activity. The Federal Government should be helping States and communities address these types of needs with targeted investments and programs. The budget gimmicks, sunsets, and deficits created by this bill prevent me from supporting it. I will continue to fight for a sample course of fiscal responsibility and domestic security that can be achieved by taking common sense actions. We should not mortgage the future by playing fast and loose with the truth today and the economy tomorrow.