[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 12121]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL SERIOUSLY FLAWED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the House is about to consider the 
defense authorization bill that, sadly, is seriously flawed. It would 
exempt not only the military but all Federal agencies from certain 
aspects of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act.
  Instead of addressing real threats to readiness, the administration 
and Congress is taking on an easier target, the dolphins. Using defense 
as cover, the Republicans propose to make changes to environmental laws 
in ways which have nothing to do with defense readiness, suggesting 
that was not their goal in the first place.
  The bill would take out one of the key provisions of the ESA by 
requiring that only critical habitat that is deemed necessary shall be 
designated. Without a definition of necessary, this invites abuse and 
applies to all Federal lands, not just the Department of Defense.
  The bill also includes the Department of Defense proposal eliminating 
critical habitat designation altogether on lands owned or controlled by 
the military.
  The bill contains a rider to exempt the Department of Defense at Fort 
Huachuca in Arizona from any responsibility for off-base groundwater 
pumping that threatens the existence of the San Pedro River. This rider 
was not requested by the Department of Defense, nor does it address 
military training or preparedness, and it has created a firestorm in 
the State of Arizona.
  The authorization bill weakens the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 
weakening the current definition of harassment of marine mammals. It 
applies to all ocean users, not just the Department of Defense.
  Finally, it allows the Department to exempt itself from the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act for anything necessary for national defense. It 
excludes any meaningful involvement of the wildlife agencies, the 
States, Congress and the public in review of these exemptions.
  Our military activities are the largest source of pollution in the 
country. We are the wealthiest and most powerful and most polluting 
country in the world. We ought to be able to figure out how to better 
address this problem without compromising the environmental survival of 
what we are fighting to protect. Given the right direction and adequate 
resources, our military can achieve tremendous results.
  The exemptions we are debating this week are wrong on so many 
different levels.
  First of all, the legislation is unnecessary. There is already a 
waiver provision in place in the law for years. There has never been a 
case where for military necessity a waiver has not been granted. Never, 
not one. Not one example has been produced before the committees that 
are examining this.
  Additionally, it misses the real threat to military readiness, what 
is termed encroachment. This is the same sprawl and unplanned growth 
that threatens our farms and forestlands, pollutes our air and water, 
and congests our roadways, and this is a real threat to our ability to 
train and maintain the world's mightiest fighting force.
  Across the country, from Ft. Stewart, Georgia, to Nellis Air Force 
Base in Nevada, development is threatening the armed forces' ability to 
fly planes, maneuver and conduct other readiness activities. This has 
led the State of California to pass their Senate bill 1468 which 
recognizes the long-term operations of military installations must 
involve a partnership between the State, local agencies and the Federal 
Government.

                              {time}  1945

  It provides the military, environmental organizations and local 
planning agencies the tools to work together to fight common enemies of 
military readiness like suburban sprawl. But this proposal is 
completely absent from the legislation coming before us.
  The defense authorization bill is also wrong on a very fundamental 
level. It is missing an opportunity to use the Department of Defense to 
set the highest standards. Again, given adequate resources and the 
right orders, our Department of Defense can achieve any mission. We are 
missing that opportunity.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental arrogance and hypocrisy 
that somehow the Federal Government's rules and regulations are 
necessary to protect the environment. We will impose them on small 
business or local government but not on us ourselves. It is the wrong 
signal and the wrong direction to protect endangered species and the 
health of our planet.

                          ____________________