[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 11195]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   MILITARY ENVIRONMENTAL EXEMPTIONS

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while the headlines deal with the United 
States' struggle against terrorism and securing the peace in Iraq after 
the war, there is another less heralded battle, that is, for the 
world's environment, literally saving the planet.
  When it comes to pure military might, the United States is 
unsurpassed. No one is even close. On the battle to save the planet, 
the prognosis is not quite so positive. Sea levels are rising, glaciers 
are retreating, pollution around the world is on the rise, energy 
consumption by both the United States and the developing world is 
increasing, large swaths of forests continued to be devoured, the 
world's fisheries depleted, and coral reefs dying.
  In the United States, on the environmental front, when not missing in 
action, is certainly not as aggressive in leadership as other developed 
countries in Europe and Japan. The world's greatest polluter and energy 
consumer is not accepting our responsibility in our capacity as the 
world's wealthiest and most powerful Nation.
  Ironically, part of the solution is to be found with our Defense 
Department. The greatest source of pollution in the United States is 
associated with our military and the testing and development of 
weapons. The most serious and dangerous, of course, is the nuclear 
waste in various parts of the country. We have it in our Pacific 
Northwest. But there are sites large and small in every State of the 
Union, literally tens of millions of acres.
  The United States has made a tremendous investment in training the 
finest fighting force in the world. We have made a huge financial 
outlay. A small portion of that outlay could be devoted to cleaning up 
after ourselves and protecting the environment.
  Sadly, the House will soon be debating a proposal that is 180 degrees 
in the wrong direction. The Committee on Armed Services and the 
Committee on Resources are looking at legislation that would completely 
exempt the Department of Defense from following environmental rules and 
regulations. It is wrong on so many different levels.
  First of all, there is no need for the legislation. There has never 
been an example where a waiver that is able, under current law, to be 
authorized has ever been denied. There has never been an instance of 
military necessity for training where a waiver has not been granted; 
not once.
  The consequences of military activity occur in many unexpected ways: 
perchlorate pollution in lettuce in the Imperial Valley, polluted 
drinking water on Martha's Vineyard. Three times since I have been in 
Congress we have had to pull firefighters out of the woods because 
unexploded ordnance has been exploding around them. Exempting, 
exempting the military from commonsense environmental regulations that 
apply to the rest of America would put more of our service people at 
risk, put their families at risk, put their neighbors at risk of bad 
air, bad water, dangerous practices.
  It also misses the real threat to military readiness: the notion of 
land use encroachment. The same sprawl and unplanned growth that 
threatens farm and forest land, pollutes our air and water, and 
congests our roadways is a real threat to our ability to train and 
maintain the world's mightiest fighting force. Failure to plan and 
manage these impacts is a serious, ongoing problem that is ignored by 
the pending legislation.
  It is also wrong on the most fundamental level. It is missing an 
opportunity to use the Department of Defense to set the highest 
standards. My experience with our military personnel is that given the 
right resources, the right orders, they can achieve any mission. If 
part of their order is to protect the environment, to clean up from 
past mistakes, to set standards of environmental stewardship, they will 
hit a homerun every time. It would have a transformational effect for 
the world dealing with tragic debris, environmental carnage of past 
actions.
  There is also a fundamental arrogance and hypocrisy that the Federal 
Government's rules and regulations are necessary to protect the 
environment. It will impose them on a small business or local 
government, but not on the United States Government. Indeed, there are 
those who would try to work to take this misguided military exemption 
to try and extend it to all Federal activities. That would be a 
tragedy. It would not only underscore fundamental hypocrisy; it would 
put more pressure on small business and local governments and 
individuals because the Federal Government refuses to do its part.
  In order to win the battle to protect the environment, America must 
provide leadership. A critical part of that leadership has always been 
our military. To send them a signal that environmental stewardship does 
not matter and that they do not have to play by the same rules the rest 
of us do is the wrong signal for them; it is the wrong signal for the 
rest of America; and it is certainly the wrong direction for our 
efforts against global warming, air and water pollution.
  Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the House will have the presence of 
mind to reject this wrong-headed approach.

                          ____________________