Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
Environmental Exemptions To Department Of Defense Authorization Bill
May 21, 2003

Mr. President, it is opportune the Senate is considering the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 just after the successful military action in Iraq.  Unfortunately, as is the case with many of the efforts undertaken by this Administration, there is an attempt to bypass environmental regulations under the cover of some national guise – in this instance military preparedness.  In particular, I am incensed by Section 322, which would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from designating critical habitat on any Department of Defense (DOD) lands that have an integrated management natural resources plan (INRMP) 

The Sikes Act was never intended to be a substitute for the ESA but rather a compliment to it.  The Sikes Act is clear that it does not “affect any provision of a Federal law governing the conservation or protection of fish and wildlife resources.”  As a complimentary conservation measure, INRMPs are not subject to the same rigorous implementation requirements as conservation measures taken under the ESA, such as being based on the “best available science.”  In addition, existing Fish and Wildlife Service policy allows the presence of ESA requirements to function as an incentive to DOD land managers to develop the best INRMPs possible.  This policy encourages the development of good INRMPs.  A blanket exemption to critical habitat designations would remove this incentive to practice the best stewardship possible. 

Why the need for such an exemption?  The Administration would have the American public believe that environmental laws, in this instance the Endangered Species Act (ESA), infringes upon the readiness of American troops by drastically impeding training exercises.  Yet, there is even discord within the Administration.   At an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hearing held in the Senate earlier this spring, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman noted that she did not “believe that there is a training mission anywhere in the country that is being held up or taking place because of an environmental protection regulation.”  I have to wonder if it is statements like this, where Administrator Whitman was speaking for the environment and not just towing the Administration line, that helped lead to her recent resignation. I hope the Administration will fill her shoes with someone that will make protecting the environment his or her first priority as I believe Administrator Whitman did under very difficult circumstances. 

Finally, it is absurd to provide such an exemption when the ESA allows for the law’s requirements to be waived, at the request of the Secretary of Defense, when national security concerns outweigh those of species conservation and other solutions cannot be found.  To date, no Secretary of Defense has ever utilized the flexibility in this Act.  Granting a blanket exemption to the ESA removes the ability for decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis and only when national security concerns are real.

This Administration’s continued attack on over 30 years of implementing environmental laws is in blatant disregard to the sentiment of the American public.  A recent poll showed that over one-half of the American public felt that the U.S. government was not doing enough to protect the environment and three-quarters of those polled wanted to see stronger enforcement of these laws.  Yet, again and again, whether allowing for future inclusion of wilderness into the federal lands, mining in protected grizzly bear habitat in Montana, or the possible forfeiture of thousands of miles of road systems on Federal lands this Administration continues to shut the American public out of the debate over the protection of their environment.  I call upon my colleagues to stop this attack by the Administration and strip Section 322 from the National Defense Authorization Act.

# # # # #