[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 118 (Friday, July 31, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2129-E2130]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. EARL BLUMENAUER

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 29, 2009

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration of the bill (H.R. 3326) 
     making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, it was my hope that this year would mark 
a turning point in the type and amount of we spend on the Department of 
Defense. Oregonians know I frequently vote against Defense 
Appropriations bills as spending too much money for the wrong 
priorities.
  I was pleased to see the traditional military pay raise included, as 
well as an extension of current stop loss compensation to troops 
extended tours in 2010. I also continue to strongly support provisions 
that prohibit permanent bases in Iraq and Afghanistan and torture.
  Yet the bill also includes funding for programs that have been 
outdated since the end of the Cold War two decades ago, and which even 
the Secretary of Defense would like to terminate. The list of these 
programs funded here is long and runs into the billions: $80 million 
for the Missile Defense, Kinetic Energy Interceptor Program, $369 
million for parts for the F-22 and C-17, an extra $3 billion for Navy 
ships, and $674 million for still more unrequested C-17 planes.
  These programs come at the expense of other, more worthy projects and 
investments. I offered two amendments to the Rules Committee for this 
bill, both of which would have shifted funding to environmental 
programs. My first amendment would have shifted $100 million from the 
unnecessary Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) Alternate Engine Program and 
toward the chronically-underfunded Defense Department's Environmental 
Restoration Program. These programs, responsible for the cleaning of 
toxic wastes and leftover bombs from all active bases and Formerly Used 
Defense Sites, will receive less funds than they did last year even 
though the number of sites needing clean up has increased.

[[Page E2130]]

  My second amendment would have created a small pilot program to fund 
a practical demonstration of ordnance discrimination technology. 
Currently over 75 percent of material uncovered during the clearing of 
leftover and still dangerous bombs and shells is non-dangerous scrap 
metal. This type of technology, once proven through a live 
demonstration, would cut cleanup costs by two to three times.
  These amendments were commonsense ways to reduce Pentagon liability, 
save money and resources in the long run, and make our lands safer for 
our communities and military personnel. I was extremely disappointed 
that these amendments were unable to receive an up-or-down vote. But I 
will continue to work to ensure the Federal government is a better 
partner to communities.
  The Administration is moving in the right direction by being willing 
to make tough decisions to cut or terminate certain favored, yet 
expensive and unnecessary, programs. It is my hope that Congress can 
craft a bill in conference that more closely adheres to this principled 
and practical stance and that meets the needs of our military and our 
communities.

                          ____________________