May 20, 2003

Welcome, ladies and gentleman.

We are here today because the Department of Defense (DOD) has found a golden opportunity in the war on terrorism to try to jam through Congress broad exemptions from our most important environmental protection laws. After defeating Saddam Hussein, the Defense Department is now turning its guns on our most deadly and dangerous foes yet – the bald eagle and Flipper the dolphin.

Never has a set of legislative proposals had so much audacity and so little merit.

I would note to you that these laws have been in place a long time and we still have the best and most effective military in the world. In fact, in less then a month our military managed to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime. I would argue that this is a pretty good indicator that our men and women in uniform are being trained rather well without these sweeping exemptions . . . and without endangering the habitat of our national symbol, the bald eagle.

As the author of the Endangered Species Act, I can tell you that there are exemptions available for national security. In 1973 when President Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act into law, we were fighting a very real war against the spread of communism. Clearly, a national security exemption was needed then, and we included one in the Act.

Section 7(j) of the Endangered Species Act requires that an exemption must be granted if the Secretary of Defense finds the exemption is necessary for reasons of national security. I would note that the DOD has never sought an exemption under Section 7(j) of the law.

Similarly, the Marine Mammal Protection Act has an "incidental take permit process." The Navy regularly applies for these permits and has never been denied. Now, however, the Department of Defense wants a blanket exemption so they can harm the same dolphins that protected our soldiers in Iraq from under-water mines.

What is really at stake is accountability. DOD is trying to exempt itself from the environmental laws to avoid accountability for its actions.

The fact is that the DOD is the biggest toxic waste polluter in the country, and it has been challenging state and federal regulators for years.

The DOD cannot cite a single example where the Clean Air Act, Superfund, or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act have prevented or held up military training or readiness. In fact there is none. EPA Administrator Whitman has testified as such. That is why the DOD amendments to these pollution laws are opposed by states, local governments, and private industry, including the:

• National Association of Attorneys General;
• Environment Council of the States, representing the top environmental official in each state;
• Western Growers Association;
• National League of Cities;
• National Association of Counties;
• National drinking water utility organizations that represent entities providing drinking water to over 200 million Americans.

Each of these laws allow for administrative exemptions if there ever were a conflict with national security or military readiness. DOD Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged this fact in his March 7, 2003, letter to the Services. Yet the DOD has never sought an administrative exemption for military readiness.

If I understand this correctly, the Bush Administration would like to send a message to the world that our military is strong enough to topple Saddam Hussein, yet weak enough to bested by Yurtle the Turtle.