[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 12167]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             DOD EXEMPTIONS

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress with the goal to 
promote more livable communities, that the Federal Government should be 
a better partner with the State and local governments, with private 
sector to make our families safe, healthy and economically secure. My 
colleagues can imagine my dismay when this week we are given a proposal 
in the Defense reauthorization bill that is the antithesis of this 
nature of partnership to promote livable communities.
  It would exempt the military, not just the military actually, but all 
Federal agencies from certain aspects of the Endangered Species Act and 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The bill includes a proposal that 
eliminates critical habitat designation altogether on all lands owned 
or controlled by the military.
  The bill includes a rider to exempt the Department of Defense at Fort 
Huachuca in Arizona from any responsibility for off-base ground water 
pumping that threatens the existence of the San Pedro River.
  Mr. Speaker, this outrageous provision that was included in the 
reauthorization comes less than a month after the Secretary of the Army 
gave the fort an environmental award for solving it, and now Congress 
is going to undo this in the reauthorization.
  The United States is the wealthiest and most powerful Nation in the 
world. Our Armed Forces are the most able, the best equipped, the 
finest fighting force, and they are people that can get the job done. 
We ought to be able to figure out how to address real problems with the 
environment without compromising the survival of what we are fighting 
to protect.
  The legislation is unnecessary on so many different levels. First of 
all, there is already a waiver provision that has been in these laws 
for years. If there is a military necessity to waive environmental 
regulations, there is a provision that is available. There has never 
been an instance of military necessity where a waiver has been 
requested and not granted, never, not once.
  It also misses a real threat to military readiness, what the military 
and those who are studying the issue term ``encroachment.'' The same 
sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens farm and forest lands, 
pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways is a real threat 
to the ability to train and maintain the world's mightiest fighting 
force. Across the country, from Fort 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.
  The State of California has recognized this and has worked out 
legislation with the Department of Defense to deal with the long-term 
operations of military installations to provide the military, 
environmental organizations, and local planning agencies the tools to 
work together to fight problems of sprawl and unplanned growth. This is 
ignored by the legislation before us.
  It is also wrong on a fundamental level. It is missing the 
opportunity to use the Department of Defense to set the highest 
standards because we know, given adequate resources and the right 
orders, they can achieve any mission, and we should use this 
opportunity.
  Finally, there is a fundamental arrogance and hypocrisy that the 
Federal Government's rules and regulations are necessary to protect the 
environment and will impose among small business, will impose among 
local government that we will not hold ourselves to that standard. That 
hypocrisy runs against the grain. It is obnoxious to people in the real 
world. It ought to be abhorrent to the people in this chamber. We ought 
to have the Federal Government lead by example.
  In order to win the battle to protect the world's environment, we 
ought to provide some leadership, and a critical part of leadership in 
this country has always been the military. To send them a signal that 
environmental stewardship does not matter and they do not have to play 
by the rules is the wrong signal for them and the rest of America, and 
it is certainly the wrong direction for our efforts to protect 
endangered species and the health of our oceans.

                          ____________________