Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today's hearing. It is our responsibility as a Committee to examine issues impacting military training and readiness, and I have no doubt that our military has had to adjust training practices and incur added expenses to address concerns about critical habitats, the marine environment, airspace management, spectrum availability, air pollution, unexploded ordnance, and noise pollution.
Despite these training challenges, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military service Chiefs have testified before our Committee that our armed forces are more ready today than they have ever been before. That is because the military services have gone the extra mile to find constructive ways to comply with applicable laws and regulations with a minimum impact on training and readiness. It takes hard work with regulators and impacted communities on a case-by-case basis to achieve these solutions, but the pay-off comes in the credibility the Department has earned as a good neighbor and a faithful custodian of public lands.
In my state of Hawaii, I have worked with the military to try to address issues raised in the community about the impact of training on cultural and historical sites, endangered species, fire damage, and other issues. By working together in this way, I am hopeful that we can continue to find constructive ways to reconcile military training requirements with conflicting priorities. I am also hopeful that this kind of cooperative, case-by-case approach can help us avoid recurrences of the situation in Vieques, where festering disagreements between the Department of Defense and the local community will soon result in the cessation of military training at one of the Navy's most important facilities.
Legislative action to exempt the Department from an environmental requirement may be necessary in some cases, as it was last year when we acted on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but it must always be a last resort, not a first resort. Where we do act, I believe that our legislation should be as narrowly tailored as possible to avoid unintended side effects.
Last week, the Administration submitted a legislative proposal that would exempt a wide range of DOD activities from the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act – each of which was rejected by the last Congress. These proposals deserve the close scrutiny that we will start to provide with today's hearing.
As we address the issues before us today, we should keep in mind that the positive relationship between our military installations and the governments and citizens of the States and communities in which they are located is dependent, to a significant extent, upon the Department's role as a good neighbor and a faithful steward of the public lands. I believe that we should do everything in our power to avoid enacting over-reaching legislative proposals that would undermine that positive relationship.
Mr. Chairman, these are very difficult issues – not only because of the competing interests of military readiness and environmental protection, but also because of the complexity of some of the statutes and regulations involved. That is why I appreciate your decision to schedule a second hearing on this subject, at which we will have an opportunity to hear from representatives of some of the 23 environmental groups and 33 State attorneys general who contacted the Committee in the last Congress to express concerns about the Administration's legislative proposal. I hope that we will be able to listen together to the broad range of views on these issues and to work together to develop a common understanding and constructive approach to the problem.
I look forward to the testimony of today's witnesses.
