|
Dingell Blasts Disingenuous DoD Environmental Exemptions Washington, D.C. – Congressman John. D. Dingell, Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, today blasted the Department of Defense (DOD) environmental exemptions contained in DOD reauthorization bill. The bill is expected to be brought to the House floor tomorrow."Two weeks ago the Department of Defense (DoD) sent a legislative proposal to the Committee on Armed Services seeking broad exemptions from six of our Nation’s most important environmental laws – the Clean Air Act, Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. "Armed Services ultimately did not seek to undo the important environmental provisions contained in four of the six laws. Unfortunately, the Migratory Bird Act and the Endangered Species Act did not fare so well. "Why did the Department of Defense do this? Because the Pentagon’s lawyers decided that our war against terrorism and the conflict in the Middle East is an opportunity too good to pass up. Make no mistake: we are 100 percent behind our troops, but these DoD proposals will not protect them. "We absolutely support the need to maintain military readiness in the interests of national security. That is why when we wrote the laws we inserted specific provisions to ensure there was no conflict between protecting our national security and complying with our environmental laws. "This is the case with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, one of our oldest conservation statutes. But some have tried to present this issue as whether military aircraft will be grounded if they accidentally and unintentionally hit a bird on takeoff or landing. This is not only misleading but a silly assessment of a very serious law. To my knowledge, no pilot or military or civilian aircraft has ever been prosecuted for an isolated and accidental taking of a migratory bird. "The Secretary of Interior has the authority to determine the circumstances under which migratory birds can be taken, killed or possessed and issue regulations permitting such activities. The Department of Defense has informed Judge Sullivan in the FDM case -- the Island of Farallon de Medinilla -- that DoD "believes that the Fish and Wildlife Service is likely to issue such a permit." That is the appropriate procedure to follow under current law -- not to seek an exemption from the law itself. "The United States has fought in two World Wars, the Korean War, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf War with the 1918 Act in place. I fail to see why our current war against terrorism would now call for its elimination. "With regard to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Military again seeks to have exemptions for which no other Federal Agencies are eligible. ESA requires that land where threatened or endangered species live be designated critical habitat. The military does not want to comply with this law like every other federal agency and every other American citizen does. As the author of ESA, I can assure you that exemptions are available for reasons of national security. In fact, Section 7 of ESA allows agencies to get waivers from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Ironically, the Pentagon wants a blanket waiver even though they have never sought a Section 7 exemption. "Needless to say, the DoD proposals have gone through a most curious legislative process so far. The relevant Committees with expertise have been bypassed. No hearings have been held on these significant exemptions. The Committee on Armed Services held one general hearing before the legislation was marked up and passed, but refused to allow the National Governors Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Conference of State Legislators, or environmental and community organizations to testify. "Under the DoD proposal, EPA authorities are being eliminated, state laws are being preempted, and citizens’ rights of action are being severely restricted. But this is not new for DOD. It has been engaged in a broad effort to resist Federal EPA and state regulatory authority. The DoD is challenging EPA penalty authority under the Clean Air Act. The DoD is contesting state authority to issue penalties under RCRA for violations of the leaking underground storage tank program. The DoD is also challenging EPA’s authority under Superfund to select institutional controls and other protective cleanup requirements. This challenge is holding up cleanups at 25 DoD bases nationwide. "During the campaign, President Bush recognized that the Federal Government was the worst polluter and claimed that he would, and I quote, "direct active federal facilities to comply with all environmental protection laws and hold them accountable." DoD’s proposed legislation breaks that campaign promise. It also breaks the fundamental principle of each of our environmental laws that requires federal agencies to comply with environmental laws in the same manner and to the same extent as any person. "We will offer an amendment that strikes the sections dealing with migratory birds and endangered species and we stand prepared to fight any additional anti-environmental exemptions that DoD is seeking. "DoD should comply with the law and clean up the environment instead of seeking special preference to continue as the Nation’s greatest polluter."
- 30 - | ||
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
