Statement
of Senator Jim Jeffords
Department
of Defense Proposals Regarding the Environment
I
welcome our witnesses today and note that we have several who have traveled
great distances to attend this hearing.
On our
first panel we will hear testimony from Admiral William Fallon who is Vice
Chief of Naval Operations.
On our
second panel, we will hear from Ms. Jamie Clark from the National Wildlife
Federation, former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Clinton
Administration. I note from Ms. Clark's
written testimony that she has extensive experience with defense matters,
including a position as Fish and Wildlife Administrator for the Department of
the Army. We will hear from several
state witnesses: Mr. Dan Miller, First Assistant Attorney General from the
State of Colorado who is submitting his written testimony on behalf of Colorado
and several other states, including the Attorneys General of Arizona,
California, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Utah,
Idaho and Washington. Mr. Stanley
Phillippe from the State of California will testify for the Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, and Mr. William Hurd,
the Solicitor General from the Commonwealth of Virginia, will testify. We will hear from Mr. Bonner Cohen a senior
fellow from the Lexington Institute. And, I am pleased to welcome Mr. David
Henkin who will testify for Earth Justice.
Mr. Henkin has flown here on short notice from Hawaii. His effort certainly shows us the level of
interest, or perhaps I should say concern, with these proposals.
The
proposals to which I refer were included in the Administration's defense
authorization bill this year. In
effect, these proposals that are contained in title 12 of that bill, amend six
environmental statutes. Five of these
statutes are within the jurisdiction of this Committee. I am not aware of any precedent for Congress
acting in such a broad-sweeping manner to substantially alter existing
environmental law through freestanding legislation. Moreover, these proposals were never submitted to this Committee,
but were proposed for inclusion in a bill that would not have been considered
by this Committee.
Through
the wisdom of the Armed Services Committee, and I would particularly like to
thank Chairman Levin, these proposals were not included in the DoD
authorization bill either in Committee or in the final bill passed by the
Senate. I understand, however, that
there may be plans to include these provisions during the upcoming conference
on the DoD authorization bill. I would
be sorely disappointed, and I would oppose such an effort. I also would like to note that Senator
Lieberman, who is a Member of the Armed Services Committee, may not be able to
attend the hearing today. Nevertheless, I am authorized to say that the Senator
opposes these proposals on both procedural and substantive grounds, and that he
intends to oppose any effort to advance these proposals in conference.
Already,
I have received a large volume of letters expressing concern about the scope
and eventual effect of these proposals should they become law. I would like to include these letters in
this hearing record. Even without the
benefit of the testimony we will hear today, I am already aware that these
proposals as drafted present concerns, particularly for the states, and also
for citizens living near federal training facilities.
These
proposals are complex and should be carefully examined by experts in both
federal and state law. Moreover, since many environmental laws contain
provisions that favor federal facilities by allowing for exemptions when the
President declares an exemption to be in the national interest, we must
carefully examine the need for these proposals. I am not aware of many instances, if any, where the defense
agencies have sought the waivers available to them under current law. Instead, the agencies now seek permanent
waivers of the laws that apply to their facilities.
Congress
intended the environmental laws to apply to the federal facilities. If any other entity were asking for
permanent exemptions from environmental laws, we would afford no less scrutiny
to their proposals.
And
so, I would like to make clear that by conducting this hearing today I do not
intend to clear the way for these proposals to be added to the DoD bill in
conference. I agreed to hold a hearing
on these proposals when the Ranking Member filed them as amendments to our
water infrastructure bill earlier this year.
Frankly, I believe that amendment would have been defeated at that time,
but rather than put it to a vote, I agreed instead to conduct a hearing,
consistent with my desire to proceed in regular order on matters within this
Committee's jurisdiction.
It is
my strong belief that if these proposals move through this Congress, or any
future Congress, they should be backed by a convincing demonstration of need
and they should be scrutinized, drafted and considered by this Committee. The
threshold for a demonstration of need will be quite high.
Finally,
there are two provisions amending the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird
Treaty Act that are currently in the House version of the DoD authorization
bill. I have received numerous letters
of concern about these provisions, and I am aware that no Committee of
jurisdiction over these statutes has examined these proposals to evaluate these
concerns. With so little information to back them, it is unfortunate that these
provisions appear in the House bill. As such, I am opposed to their inclusion
in the final DoD authorization bill.
I look forward to hearing the testimony today. I would note that some of our witnesses may have chosen to speak to the provisions contained in the Administration's proposals to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This is a statute not in our jurisdiction. This subject was not within the scope of the bipartisan official notice for today's hearing. So, I will ask the witnesses to confine their remarks to those areas of the proposal that are the subject of the hearing today.