[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 20, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4258-H4259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it seems like not one week goes by 
without another outrage from this administration with respect to the 
environment of this country.
  I rise today to submit an article from a recent newspaper in my city 
which I think everyone ought to read before they vote on this change in 
environmental regulations for the military. The column details a recent 
sonar test that was conducted by the navy near my hometown and the 
effects of the marine mammals that were observed by a University of 
Washington class who happened to be studying the area.
  There is a lot of worry in my area about the orcas and about the 
porpoises, and there are a number of people who are involved in this 
kind of study, and they were up there watching, observing the sonar, 
what was going on and with cameras what was going on with these 
animals, and along comes a ship and sets off a sonic boom. They say 
they have to test it there. There is no reason why they could not call 
the University of Washington and say where are the animals, we have 
some concern, we do not want to kill porpoises, we do not want to kill 
whales, but no, they set off the boom, and soon, porpoises were 
floating to the surface, dead, and whales were beginning to act very 
strangely, and this is unnecessary.
  The military should be held to the same account that everybody else 
is. A few weeks ago, they were out there shooting shells into the water 
with depleted uranium on the end of them. Everybody knows there are 
questions about the effects of depleted uranium and what it does to the 
human body. The salmon fishery off the Washington coast is right where 
they are shooting the shells. They could not even figure out how to get 
out far enough or something to get out of the fishing grounds.
  To make it even worse, this issue of depleted uranium is a big issue 
in Iraq. We dumped 300 tons of depleted uranium over southern Iraq in 
1991, and we have had recorded, at least by the Iraqi medical people, a 
1- to 300-percent increase in cancer and deformities at birth in 
children. In the last 6 months, we dumped 600 tons, twice as much, and 
the military continues to put out the word that there is no problem.
  The British Government, the Royal Society of Medicine in England 
said, there is a problem and we are going to clean up the area around 
Basra which is where the British are responsible, but the United 
States, in Baghdad, in Mosul and Kirkuk and all these places, we say no 
problem.
  The military is unwilling to confront the environmental damage they 
bring about, and when called to account for it, they say, well, it is a 
national security matter. Look, we can test sonar devices 300 miles out 
in the ocean. We do not have to do it 50 yards, through a pod of 
whales. There is no reason for that, and they know they are there. It 
is not as though it is some mystery.
  The science is very good. They simply did not think they had to worry 
about the environment. They are the military, and this bill that is 
going through here with an exemption for military from the 
environmental regulations is simply an absolute atrocity.
  In all the places in the world where they have nuclear weapons, where 
they have all kinds of chemicals, in Anniston, Alabama, they put in a 
facility to burn the waste gases they have created from making the 
weapons of mass destruction in the United States, and they burn it 
right in Anniston, Alabama, 10 blocks from a school with no protection 
for that school. This kind of thing is unacceptable in the United 
States, and the United States Congress should not endorse it and make 
it okay. It is wrong.
  I will enter into the Record an article from the Seattle Post-
Intelligencer dated May 19, 2003, at this point.

          [From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 19, 2003]

   In the Northwest: Sonar Tests' Effects on Wildlife Should Set Off 
                                 Alarms

                           (By Joel Connelly)

       Lovers of Washington's inland waters, including this part-
     time Whidbey resident, enjoy a living tip sheet in 
     www.orcanetwork.org, a Web site filled with recent sightings 
     and locations of killer whales, gray whales and other great 
     marine mammals.
       Last week, however, the customary lighthearted dispatches 
     yielded to a gripping account of the extreme distress of 
     marine creatures during a Navy sonar test earlier this month.
       The episode, on May 5, raises major new questions about 
     whether Congress should roll over for a Pentagon campaign 
     designed to exempt the military from complying with landmark 
     federal environmental laws.
       Without these laws, the natural systems and marine life of 
     our Puget Sound-Strait of Georgia region would possess no 
     defense against the Department of Defense.
       Orcanetwork's dispatch came from David Bain, a University 
     of Washington faculty member. With students, he witnessed 
     what happened when the Everett-based guided missile destroyer 
     Shoup conducted a midfrequency sonar training exercise off 
     San Juan Island.
       ``The passage of naval vessel 86 (Shoup) was observed by me 
     and the marine mammal class at Friday harbor laboratories,'' 
     Bain wrote. ``Collectively, we observed effects on three 
     species.' These were:
       Porpoises: Bain and students watched Dall's porpoises in a 
     bay north of Lime Kiln Lighthouse, an island landmark. 
     ``After the (Navy) ship passed, they were observed traveling 
     away from the ship at high speeds,'' Bain wrote. ``This is 
     similar to the behavior of Dall's porpoises in the presence 
     of other loud sounds, such as air-gun blasts.''
       Since the sonar tests, bodies of seven porpoises have been 
     found--three beached in the Strait of June de Fuca near Haro 
     Strait, and three more in the San Juan Islands.
       A number of porpoise deaths have occurred in recent months, 
     Bain noted, some predating the Shoup's passage through Haro 
     Strait.
       ``Midfrequency sonars were heard in April as well, although 
     they seemed to be coming from Juan de Fuca Strait or points 
     south,'' he wrote. ``Thus, these earlier strandings were 
     potentially related to sonar activity.''
       Minke whales; During the test, a minke whale was spotted 
     porpoising (coming out of

[[Page H4259]]

     the water) as it swam north of the Shoup. Other sightings of 
     similar behavior were recorded at two other locations off San 
     Juan Island.
       ``It has been about 20 years since I've seen a minke 
     porpoising,'' wrote Bain.
       He speculates that all sightings were of one whale, racing 
     to get away from the naval vessel and its sonar tests.
       Killer whales: As he and students watched the widely known 
     J pod of orcas, wrote Bain, ``Killer whales were observed 
     behaving normally until the sonar became audible in the 
     air.'' At that point, however, the J pod moved inshore and 
     grouped tightly. ``As we moved inshore with them, the naval 
     vessel disappeared over the horizon, although the sonar was 
     still audible,'' wrote Bain. The J pod then moved quietly 
     northward, staying near shore and later bunching up again.
       Given the recent sharp decline in our resident killer-whale 
     populations, did it make sense for the Shoup to be causing 
     apparent distress?
       Did the Navy bother to think about this, or to consult 
     beforehand with biologists expert in marine mammal life of 
     the northern Sound?
       We are a military-intensive region. The shores of Puget 
     Sound likely would sink were another Navy base, shipyard or 
     testing facility located in our waters.
       Aside from pacifists protesting the Trident base--most 
     memorably Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen paddling a kayak--
     local officials and politicians have embraced bases and jobs.
       Once upon a time, too, there were security grounds for so 
     doing. The buildup of the Soviet Pacific fleet was endlessly 
     cited by the late Sen. Henry Jackson. An Everett Navy base, 
     Scoop argued, would be a day's sailing time closer to the 
     Soviet Far East than berthings in California.
       As Bain notes, however--with cool understatement--``the 
     threats arrayed against the United States at this time are 
     minor compared to what we faced when the environmental laws 
     proposed to be overturned were first passed.''
       As well, it should be recalled that Jackson--the Pentagon's 
     most devoted friend--was the chief architect of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act.
       Washington's congressional delegation ought to take heed of 
     the distress caused by the Shoup's recent sonar tests.
       In recent years, lawmakers have constructively pushed the 
     Navy. Environmentally sensitive construction of the Trident 
     base was one result. Another was forcing the Navy to abandon 
     an untested, risky plan to deposit toxic dredge spoils 
     beneath a berm in Everett's Port Gardner Bay.
       What is to be done? First, there should be no exemption 
     from federal environmental laws. If the military ignores 
     regulations, citizens should have recourse in the courts.
       Second, the Navy must be made to consult with civilian 
     agencies in case of sensitive or potentially harmful 
     activities. A firm suggestion on this front might come from 
     Rep. Norm Dicks, senior Democrat on the House Defense 
     Appropriations subcommittee.
       Third, as noted by Bain, the Department of Defense is 
     reviewing proposals on what it can do to prevent such 
     conflicts as those caused by the Shoup's sonar tests.
       ``The Navy (should) proceed with caution until such 
     programs are completed and the Navy can accurately predict 
     where it can operate dangerous equipment without causing 
     undue environmental damage,'' Bain wrote.
       Amen. Marine mammals are a big part of what makes the 
     waters of Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia worth defending.

                          ____________________