Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. For three years the Department of Defense (DOD) has been trying to circumvent the Committee on Energy and Commerce. That would not be in the public interest. This Committee has the expertise and exclusive jurisdiction over the Clean Air Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act and primary jurisdiction over the Superfund statute.

The Administration's proposal to exempt the Defense Department from these important environmental laws will imperil drinking water supplies and eliminate vital state and federal authorities necessary to protect public health and the environment. Never has a set of legislative proposals had so much audacity and so little merit.

Several facts are unquestioned. First, the Clean Air Act and the two hazardous waste laws have never resulted in actual adverse impacts on military readiness. Former EPA Administrator Whitman testified as such and DOD officials have not cited any instances in which any of these three laws has adversely affected readiness. Second, each of these laws already contains provisions that allow the President, in his discretion, to exempt any base or training facility from their requirements if it is in the paramount interest or national security interest of the United States. Currently President Bush is using this authority to exempt Groom Lake Air Force Base in Nevada from certain requirements of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

Under the Defense Department proposals groundwater sacrifice zones would be created. The contamination from perchlorate, Royal Demolition Explosive, or other munitions constituents would be allowed to migrate through thousands of acres of an aquifer until it migrated off-site to public drinking water wells or otherwise posed an imminent threat. Only then would state and federal officials regain authority under the Solid Waste Disposal Act to investigate and address the contamination. Even at that point state regulators would not be able to require cleanup of the source on an "operational range."

These proposals, if adopted, will result in huge additional costs to the American taxpayer to clean up contamination that has been allowed to spread throughout large aquifers. EPA and state sampling and inspection authorities currently available to investigate groundwater contamination under "operational ranges" will be eliminated.

It defies logic to wait until we have public health impacts before state and federal regulators have authority to act. Further, Section 7002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act is the only federal authority that drinking water utilities, states, or private citizens have available if contamination from perchlorate or Royal Demolition Explosives may be creating an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health. The DOD proposals eliminate this critical public health authority.

And by eliminating perchlorate and other munitions constituents from the definition of "release" under Superfund we are robbing the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry of its authority to conduct health assessments or perform epidemiologic studies to determine health affects from exposure. We know from the tragic experience of Marine families who were poisoned at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, how important these authorities are.

DOD tries to minimize the impact of its proposals by saying they only apply to "operational ranges." The General Accounting Office, however, reports that DOD is claiming 152,000 acres as "operational ranges" at Camp Lejeune. The size of the entire installation is 153,000 acres. Thus, exemptions would apply to more than 99 percent of Camp Lejeune. It also appears that DOD is claiming that the entirety of Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, 463,000 acres, is an "operational range" and 86 percent of Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland is an "operational range."

Nationwide, DOD claims that more than 24 million acres are "operational ranges" -- a land area the size of the states of Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Hawaii. We also know some of the "operational ranges" are on land owned by the states and leased to DOD. DOD has refused to identify which ones at the same time they are seeking to pre-empt state authorities.

According to DOD's definition, an "operational range" could have been last used 20 years ago, 40 years ago, or even 100 years ago. The DOD definition also includes buffer zones where the public is allowed to hunt, fish, or engage in other recreational activities.

Moreover, not a single example has been cited by the Defense Department where these laws have affected military readiness. We have, however, countless examples where DOD's lethal legacy of toxic waste has contaminated surface and groundwater and forced closure of private and public drinking water wells. At the Iowa Army Ammo Plant, the creek running off the base was so polluted with Royal Demolition Explosive and TNT that it ran red in color and the locals reported seeing pink raccoons. Imagine that. Over one hundred private drinking water wells had to be shut down.

We also know that at least forty DOD facilities have known perchlorate contamination of surface or groundwater. Yet very little testing has occurred of the groundwater under the vast acreage of "operational ranges" that would be exempted by these proposals. The reason we have these state, federal, and citizen suit authorities is because Congress has said that we will not trust the agency who caused the pollution to be the one charged with protecting public health and the environment.

Finally, DOD seeks a blanket exemption from the Clean Air Act, which would give DOD the right to emit air pollution on an ongoing basis, regardless of the ultimate effect on public health. DOD would have us ignore all air pollution from "military readiness" activities, at a time when virtually all other sources of air pollution are subject to strict controls that impose substantial economic burdens. There is no basis for such a blanket exemption and American citizens and businesses will pay the price, if DOD is given a free pass under the law to emit unlimited amounts of ozone precursors, sulfur oxides, and carbon monoxide.

Under DOD's proposal, citizens will be told that their air meets Clean Air Act requirements. The DOD proposal would amount to environmental "doublespeak" -- by indicating that the air is clean -- even when it is not. There is ample flexibility in the Clean Air Act and its implementing regulations to accommodate DOD's needs and DOD has provided no example of a situation in which the Clean Air Act has hindered military readiness. DOD's exemptions are unjustified and would jeopardize the legitimate efforts of all other sectors to achieve actual clean air.

In conclusion, these defects in the DOD proposal demonstrate, once again, why this Committee's expertise and understanding are vital and should not be ignored. The DOD exemptions are unnecessary, unjustified, and unwise.