[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 7]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 9343-9344]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



        INTRODUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 23, 2001

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the 
International Environmental Defense Act of 2001.
  The purpose of this bill is to clarify the authority of the Secretary 
of Defense to respond to environmental emergencies. It is cosponsored 
by my colleague from Colorado, Representative Joel Hefley. I greatly 
appreciate his support.
  In times of natural disaster or other emergencies, the United States 
for decades has come to the aid of those in need--whether the crisis is 
the result of an earthquake in Turkey, an erupting volcano in South 
America, or deadly floods in some other part of the world.
  When the need arises, the U.S. government provides humanitarian 
assistance through the U.S. Agency for International Development, the 
State Department, the Defense Department, and other federal agencies. 
It also contracts with private voluntary agencies to provide such 
assistance and coordinates the U.S. response with that of other 
countries.
  The American military has an outstanding record of participation in 
these activities. All Americans take pride in the humanitarian 
assistance provided by the men and women of our armed services.
  I strongly support this policy. It is the right thing to do, and in 
the best interests of our country as well as of people everywhere. 
Humanitarian assistance is critical to help communities or regions or 
whole countries recover from devastating natural or man-made events.
  But global emergencies come in other forms as well--including 
environmental emergencies such as oil or chemical spills or other 
similar occurrences. They may not have the immediate impact on people 
of homes destroyed in an earthquake or of crops lost to drought. But by 
polluting waterways, killing fish or other species, or contaminating 
the air, water, or land, environmental disasters can have devastating 
effects on the health and well-being of people, wildlife, and 
ecosystems.
  So, wherever they occur, environmental emergencies have the potential 
to affect the national interests of the United States. And our 
government--including our military forces--should have the same ability 
to respond as in the case of other emergencies.
  Current law authorizes the Department of Defense to use its funds for 
the transport of humanitarian relief, allowing U.S. military personnel 
to help provide foreign countries with emergency assistance such as 
helicopter transport, temporary water supplies, and road and bridge 
repair. For example, U.S. military personnel were part of the U.S. 
response to Hurricane Mitch in Central America and to this year's 
earthquakes in El Salvador and India.
  But when it comes to environmental emergencies, under current law the 
military now has less ability to help. Those are the situations that 
are addressed by the bill I am introducing today.
  The International Environmental Defense Act would fill a gap in 
current law so U.S. military transport could be used not only for 
humanitarian, but also for environmental emergencies. The bill does not 
require that this be done--but it would authorize the Defense 
Department to do so, just as current law authorizes but does not 
require the transport of humanitarian assistance to respond to other 
emergencies.
  As an illustration of the limitations of the current law, consider a 
recent case about which I have first-hand knowledge.
  Earlier this year, as all our colleagues will recall, there was a 
very serious oil spill in the Pacific Ocean that threatened to 
contaminate the Galapagos Islands. The government of Ecuador and people 
everywhere were very concerned that this could imperil the world-famous 
wildlife of the islands and the rest of that unique ecosystem. They 
hastened to organize a response.
  As part of that response, the Ecuadoran government was in contact 
with a company in Colorado that makes a product to absorb oil from sea 
water. But complications arose, and the company contacted my office to 
see if we could help resolve them.
  As we explored the situation, we learned that while the government of 
Ecuador was interested in acquiring the Colorado company's product, 
they also wanted to arrange for the United States to transport it to 
Ecuador by military aircraft, because that would be quicker and cheaper 
than other alternatives. But when we contacted the Defense Department 
to see if there was a possibility that it could be arranged, we learned 
about the limitations of current law. In short, we learned that while 
military transport might be possible to provide humanitarian relief, 
that option was not available to respond to an environmental emergency.
  The bill I am introducing today would change that--not by requiring 
the military to provide transport in such a case, but by providing that 
option in case the U.S. government should decide it would be 
appropriate.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is not a far-reaching bill. But I think it 
would provide useful authority

[[Page 9344]]

for our country to respond to environmental problems that, ultimately, 
can affect us and the rest of the world.

                          ____________________