Democrats fight Defense on environmental front
Key Democrats, joined by a number of conservation groups, pledged on Tuesday to stop what they call the Defense Department's stealth attack on the environment.
The 2003 Defense authorization bill, H.R. 4546, contains language that would grant the department broad exemptions from the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The legislation, which the House Armed Services Committee approved 57 to 1, is expected to go to the House floor Thursday.
With increased responsibilities for homeland security, Defense has pushed for freedom to expand training operations into areas inhabited by endangered species. The language would require the Interior Department to first consider national security before declaring land off-limits for military exercises. Another measure in the bill would allow Defense to kill birds protected by the 1918 migratory bird act while engaged in training activities.
Conservationists worry that the two measures give Defense a carte blanche to ignore environmental laws and move into protected areas, thus destroying the habitats of endangered species.
"First of all, these blanket exemptions are not needed," said Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., ranking member of the House Resources Committee, adding that current law already contains provisions for the military to seek relief under the statutes.
"The Secretary of Defense has never even sought such an exemption under the ESA. Yet today, we are told that the ESA hampers the military's ability to train," Rahall said at a press briefing outside the Capitol Tuesday.
"We don't believe those exemptions actually exist," said Sarah Shelden, spokeswoman for Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo. Hefley wrote the provisions. "These laws directly affect the military's ability to train and are now becoming a homeland security issue," he said.
Shelden noted that a federal court recently issued a 30-day injunction banning the military from conducting any kind of training on an uninhabited island off the coast of Guam. The injunction came after an environmental group sued, claiming the military operations violated the migratory bird act. The Air Force, Navy and Marines train on the island four days a week. Exercises range from dropping 1-ton bombs to firing machine guns from aircraft and ships.
The authorization bill also requires Defense to consult with Interior and state and local officials before making any decisions.
But Ray Clark, former principal deputy assistant secretary of the Army in charge of installations and the environment, said Defense has not proven that it needs sweeping exemptions from environmental statutes. For instance, he said current law allows military installations to seek relief under the ESA before a panel that includes the Defense and Interior secretaries.
"When you do that, you have a public record. That's good policy," he said. "But we never had any real need for the exemptions." He said the Army has found ways to compromise with conservation groups. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that Defense needs more land for training. Expansion of residential areas near military bases has hemmed in the services and is the main reason why endangered species are migrating to Defense property, he said.
Clark suggested that the services develop a targeted list of roadblocks in environmental laws and work with Congress to address them, rather than seeking broad exemptions from them.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., is concerned that Defense will mount a broader attack on environmental laws. Initially, the department wanted exemptions to the 1992 Clean Air Act and two hazardous waste clean up laws-the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the 1980 Superfund Act.
Shelden said Defense officials did not make a strong enough case for including those provisions in the authorization bill. But Hefley's Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness might hold hearings on those acts and their impact on Defense activities, she said.