[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H2932-H2933]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS 2002 IS NOT FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, even though the hour is late, I 
appreciate your courtesy.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard on the floor this evening why the 
supplemental appropriations bill before us is not fiscally responsible. 
We have heard how we are not having an honest vote or even vigorous 
debate on key issues like raising the debt ceiling and what we are 
going to do with Social Security.
  People who have listened to the debate so far this evening have heard 
how this bill is setting the stage to surreptitiously increase the debt 
limit. Remember a year ago, the administration predicted we would not 
need a debt limit increase until the year 2008. Now after $4 trillion 
has disappeared from the expected surpluses, now we are going to 
continue to increase the Nation's debt instead of honestly assessing 
proposals dealing with the ongoing tax cuts and domestic spending 
program.
  We have heard how all the funds that are available for the debt limit 
increase must come directly from Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds. And we have heard that the interest payments on this mounting 
debt are estimated to increase over $1 trillion over the next decade 
above what was projected just a year ago.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I am most concerned and it is something that is 
going to be buried in terms of legislative consideration, about the 
signal that the Congress is sending by its efforts to legislate in the 
supplemental appropriations found in areas dealing with the 
environmental policies of this

[[Page H2933]]

country. There will be a proposal that we will have buried in this 
provision that would exempt the Department of Defense from 
environmental regulations having to do with water consumption off the 
immediate adjacency of the properties under control of the Secretary of 
the Defense, but nonetheless directly affected by it.
  I find it sad, because I have long argued on this floor and in 
communities around the country, that the most effective way to enhance 
the environment is not passing new rules and regulation, taxes and 
fees. The most powerful tooling to protect the environment is for the 
Federal Government to simply lead by example, to model the behavior 
that we expect from the rest of America.
  Here we have a provision that would exempt the largest manager of 
infrastructure in the world and one, sadly, with a decidedly mixed 
environmental record, from compliance with its environmental 
responsibilities. The latest count shows that there are about 150 
Department of Defense facilities on the Superfund national priority 
list and another five proposed for listing. Indeed, I think we can 
safely assume that the Department of Defense is the largest Superfund 
polluter in the United States. The last thing we want to do is to grant 
this important Federal agency with vast environmental impact, sweeping 
exemption from environmental laws, at least without going through the 
appropriate legislative process involving the stakeholders having an 
honest debate with the American public. Yet that is exactly what we are 
given under this supplemental.
  The exemption provision in this bill would not only do irreparable 
damage to an important eco-system in Arizona, and that is the purpose 
of this amendment, to deal with the San Pedro River which is slowly 
being dewatered because of the impacts of the Department of Defense, 
but this sets a terrible precedent for the effects of the Department of 
Defense actions on the environment around the country.
  Now, I would be the first to admit on occasion there must be 
accelerated decisions, shortcuts that are necessary for the sake of 
military necessity. We do not do an environmental impact statement for 
every bomb we drop, nor should we. However, it is embarrassing that 
what we are doing today with this provision is to relieve a Department 
of responsibility for its foreseeable environmental impacts which are 
under the control of the Department.
  The amendment is unwarranted and at the very least premature. Even 
the Government Accounting Office says the Department of Defense has not 
done the research and investigation necessary to determine whether such 
an exemption is justified.
  Mr. Speaker, it is yet another example why this House should reject 
the supplemental appropriation that is coming before us.

                          ____________________