Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, the Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 6) falls terribly short in preparing the United States for the future in terms of fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship, and meeting our nation's energy needs. The bill mortgages our environmental future in order to meet short term energy challenges.

This bill is a missed opportunity. Any national energy policy for the 21st century should take steps to reduce our dependence on outdated and polluting sources of energy such as oil, gas, and coal. The United States has less than 3 percent of the recoverable supply of the world's oil, much of which is under ecologically important areas of land. We are currently at war with the part of the world that contains 65 percent of the earth's oil reserves: the Middle East. Yet this bill keeps us dependent on oil.

My Republican colleagues claim that American technology and innovation will enable us to meet our energy needs. American innovation and creativity should enable us to rely on renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Yet this bill continues the status quo.

The bill provides over $18 billion in tax breaks and royalty relief to oil, electric utilities and nuclear power. The oil and gas industry alone receive 55 percent of the tax breaks in this bill. During a time of war and a struggling economy, Congress should be exercising fiscal discipline. Yet this bill provides cost-of-doing business funding to mature industries.

It is important to note that the oil, gas, coal and offshore drilling industries that receive most of the benefits of this bill have also hand picked people in the administration and agencies to oversee them. Much of the energy development allowed in this bill will take place on lands now regulated by former corporate energy lobbyists.

For example, the Department of the Interior oversees over 30 percent of the total domestic energy production in the United States. Steven Griles, second in command at the Department of the Interior, is a former energy lobbyist. While he was in the private sector he represented the National Mining Association, the American Gas Association, Arch Coal, Chevron and Shell oil companies.

I cannot support an energy bill that reduces environmental protections and allows development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A few years ago I visited the Arctic and witnessed its fragile beauty. I came away with a profound sense that the American public is right. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is absolutely the last place we should be exploring for oil, not the first.

A rational national energy policy must place conservation and efficiency at the forefront. Merely ending the fuel efficiency loophole for SUV and light trucks will save more oil than the Arctic Refuge will produce. Our energy habit accounts for 25 percent of the world's consumption--the United States simply cannot produce enough energy to meet its demand. We would do better to use the 10 years it would take to get the oil from the coastal plain of Alaska to improve the energy efficiency of our transportation system, homes and factories, and to increase our renewable energy production.

It is significant to note what this bill does not do. It does not address global climate change, even though the United States is responsible for 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. The bill does not increase fuel efficiency for cars, which consume a tenth of the annual global oil production. The bill does nothing to protect consumers from market manipulation such as what we saw from Enron. In fact, the bill repeals important consumer protection laws that have been in place for decades.

Without any of these provisions, I believe this bill is a missed opportunity for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding me time.

I enjoyed the exchange between the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Texas about the elements that are in this rule, and I am here to express appreciation for at least being able to debate the big three, the big three being CAFE standards, Arctic and, of course, bicycles.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I think I was involved with that.

However, the rule is a missed opportunity for taxpayers, the environment, and energy. It has some serious assaults on the environment that will mortgage the next 50 years of our environmental future because of a few short-term energy challenges. I am disappointed that the rule would not allow us to make it better.

I did reference the bicycle pilot project. That is something that will enable the Federal Government to educate commuters and provide funds to zero in on exactly what benefits will accrue in terms of energy as a result of cycling, and I think that is important. It is a net benefit for the environment. Every mile that is spent cycling to work or shopping is a mile not traveled by a car. It reduces congestion, protects the environment, and reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

I am sad that we were not able to correct the inequity in the current tax structure that subsidizes people to drive as opposed to using other alternatives. We should have the commuter choice alternative that would have provided balance so taxpayers can make the decision based on what is the best transportation and energy choice for them, not skewed by the Tax Code.

It is a missed opportunity to debate amendments to reduce taxpayer subsidies for fossil fuels, reduce the negative impacts on the environment and oil consumption and shift to alternatives. I am sorry that we were not able to even debate the sense of Congress resolution that passed the other body unanimously that puts us on record to demonstrate leadership and responsibility to deal with global warming. This is a matter of life and death for the planet; and to me, it is inconceivable that we are not able to have it on the floor to debate it.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me instead of taking an opportunity to have conservation and clean sources of energy to address the concepts of global climate change, we are nibbling around the edges. This bill, even if we are able to get the amendments that are important, that are in order, if they were approved, it is still going to leave us with a flawed bill that is expensive, backward-looking, and too small.

I appreciate the courtesy of the Committee on Rules as far as they went. I am looking forward to the debate, but I hope that we will be able to defeat the rule, defeat the bill. We can do better.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a range of interesting conversations in the course of debate so far this evening. I would like to advance something that is in the past an issue that we have had a lot of fun with. I am talking about cycling. We have organized a bicycle caucus of Members of Congress. We have had a lot of fun with some social events. Every Member I have met in Congress has some example where cycling has made a difference in their lives, but it is also serious business.

Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity this evening to make an impact on millions of Americans who ride their bikes on a regular basis, or who might. Energy conservation does not have to be difficult. It can be as economic, healthy and environmentally friendly as a bike ride. Transportation is the number one use of energy in this country. Indeed, we use 10 percent of the world's supply of petroleum just to fuel our automobiles. The key is to give Americans more choices about how they move.

The bicycle is the most efficient form of urban transportation ever devised. America has over 100 million bicycles available to them. Unfortunately, too many of them spend time in garages, attics, and basements. At a time when we are concerned about the health of this country, and we have a terrific caucus that has been developed by our colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), to zero in on fitness, cycling is a key way to improve cardiovascular health and deal with the number one problem today, obesity.

We are all concerned about congestion. Many of us live in Washington, D.C., a third to half of our time. This is the second most congested area in America. A bicycle uses approximately one-tenth of the space on the roads to drive, and less than that to park.

We are concerned about air pollution, and cycling simply does not contribute to air pollution. Nationally, we have less than 1 percent of our trips now that are using cycling, but we have watched dramatic increases in cycling since we have had the ISTEA legislation and TEA- 21. We have spent over a billion dollars on cycling, and we have seen some dramatic improvements; but we do not know exactly what difference it has made.

This amendment would establish to conserve by bicycling a pilot program in the Department of Transportation, oversee up to 10 geographically disbursed pilot projects across the country designed to conserve energy resources, provide education and marketing tools to help people convert auto trips to cycling. It will encourage key partnerships between the stakeholders in transportation, law enforcement, education, public health, environment and energy.

We have seen these partnerships work across the country, not just in bicycle towns that we would expect where there are large campus compositions such as in Davis, Boulder, and Eugene, but in larger cities like Chicago, and dare I say, Portland, Oregon.

This amendment would authorize $6.2 million for the pilot projects and the study to get the facts to formulate better policy. It is supported by a wide array of organizations: The League of American Cyclists; America Bikes; the Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth; STPP, the Surface Transportation Policy Project; Smart Growth America; Bikes Belong. These are people who know that we can make real progress.

We have seen in Portland, Oregon, where the Members all know it rains all the time, that we have been able to more than double the national average of cycling. If we were able to have that level of participation across the country, we would save over two-thirds of a billion gallons of gasoline a year, over $5 billion in transportation costs.

Mr. Chairman, there is no single solution to our country's energy problems, but there is no solution that has more potential for improving our quality of life, our environment, our health and our transportation system while saving energy. I strongly urge the body to adopt the Conserve by Bike Energy amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will quit while I am ahead. I appreciate the gentleman's kind words.

I do find it appalling that in our Nation's Capital, in surrounding environments which have potential for some of the most spectacular cycling anywhere in the country, that there are some areas where they are taking their life in their hands. We look forward in the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act to work with the gentleman and others to make sure that we have safe routes to school, to work; and I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this.

It is unfortunate that people are willing to accept the astoundingly high rate of gun violence in this country. Every Member of this Chamber knows people who have been touched by needless gun violence, and we are set to accept more damage unless and until we are willing to accept common-sense steps to reduce gun violence that will save lives. The step that my colleague from Rhode Island just mentioned will not interfere with anybody's right to hunt, will not interfere with the manufacture; it simply extends the simple common-sense consumer protection that we accept for toy guns to real guns. It is not rocket science, it is not a lack of compassion, it is just simply doing the right thing.

I believe we will live to see the day when we stop the dark side of gun trafficking in this country, when we extend simple common-sense consumer protections, when we have the courage in this Chamber to fund adequate enforcement of the gun laws that we have. But, until that day comes, for God's sake, do not make the situation worse.

Extending protections to the gun industry, unnecessary protections, alone, is not going to move us forward. It is a step backward. It reinforces the notion that we are powerless, that all we have to do is pander to the people who make a career out of twisting the second amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that we reject this proposal today and avoid the shameful record that we have with unnecessary gun laws that lose lives and shatter families.

Mr. Speaker, I am reflecting on the words of the majority leader, actions speak for themselves, and I think we are going to have a series of discussions here on the floor of this Chamber dealing with the actions of the Republican majority and the mismatch between what the American public wants and needs. The notion that we are going to cut veterans benefits when we are sending our veterans-to- be into battle in the Middle East, the fact that we are providing even the tax treatment for the veterans that he referenced was achieved only after the Republican majority was embarrassed with their original proposal. They had to withdraw it because it confused assistance for our veterans with aid for people who gamble from overseas and manufacture tackle boxes. Mr. Speaker, I would like instead today to reflect on a moment of what times of stress especially in war serve as a mirror for who we are. There have been times in our history like World War II where it has reflected in a very positive sense on our character, it has brought out the best in the American public, but also during that same period of time, there was also reflected some of the things that we are least proud of. For example, our treatment of legal Japanese residents and Japanese citizens in this country, herding them up and putting them in concentration camps.

One of the problems I have with the current situation is that it is fraught with danger, and if we are not careful, we will have a risk of losing track of who we are. I was struck last fall when I read an article in the Washington Post that talks about how the material witness law in this country casts dozens of citizens, of Americans, into limbo, where there were 44 people who were jailed as material witnesses and kept in maximum security conditions for a few days, in some cases for several months or longer. Seven of them were American citizens. I was troubled when I read that account, Mr. Speaker, but I must say that I was shaken when I saw it occur in my community, where 3 weeks ago Maher Hawash, Mike to his friends, a 38-year-old software engineer, although born in the West Bank and who grew up in Kuwait, has been an American citizen for over a dozen years, he lives with his wife Lisa, raising three children here in our community of Portland, Oregon, was arrested in the Intel parking lot at 6:30 in the morning. At the same time almost a dozen armed agents swept into his home. I heard from his former boss, Steve McGeady, a friend of mine, in Portland, who was stunned by the accusation but more by the treatment of this American citizen, kept in solitary confinement for 3 weeks under this material witness warrant, attorney and family subject to a gag order. This is a person with strong ties to the community and does not appear to represent any risk of flight.

Citizens who know Mike have organized their own Web site, freemikehawash.org, that says it all. Mr. Speaker, he had a hearing yesterday but he is bound over again under these conditions. We do not know what is going on. He is going to be kept in detention, it looks like, for at least another 2 to 3 weeks. Mr. Speaker, this is deeply troubling treatment for an American citizen. Put him before the grand jury now. If they think he has committed some sort of crime, charge him. If not, for heaven sakes, release him. We should not have a shroud of secrecy. We should not have indefinite detention in solitary confinement for American citizens. We should not be punishing them, their family and friends.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, at times difficult situations provide a mirror. I would hope that the mirror that we hold up to ourselves at this time should show America at its best, not at its worst.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this evening while there is a battle raging in Iraq, one

that is well known to the American public, and I want to spend a few minutes this evening dealing with another battle that is taking place, a battle that is raging in this country that has potential risks that are every bit as great as that of international terror for the safety, health, and well-being of our citizens and, indeed, the citizens of the planet.

I am talking about a concentrated assault on environmental protections in this country. I am deeply troubled by the gap between what we have seen growing in terms of the political process with some of my Republican Members and people in the administration in terms of what environmental protection means, where we are, and where we should go.

Now, I come from the perspective as somebody who was part of an Oregon tradition of politics that was decidedly nonpartisan or, in fact, aggressively bipartisan when it came to environmental protection. My first assignment as a college student from a government official was from the legendary Republican Governor of Oregon, Tom McCall, who appointed me to his Livable Oregon committee. Throughout the years that I worked in Oregon politics on the State and local level, I was pleased to work hand in glove with a wide variety of people who put environmental protection first, and partisanship and special interests came later.

On the floor this evening, I must, I guess, acknowledge my dismay about the growing gap between the parties when it comes to environmental protection. I think this was crystallized for me when I received a copy of a widely circulated memorandum from the famous Republican pollster and political consultant, Frank Luntz, that was distributed to Republicans in Congress earlier this year. It was ironically entitled ``Straight Talk.''

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this memorandum has been given enough attention, and I hope to do a little bit of that this evening because I think it is very important to understand the differences between the two parties as they relate to environmental protection; and this memorandum is revealing strategy where some of my Republican friends, people in the administration and Congress, are advised do not use your ingenuity to develop more environmental protection, do not use your creativity and political muscle to put the money behind enforcing our environmental laws to try to extend the boundaries. Instead, the approach of this memorandum is to put the time and the energy into how you describe what you are doing, try and feather the impact, try and obscure the real record. I think there is no place it is going to be more telling for the American public this week than to look at the energy bill that is on its way to the floor.

There we see instance after instance where the bill that has been passed by the Republican majority is going to put off our energy problems into the future for the next generation or maybe even the generation that follows them to deal with. There is a refusal to deal with global climate change.

In committee, I am sorry that the Republicans rejected both the bipartisan language that had been passed unanimously in the Senate as well as even the President's woefully inadequate voluntary climate change initiative. We will not find these in the energy bill.

We will find that the critical area of transportation, which consumes 70 percent of the United States oil consumption, indeed just to provide fuel for our automobiles, takes for the United States just our cars, and we represent less than 5 percent of the world's population, that consumes 10 percent of the world's oil production. But amazingly, the bill that is coming before us does not act on efficiency standards. Indeed, they are giving additional tax breaks, and it seems that my Republican friends in committee have yet to find a problem in this country that is so great that it cannot be solved by another tax break, tax deduction, or tax benefit.

But these tax breaks do not go to the 99 percent of the American public that arguably if we can afford tax reductions, and this will be the first time in war that we are proposing not sacrifice but tax deductions for those that need it the least, these tax breaks and royalty relief are to the interest of oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy. Indeed, some of the provisions incredibly at this time would take away the payments that are due to the American public, royalties for energy sources that are extracted from public lands at a time of skyrocketing energy prices. Well, the proposal there is to reduce the royalties that would otherwise be paid to the American taxpayers.

When we speak of the environment, one of the strategies that is being suggested by Mr. Luntz is to hug a tree, to support open space and parks. Well, by reducing the money that otherwise would go to the Federal Treasury to provide support for our public priorities, one of the most important sources of the revenue that comes from the royalties would go to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has been eviscerated under the President's budget.

Also in this legislation, there are proposals to again open the pristine lands in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, a land that was set aside for all time by Republican pro-business President Teddy Roosevelt. Instead, it is proposed that we open up this area even though, and here I will show a little bit of hometown favoritism, I quote from the Portland Oregonian from earlier this month which I think says it as well as anybody: ``The oil beneath the refuge would not lead America to energy independence.

It would not allow the country to recede from Mideast policies. It will have no impact on current gas prices or any shortage that is caused by the war in Iraq, and it will take 7 to 10 years even to get the first drop of oil from the refuge.''

And I could not agree with my hometown newspaper more. The irony is that having visited the wildlife refuge, Mr. Speaker, having looked at that fragile Arctic environment and weighing the costs and consequences, it is clear to me that this ought to be the last place in America that we drill for oil, not the first. And I note that the American public in survey after survey has sided unequivocally with the protection of the wildlife refuge.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we spend a little time focusing on that energy bill, because I am afraid as it comes rushing to the floor it is unlikely that we are going to have adequate time and energy to devote to it.

But I would reference one other in these times of very difficult problems that are radiating out from our military action in Iraq. When people are looking at the tremendous stresses on our military, they are thinking about ways that we ought to protect the ability of our military to be able to maintain its position as the mightiest fighting force in the world. We are seeing that there has been under the guise of military exigency an attempt by the administration to exempt the Department of Defense from protection of the environment, using the rhetoric of defense to cover up environmentally destructive actions, to exempt the Department of Defense from some of the most environmental protections. These exemptions seek to address theoretical encroachments to military readiness. There is no evidence, no sound science, showing that our environmental laws have hampered our troops' ability to prepare for war. Instead, these laws actually protect the health of families living on or near military bases and actually support readiness by sustaining and extending the life of training ranges.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, at a time when the Members of Congress are spending more time thinking about the condition of our military and how to maintain its effectiveness, that instead of attempting to eliminate these fundamental environmental protections that put our soldiers, their families, and surrounding communities at risk, we would think about being aggressive in terms of protecting the environment so that we actually coax more out of these resources.

I will be speaking more about that, Mr. Speaker, in the course of this hour. But I wanted, if I could, to take a moment to acknowledge that I have been joined by the gentlewoman from southern California (Ms. Solis), a woman I have known during her tenure in Congress to care passionately about the

environment, to work with her community at home dealing with issues of environmental integrity and environmental justice, working to try to make sure that the big picture is made. And, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague to speak to these issues with me this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis). I appreciate her zeroing in on the notion of how to interpret, read between the lines. We have joked a little bit about having a decoder ring so that people can understand what is being offered, and her points about the disconnect between the budget, which really is a tangible expression of priorities; that is, a budget submission that is antienvironmental and has actually been made worse by the Republican budget resolution; the simple notion accepted by the American public to aid environmental cleanup by having the polluter pay that has been suspended, and abandoning the Superfund, making it very difficult to be able to continue the notion of environmental justice where we have put such a burden on people who often have no alternatives, who are unaware of what is happening, and how the administration is suggesting that we not initiate new activities but, in fact, we pull back from what we are doing now that is, in fact, inadequate. I appreciate her forthright expression of that.

I think it is important that we work together to have that decoder ring to understand. I hope that we are able to deal with the advice that Mr. Luntz has given to the Republicans. I think it is important that he points out that scientific consensus is against them, that the public is suspicious, but we hope that instead of trying to deal with semantics, rhetorical cover-up, that we can encourage people to go back to what we started with in terms of the Clean Water Act, which was actually from the Nixon Administration, to have an opportunity where people are embracing environmental values.

We have been joined this evening by the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). I have been pleased to work with the gentleman on the floor of this House. I have been very impressed in my visits to his district, as the gentleman reflects the strong environmental values of the people of New Mexico, and we are honored the gentleman will join us this evening to join in this discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the gentleman's, I think, really far- seeing bill on renewable energy; and I am hopeful that the leadership in this Congress will have the foresight to allow it to come to the floor and to allow a spirited debate. I am convinced that if we put it to the Congress and to the American public that that legislation will pass.

As I was listening to the gentleman describe the experience we both have shared in the Arctic wilderness, I had in the back of my mind, I think I said Teddy Roosevelt designated it. It was another Republican President, President Eisenhower, who made the designation.

If I said Roosevelt, I was there dealing with the pristine jewel, Yellowstone, which was the creation of then-President Teddy Roosevelt, which we are now seeing under assault, where the administration is proposing that the place in America with the worst air, not L.A., not Houston, it is in Yellowstone Park, where we see park rangers forced to wear gas masks because of the pollution, and we see the rule on restricting the use of snowmobiles being rescinded. I guess I got a little ahead of myself. I apologize if I said that.

I appreciate the gentleman focusing on the opportunity to truly make us energy independent, dealing with renewable energy sources, particularly the nontraditional: the fuel cells, wind, geothermal. As we look at how these will be treated in the energy bill that will find its way to the floor, we will find that there is but a tiny fraction of the attention, the resources, to be able to accelerate those developments. Again, it is a disconnect between the ``green'' rhetoric that is being couched by the Republican pollsters and pundits and what could have been actual accomplishment.

The bill will fall terribly short, as the gentleman mentions, in terms of environmental stewardship. It will fall short in terms of our meeting our international obligations and opportunities, and it will be a fiscal disaster. It is interesting, the Taxpayers for Common Sense and others in the Green Scissors Coalition are going to come forward to point out how this is a lost opportunity that is going to cost the American taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.

It is sad that a country with less than 3 percent of the recoverable supply of the world's oil, and as we have talked about, much of it in ecologically important areas, we are going to be focusing on trying to extract every last drop and avoiding things that will put us in a positive position.

I would like to acknowledge that we have one of our other colleagues who is with us here this evening. Time is winding down, but we could not not acknowledge the leadership and advocacy of our colleague, the gentleman from the Puget Sound area of Washington (Mr. Inslee), from the Seattle area, a gentleman with whom I was pleased to take a tour of the Arctic, as we saw what was on the line.

I say to the gentleman, welcome. I would yield to the gentleman for some comments about this critical area that I know the gentleman has spent so much time and effort to provide better alternatives for the people on this floor.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we are able to. I appreciate the gentleman focusing on the fact that we have had a tremendous technological series of advances in this country, and it is time, first of all, to make sure that we do not lose control of some of those, and that we blaze a trail for the future. It is stunning to me that we have an opportunity to give a little nudge to some of the promising technologies, some of the fledgling enterprises, all across the country. And I know the gentleman has been visited by people from our own Pacific Northwest who are on the cutting edge of

being able to give a little bit of a push, a little bit of incentive, to have the government step up and lead by example.

Our Department of Defense, for instance. I had been talking earlier about my personal dismay that this administration is bent on somehow exempting the Department of Defense, the largest manager of infrastructure in the world, and, sadly, the source of some of the most serious pollution. Rather than encouraging, rather than giving the resources to clean up after themselves, they are talking about exempting from the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. I know the gentleman from Washington has given thought to the notion of what will happen if we gave a little bit of the money we are giving now to the Department of Defense, almost $1 million a minute, if a little of that were devoted to making sure that we had the most energy-efficient military in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is telling. There is already, as the gentleman well knows but unfortunately the public is not aware, there are opportunities in the case of national defense exigency for the suspension of this legislation. But the gentlemen raises a point that mirrors my experience time and time again. The characteristics, the leadership, the training, the commitment, that makes our men and women in the Armed Forces the finest fighting force in the world also makes them uniquely qualified to solve problems. And when they are given an opportunity, whether it is building a green building, whether it is solving an environmentally difficult problem, if we give them the order, the resources, the clearance, I am stunned at the progress that can be made.

I am likewise troubled, and the gentleman comes from the State that probably more than any in the country bears the scars of past shortcuts environmentally. We could talk about an area the gentleman is well aware of in terms of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation where we were in a rush to develop nuclear weapons before the Nazis, but now we are spending billions of dollars a year to clean it up.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raises very important points from his own experience.

I had been working on areas of military toxins and unexploded ordnance, and have been frankly amazed at the breadth of the problem, in every State in the Union, coast to coast, areas right here in the District of Columbia. Eighty-five years after the conclusion of World War I, there are still cleanup operations taking place on the American University campus, which was the site of American chemical weapons production and testing during World War I. We have yet to clean that up, not because the men and women in the military do not know how to do it, but it has been a failure of commitment on behalf of several administrations, including this one. Congress has been missing in action. At the rate we are going right now, it is going to take potentially 500 to 1,000 years or more to clean up from the problems of the past.

We have some signature areas. The Massachusetts Military Reservation, there is water pollution that threatens all of the water for the Martha's Vineyard area, but it is almost every district, every single State. Right now, we do not even know how many million acres are polluted, for instance, with unexploded ordnance.

I think the gentleman's point is well taken. I am hopeful that we do not suspend these five critical environmental laws. Not only will it put the health of the American public at risk, but it also threatens the men and women in the military who are around these areas.

And, last but not least, we face a situation now where there are some problems of military readiness. There are fewer and fewer areas that the military can train by going in, treating them right, cleaning them up, solving environmental problems. It is going to save the military problems in the long run, and it is going to extend the life of these scarce areas where important training takes place that is critical to military readiness.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I appreciate his leadership and look forward to working with him on energy, on defense, and on the areas generally of making sure that we are strengthening, not weakening, our environmental protections.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I know the time is about up, I know you will be disappointed, but I want to summarize because it is important for us to be working with friends like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and others to focus on actions, not just rhetoric.

And one of the things that I have found most disconcerting as I have watched what this administration has done is taking Mr. Luntz's advice to not be rolling back regulations but, as they call it, updating Washington's rules on the environment. Now, he has been encouraging Republicans not to attack the principles behind environmental protections, but to try and shift things around in terms of the regulatory configuration. Well, the Bush administration has made significant and far-reaching changes to environmental protections since the President assumed office. But not through outright legislation, not putting it before the American public and having a discussion about what our values are, what we are trying to protect and how best to encourage more environmental protection.

We have been having a series of late Friday afternoon rule changes and clarifications at a time when asthma and cancer rates are on the rise. When people in Alaska are seeing tropical insects, when we are having roadways buckle, permafrost is disappearing, the public knows that we should be strengthening, not weakening, environmental laws. We are not just seeing a broad depth and breadth of changes, but we are seeing them done under the radar screen. For example, we have seen a series of rollbacks occurring on Friday afternoons, during the holiday season, when Congress is not in session and when the public's attention is diverted. For example, the EPA announced its biggest rollback of the Clean Air Act since its inception on the afternoon before Thanksgiving and another on New Year's Eve calculated to try and shield the action from the public.

Three of the most egregious rollbacks occurred first earlier this year when we had proposed changes to the Clear Water Act that will have sweeping impacts on 20 million acres of wetlands across the country. Now, these rules changes were in response to a Supreme Court decision that very narrowly interpreted the Clean Water Act and brought attention to what bodies of water the act should apply to.

Now, instead of advancing clarifying legislation that would make clear we want to protect these precious wetlands, half of which are gone already, some communities have lost 90 percent of their wetlands, deteriorating the quality of water, increasing threats to flood, instead they have proposed leaving out lots of, these appear to be de minimis efforts, they want to talk about creeks, small streams, natural ponds, types of wetlands like bogs, marshes, prairie potholes. These will all be waterways no longer protected by the Clean Water Act. They sound de minimis, but they are part of the critical green infrastructure that has protected our communication for generations. Now they will all be vulnerable to dredging, filling, and waste dumping.

I mentioned earlier the confusion surrounding the snowmobiles in some of our country's most beautiful national parks. During his Presidential campaign, candidate Bush spoke of protecting national parks as an ongoing responsibility and a shared commitment of the American people and their government. The budgets, I will mention, cut funding to this ongoing responsibility. And even though the public has spoken out again and again in favor of banning snowmobiles from areas like Yellowstone, the administration announced last November a proposal to increase the number of snowmobiles in both Yellowstone and Grand Teton National parks by 35 percent.

Now, against the wishes of the American public, the EPA, the National Park Service, the administration has decided to jeopardize the health of the park's ecosystem and employees in areas that President Bush in the campaign referred to as ``silent places unworn by man.''

Finally, I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, the environmental rollback that will have a significant impact in my community in the Pacific Northwest, the national roadless policy. Near the end of his term, President Clinton restricted logging and road building in almost 60 million acres of national forest. This was after the most extensive public input process in the history of our national park system. There were over a million and a half public comments. Over 600 public hearings. Well, a district judge in Idaho placed an injunction on the rule. The Bush administration did not choose to contest it. Luckily, in one of the few victories that those of us who care about the environment have had recently, the 9th Circuit Court has upheld the roadless rule, which will effectively protect it for the time being. But this reckless degradation of our Nation's air, water, forest, and soil protection will have a severe and long-term impact on the planet, leave a far greater legacy of environmental problems that our children, not us, our children will be left to manage.

And I hope that the American public will focus on what Republican consultants like Frank Luntz are suggesting, understand the significant impacts of environmental rollbacks proposed, and understand that there are significant opportunities, not just for the American public and the environmental community, but significant environmental opportunities like I mentioned this evening in terms of environmental clean up with the Department of Defense that will save tax dollars, that will protect the environment for generations to come, that will improve military readiness, and not be at the expense of the health of our communities or our men and women in the fighting forces.

I hope that instead of greenwash, instead of rhetorical flourishes, instead of dodging the issues and obscuring the record, I hope that the administration will join with people on both sides of the aisle who care about the environment and give the American public what they request in terms of livable communities, protected open space, clean air, and clean water. It is within our grasp. It is within our budget. I hope that it is within our will before we adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, much has been written recently about Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, scholar, politician, diplomat, public servant. We have been reminded again, in the wake of his passing, of his intellectual and political contributions dealing with the most sensitive and complex questions of our society. Ideas that were controversial when he first advanced them are now accepted as conventional wisdom.

I rise today to salute this giant and his greatest gift, which is to influence how America faces its challenges. He was regarded appropriately as a tremendous architectural influence. No one over the last third of a century has done more to shape American communities. His influence can be seen from the steps of the Capitol with the creation of the Pennsylvania Avenue Redevelopment Corporation. He worked to restore once magnificent James Farley Post Office in New York back to life as a new Penn Station. He was the intellectual force behind the revolutionary 1991 ISTEA legislation, allowing communities to use transportation resources to shape their development rather than transportation choices shaping our communities. His legacy gave more power to citizens at all levels and made the money go farther to do more and better things.

As we begin the reauthorization this Congress of his landmark ISTEA legislation, we deal with many opportunities to revitalize America's communities through wise infrastructure investment, a critical and underappreciated part of the Moynihan legacy. But, Mr. Speaker, I think there is an even more important part of his legacy for those of us who serve in this Chamber. At a time when our problems appear more complex and difficult and when our divisions appear deeper than ever before, Senator Moynihan gave us a blueprint for channeling the riches and power of America to greatness at home and abroad. At a time when the activities here somehow make the most monumental occasions appear smaller than life, we can look to this intellectual and political giant, himself larger than life, who had a gift to magnify the things he said and did. His advice for us would be to put aside the narrow and the partisan, not to rationalize what we know to be reckless or inappropriate in the name of the legislative process, and have the courage to

have the free exercise of ideas and debate, not to stifle discussion here on this floor.

Some of the Senator's more profound contributions initially appeared extraordinarily controversial. Only after they were entered into debate did their meaning take root and the controversial become the accepted. People here can honor the legacy of Senator Moynihan by doing the time- honored work of Congress, debating, listening, legislating, and working together in committee and in the House Chamber; and seize the tremendous opportunities to deal with world peace, the protection and economic security of our families and safeguarding the environment.

In honoring the memory of Senator Moynihan in practice, we will be honoring the trust that has been given to us by our constituents. We too can be larger than life rather than a side show while the real drama is worked out in some back room. We can reflect our own hearts and visions and the needs of our communities rather than being orchestrated by focus groups and special interests. Part of what characterized Senator Moynihan's genius was simply that he presented ideas regardless of the short-term public relations and political consequences. This meant that some people in Washington, D.C., were nervous working with him. It made it harder for some of the powers that be and the media pundits, but as the Senator proved time and time again, it made it easier to push America to do the right thing.

As someone raised in an often bipartisan or even nonpartisan Oregon political culture, this simple truth seems so obvious but somehow elusive in today's Washington, D.C. By doing our job as legislators, as independent, thoughtful representatives, we can make vital contributions during the most critical times since we were fighting Hitler and recovering from the Depression. I suspect the Senator himself would deem that to be a most fitting tribute to his legacy.

Mr. Chairman, this $77.9 billion supplemental appropriations bill is the largest ever considered by Congress. Yet, it still fails to address our most critical need of ``hometown'' security. The lack of adequate funding to protect our hometowns exposes the United States to greater risks than those posed by Saddam Hussein.

This bill provides less than half of an estimated $9 billion need for the safety of our ports, transportation systems, water supplies, and first responders. It even falls short of what the administration requested for homeland security. Nationwide, cities are spending $70 million a week to protect and prepare themselves from potential attacks at a time when state and local governments are already crippled by economic conditions.

In the last two weeks since the war in Iraq began, my hometown of Portland, Oregon has spent nearly a million dollars to respond to the heightened security alert. As the State of Oregon struggles to keep schools open and to provide medical care for the neediest people, it is incomprehensible that we are not fulfilling our responsibility at the federal level to help fund critical homeland security needs.

A Democratic amendment that would have added $5.5 billion for homeland security and $300 million specifically for metropolitan security needs, would have provided Oregon an additional $4 million to secure, protect, and prepare our ports, our hospitals, and our first responders against potential terrorist attacks. Appallingly, the Republican leadership blocked this and other Democratic amendments from even being voted on.

There is no reason to rush this resolution through to fund the war on Iraq. It would appear to the casual observer as an attempt to hide the true cost of the war by breaking it up into pieces. There are already discussions that another supplemental will be necessary before the end of the year. The 2004 budget resolution, which was just debated two weeks ago, failed completely to deal with the expended costs of this war.

I did not support this resolution, because it is not needed at this moment, the process by which it was brought to the floor is unreasonable, and it fails to fund protection for our communities.

Madam Speaker, I am sad to report to the House today the passing of Paul Walden of Hood River, Oregon, the father of our colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

It was my pleasure to serve in the Oregon House of Representatives with Paul where he was a distinguished member in the 1970s. By the time he became a legislator, he was already an established community leader, active in his church and many civic organizations.

Paul was a successful businessman whose ready wit and deep melodious voice made him a natural for a career in radio. He served a half century in the broadcast industry, ultimately owning his own radio stations.

This Oregonian of pioneer stock made his community better as he brightened people's lives. He was the obvious choice for the community for major responsibilities, like serving as chair and master of ceremonies for the opening of the massive Dallas's Dam featuring Vice President Richard Nixon.

I will remember him as a friend who served his community with honor, with humor, and with insight.

Our thoughts are with our colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden); his wife, Maylene; son, Anthony; and the entire Walden family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an issue that I have addressed in this Chamber on a number of occasions, cockfighting. But today I am here not to reiterate the case against this despicable and barbaric practice but to draw attention to a gross misuse of tax dollars of hardworking Americans whose funds are being quietly handed off by the Department of Agriculture to illegal cockfighters.

In October, the Federal Government learned of an outbreak in southern California of Exotic Newcastle Disease which does not appear to threaten people but which is deadly to birds. Though not yet identified for certain, it appears that illegal cockfighters are responsible. Fighting roosters from Mexico, where there has been an outbreak of Exotic Newcastle, have moved illegally into California. The imprint of the disease in Mexico is nearly identical to the imprint of the disease now spreading throughout the American Southwest.

Since the outbreak occurred 6 months ago in the United States, the disease has spread rapidly. First discovered in Los Angeles County, it has spread throughout southern California and into Arizona and Nevada. There are now eight affected counties in California, and experts predict that more counties will soon be hit as the disease marches north. All movements of live birds have been halted in the quarantine area and all poultry shows have been canceled throughout the entire State. In an effort to contain the disease, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and State agriculture departments have ordered many bird flocks depopulated if any bird in a flock has been diagnosed with the infection. State and Federal authorities have killed more than 3.2 million birds, including pet birds, poultry and egg-laying hens from commercial flocks, fighting roosters and other birds. Thus far, Federal authorities have spent $65 million and cost estimates may climb to $250 to $500 million before the disease runs its course. The last time there was a major outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease in California, it cost taxpayers and agriculture an immense impact.

During the course of the containment exercise, agricultural officials have been staggered by the scope of the illegal cockfighting operations they have stumbled upon. There are some observers who say that there are 50,000 gamecock operations in southern California alone. USDA officials, according to news sources, have said that fully one-third of the flocks that they have depopulated are gamecock operations. Under California law, it is illegal to possess birds for fighting purposes. But the USDA is providing millions in compensation to illegal cockfighters whose birds have been ordered killed. According to the Bakersfield Californian and other newspapers, some individuals are being paid up to $1,800 per fighting rooster.

Mr. Speaker, this is a scandal, a gross and irresponsible use of tax dollars. Our Federal Government is paying top-dollar black-market prices for live contraband. If there was an outbreak of plant disease, would we be compensating marijuana growers for the destruction of their crops? Let me repeat, under State law it is illegal to possess birds for fighting. Under the provisions of an amendment I sponsored last year with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), it will soon be illegal under Federal law to move any fighting birds to or from any State or territory in the United States. In short, there is no legitimate reason for individuals to possess birds for fighting purposes. But they are being remunerated. These people are organized criminals and we should not be squandering the tax dollars of hardworking Americans by making compensation payments to them. These people should not be paid off. They should be prosecuted under State and Federal law.

It is indeed ironic that the Federal Government is paying cockfighters more than it is paying pet owners, poultry growers, and other individuals who legitimately possess birds in southern California. At a time when we are making so many difficult choices with Federal expenditures, when we have a war to pay for, when we have a soaring deficit, when we are not funding critical environmental programs in

agriculture, the farmland protection bill, wetland reserves program, wildlife habitat incentives program, the conservation security program, the environmental quality investment program, these critical programs to protect the environment and American agriculture, we do not have money to fund them adequately, but we are paying out millions to illegal cockfighters. This should not happen, and I want this body to join me for an accounting by the Department of Agriculture of what is happening on the ground in California, Arizona, Nevada, and throughout the Southwest.

Mr. Speaker, soon several colleagues and I will be introducing legislation to strengthen penalties for violations of Federal anti- animal fighting law. These are the same provisions that were passed by both the House and the Senate last year in the ag bill but were inexplicably stripped away in the conference committee. Now is the time to restore the penalties already approved by both Chambers. I hope that the Secretary of Agriculture will actively support this change in law. Adequate enforcement of Federal anti-animal fighting provisions is not only needed to stop the cruelty associated with animal fighting, but it is needed to prevent future outbreaks of Exotic Newcastle Disease. I hope that even those who are unmoved by the cruelty of animal fighting will recognize the threat that this industry poses to mainstream agriculture and to the American taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of our march to war with Iraq, too little attention has been placed on the rush to exempt the Department of Defense from most of America's major environmental laws.

This is more than just another misguided assault on the environment by the Bush administration. It is a significant missed opportunity for the military.

Our defense-related activities are the source of the Nation's largest pollution and Superfund sites. From the radioactive legacy at Hanford, Washington, to the toxic residue of our chemical testing and manufacturing around American University here in Washington, D.C., every State, district and territory struggles with this problem.

More exemptions are not going to help. A lack of controls created this toxic legacy across America in the first

place. These exemptions will actually cost us money. Much of the tens of billions of dollars that will be necessary to clean up after our military activity is a result of delay and lack of commitment. States will be forced to step in where the Federal Government has walked away.

Failure to invest in technologies of cleanup will put lives at risk. Land mines, unexploded ordnance kill people at home and abroad.

Even the sprawl that vexes communities around the country hits at the military. Isolated areas that were once perfect for testing weapons and training soldiers are now victims of our headlong rush for urban development. Sprawl is one of the greatest challenges to military readiness as civilian uses encroach upon and around military bases and ranges.

For too long, Congress has been missing in action in this critical area. It should not just reject the Bush administration's ill-conceived but cleverly-timed effort. Now is the time for Congress to help the military fulfill its environmental obligations.

As the finest fighting force in the world, our military achieves astounding results. All they need are direct orders and adequate resources. Why not put them to work to enhance and protect the environment, rather than create more environmental threats in the future while we ignore the challenges of today?

Since I came to Congress I have been working on this problem, fighting to at least inventory the areas that are blighted by unexploded ordnance, to put somebody in charge and incrementally increase funding for cleanup and research.

As a gusher of money flows to defense, just half the budget for the ill-conceived national missile defense program could revolutionize military cleanup. Instead of a rate of spending that will now take centuries, maybe millennia, we could finish the job in a few decades.

In the long term, investing in cleanup can actually save substantial sums of money. As technologies are developed and economies of scale are achieved in environmental cleanup, there will be a wide range of civilian contractors willing, able and eager to expand their business.

Additional money for research will do far more than merely hasten cleanup and lower costs. It will have a profound implication not just for soldiers but for children and farmers who are killed and maimed every day as a result of unexploded ordnance and land mines. And this just does not happen overseas. They have been able to document over 60 American victims, including children, who have been victims here in this country.

At a time when we are deeply concerned about our economy, these investments will provide tens of thousands of family-wage jobs. Accelerated cleanup will speed the return of some of America's most interesting, scenic and valuable properties to productive uses and, in some cases, to the tax rolls.

It is not just a fear of job loss that keeps between a quarter and a third of domestic bases that are surplus to our needs in operation. Many communities feel that they will lose not just the economic security and the jobs but they will be left with a white elephant that is polluted, surrounded by barbed wire and a cyclone fence.

The Fort Ord base in California is an example. It contains some of the world's most spectacular landscape, but after 13 years since closure and over $500 million, the land still has not been fully restored to productive use.

Twenty years ago, a bipartisan coalition of ``cheap hawks'' made some significant reforms in military weapons procurement. Today, the ``hawks'' who care about the environment, the budget and military readiness should embrace bold, environmental military action.

Congress should firmly reject the anti-environmental, unnecessary initiatives of the administration and, instead, give the money and instructions to the Department of Defense so they can clean up after themselves. It will boost the economy, save taxpayer money and enhance the environment. It will improve military readiness at home while it enhances the safety of soldiers and civilians around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the American men and women in uniform and their families who are providing key support and bearing such a heavy burden. Congress stands in solidarity with those given such a somber responsibility. This resolution is testimony to that unity.

My vote on this resolution affirms my support for our troops, but should not be mistaken as an affirmation of the administration's foreign policies and diplomatic efforts, which I find wanting.

Mr. Chairman, it seems that each year I've been in Congress, the Republican budget proposal is further and further removed from the needs and expressed wishes of the American public. This year follows that disturbing trend. Fundamental priorities and long-term fiscal stability are sacrificed for the sake of continued tax cuts.

This budget puts into place a framework that will fail to meet our needs. It ignores funding requirements for our operations overseas, our actions in Iraq and a commitment to rebuild and stabilize Afghanistan. Worst of all it ignores real problems here at home. There is no meaningful assistance for the 47 states, including mine, that are in serious financial difficulty, to say nothing of the unmet needs for transportation, environmental cleanup and ``hometown'' security.

We must look at this current budget as an opportunity, despite the fact that we are now at war and our economy continues to stumble. We have a choice whether we want deficits as far as the eye can see. We have a choice whether we want to provide tax cuts to the detriment of education, healthcare and the environment. The Democratic budget alternatives we are voting on today are far better in addressing these choices.

The Democratic budget alternatives:

Invest in our communities, which creates jobs, provides needed infrastructure improvements for transportation and water, and cleans up the environment;

Help state and local governments cope with their current budget crises and provides money for ``hometown'' security and the first responders that protect our communities;

Provide increased funding for discretionary healthcare programs and education, reducing classroom sizes and providing advanced teacher training--proposals President Bush promised but the Republicans refuse to fund; and

Offer tax cuts and reforms that are much more affordable and equitable. They repeal the marriage penalty, provide immediate and permanent estate tax relief that increases the family exclusion level to $6 million, and accelerate the child tax credit to $800 per child. Other tax cuts would be deferred if the budget remains in deficit because of the war in Iraq or other factors.

My constituents and the American people understand that these are extraordinary times. They are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to protect our communities, to educate our children, and to clean our environment. We have an opportunity to help families become safer, healthier, and more economically secure. The Democratic budget alternatives seize this opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I support bankruptcy reform. This legislation has followed a tortured path over the last four Congresses. During this time I have voted for reform and tried to make it more fair. While I have some concerns about this latest bill, H.R. 975, and would have preferred to see improvements for further consumer protections against predatory lending and credit card marketing, the federal bankruptcy code must be reformed. Bankruptcy filings have increased from 330,000 in 1980 to more than 1.5 million last year. The cost of waiving debt through bankruptcy proceedings has resulted in higher costs for all consumers.

I have heard from Oregon's credit unions and small businesses who have made a compelling case that current bankruptcy laws result in significant costs for Oregon's businesses and consumers. Flaws in the current system allow higher-income filers to abuse the system by walking away from debts they are capable of repaying. One of many examples detailed how a credit union customer with income in excess of $100,000 per year financed home remodeling on credit cards, then filed Chapter 13 to discharge the credit card debt without having any major change in income status.

We need a cold dose of reality. People should act responsibly and pay their bills when they have the means. I will support federal and state actions against predatory lending and abusive credit practices, but we cannot dismiss personal responsibility. H.R. 975 protects low- to middle-income families, while requiring those that have the ability to repay some or all of their debt to enter into a payment plan. Our bankruptcy laws need to be overhauled and I believe this is an appropriate step forward.

Mr. Speaker, throughout history, nothing has more profound impact on the world than the consequences of war; but as we examine that history, we often see the greatest devastation is in its aftermath, starvation, chaos, instability, retribution, unleashing a chain of events that continues centuries later, as we are currently seeing in the Balkans.

The destructive power of today's military weapons and techniques used to develop them and practice with them can leave in its wake danger for generations to come. The consequences of past military action are not just limited to the mine fields in the Balkans or Asia or Africa. There is a toxic legacy right here in the United States as a result of 2 centuries of testing, training, weapons manufacturing from unexploded bombs to nuclear waste. This affects millions of acres of land, actually in some cases inside city limits to some of the otherwise most pristine countryside in America.

The good news is not only are our Armed Forces the most powerful fighting force the world has ever seen, but they know how to deal with environmental problems. Given the right resources and instructions, they are not just ready, but eager, to do a world-class job of clean up.

The bad news is that as part of its approach to denying problems and avoiding the costs and consequences of its activities, this administration is pursuing policies that would avoid responsibility for environmental impact. For example, just last week the subject of Thursday's hearing in the Committee on Armed Services was a proposal from the administration to exempt the Department of Defense from five key environmental laws from the Clean Air Act to the Endangered Species Act.

These laws not only protect endangered species and eco-systems, they protect the health of people living on and around military bases. If the exemptions were granted, American taxpayers and State and local governments would bear the burden of clean-up costs and face public health risks from toxic contamination resulting from military operations. The evidence shows there is no reasonable case for such exemptions. The environmental laws already allow the Department of Defense to apply for exemptions on a case-by-case basis if they really need it. Both the GAO and EPA Administrator Whitman have testified that environmental laws have not affected military readiness. There is no evidence that the military has ever been refused an exemption from laws that were necessary and that they sought it.

Even with the current environmental laws in place, sadly, the Department of Defense has too often fallen short of the mark on environmental and public health. A critical area that I have been working on deals with unexploded ordnance: the bombs, missiles, shells that are scattered throughout the United States in all 50 States. We have made progress, but we have got a long way to go. We have millions of acres of current or former military installations spread across the 50 States that contain unknown numbers of high-explosive military munitions that failed to explode when dropped or fired or which were buried for disposal.

In 1998, the Defense Science Board found that we were simply ill equipped to address the unexploded ordnance challenge. We have been working with a bipartisan group of men and women in Congress to address this issue. We have been making headway, but we have got a long way to go. If we were to exempt the Pentagon from its responsibility for environmental clean up, it would be absolutely the wrong direction. Congress instead should be funding and encouraging the clean up, not exempting the Department of Defense from environmental laws.

At the current rate of clean up, it is going to take us hundreds of years to be able to solve this problem. And that is at the current rate of funding. The President's budget just cut $400 million from the Department of Defense environmental programs.

Putting off the toxic legacy of past military activities means we must delay the ultimate cleanup, we put more families at risk, and we set a terrible precedent as we ask others to obey environmental laws and respect nature at home and abroad.

In preparing to protect this country, the administration should not give the Department of Defense authority to put at risk the environment that Americans cherish and the clean and healthy communities it demands. As the largest owner of infrastructure in the world, and sadly, as the biggest polluter, the Department of Defense should be setting the best example, not getting permission from Congress to cut corners on the protection of the environment and the health of our community. We should be working together in these troubled times to make our community healthy, safe, and economically secure.