I strongly hope the amendment that I have cosponsored along with Mr. Larsen is in fact approved, adding $485 million to reduce the deficit. It is an issue that I feel deserves debate, and I think people looking at it on the merits will understand that we don't need a second engine, that we can agree with the Secretary of Defense of the administration, and indeed the previous administration. I am, however, a little frustrated that we continue to shortchange our efforts to deal with the toxic legacy of unexploded ordnances from military operations in the United States on our soil for the last 200 years. I had attempted to have a minor amendment to at least have the Department of Defense tell people in the community what the risks are from these toxic chemicals, from fuels, from unexploded ordnance. People who are building schools, child care centers, and housing developments have a right to know what could happen, particularly since we are underfunding cleanup. We can do better.
Editor's note · Context
Blumenauer discusses the need for debate on military spending and the importance of addressing unexploded ordnance cleanup.
Share
More from Earl Blumenauer
But reauthorizing the programs without improving them is a missed opportunity.
I seek the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it. The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes. There was no objection.
We should better safeguard people's rights and data while still protecting the global internet.
Streetcars are still the foundation of cities and suburban areas across the country, establishing a pattern that guided development for over a century. By 1910, you could travel from Boston to Chicago entirely on streetcar lines, just…





