[CPEO-MEF] Senator Lieberman Supports the Military; Rejects Environmental Exem

[Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@cpeo.org>]

Statement by Senator Joe Lieberman at the Environment and Public Works
Committee

For Release:
April 2, 2003
 
Statement to Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee
Considering Department of Defense’s Proposal to 
Amend Environmental Laws

Mr. Chairman, today we consider attempts to exempt the Department of
Defense from a number of major federal environmental laws, including the
Superfund law and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, both of
which govern toxic waste management and cleanup; the Endangered Species
Act; and the Clean Air Act. 

As a member of both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Committee
on Environment and Public Works, I have studied this issue carefully and
concluded that there is no good reason to justify these exemptions and
the harm they would do to our natural resources. 

Some believe that we must choose between a strong defense and a clean
environment. I do not. The truth is, we can protect our environment and
protect our people at the very same time. We can defend the red, white,
and blue and be green at the same time. In fact, we must do both. 

I take a backseat to no one in support of our military. I understand and
appreciate the heroic job our men and women in uniform are doing overseas
today and the extensive training they must do here at home to get battle
ready. Nothing should interfere with their preparedness. Nothing should
compromise their training. But obeying our environmental laws does
neither, and in suggesting otherwise, I am afraid the Administration has
dressed up major environmental rollbacks in a national security
camouflage. 

Ideology might support the belief that the nation's security and the
health of environment are naturally at odds but the evidence presented to
date does not. In fact, this committee has heard testimony from EPA
Administrator Christine Whitman the Administration's top environmental
official asserting that, in her judgment, there is not a single training
mission in this country being adversely affected by environmental
protection. Commanders of our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast
Guard confirm that our forces are the best trained in the world, by far.

And if any problem might arise, the current laws have the flexibility
needed to allow for the training our soldiers need. Our environmental
laws already have many exemptions that the Pentagon is free to invoke. In
fact, Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz recently distributed a
memorandum asking the services to seek to invoke these exemptions. Mr.
Chairman, I ask that a copy of the memo be placed in the record. 

On the other hand, when we allow the Defense Department or any entity to
pollute with impunity and deal with none of the consequence sit's the
American people who suffer. Let me give you an example. At more than 20
sites throughout the country, perchlorate a chief ingredient in rocket
fuel has contaminated citizens' groundwater. Studies have shown that the
chemical, even in small doses, can disrupt thyroid function and impair
infant development. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that
this is dangerous stuff. 

If the Pentagon's request for exemptions passes, however, communities
around the nation will be left to fend for themselves and pay by
themselves for the exorbitant costs of cleaning up these poisoned sites.
The city of Rialto, California, for example, estimates that its water
bills would increase from 100 to 400 percent as a result. And that is to
say nothing of the threat to the health of Rialto citizens.
 
No one here is suggesting that the Defense Department restrict its
training or readiness procedures. All we insist is that they not run
roughshod over the environment in the process. If and when the
environment is damaged, our government must do the right thing and take
on the responsibility itself of cleaning our air, water, and land,
consistent with the laws of the land  instead of leaving citizens to
face the consequences of environmental degradation on their own.
 
Finally, let me touch on a final objection I have with the rollbacks
being contemplated today, and that is a procedural one. The changes being
contemplated are substantial. They will have far-reaching effects on a
complex suite of environmental and public health laws. Therefore, they
demand thorough scrutiny in the Congressional committee that is most
responsible for such consideration. That is this Committee, Environment
and Public Works. 

We should allow the Armed Services Committee to focus on the pressing
military needs occasioned by the war in Iraq and the ongoing war against
terrorism, while this Committee's expertise is brought to bear on the
Pentagon's request for environmental exemptions. 

In sum, it would be an inappropriate usurpation of this committee's
oversight responsibilities, not to mention a waste of this committee's
considerable expertise, for the Armed Services Committee to rush the
changes through. 

Thank you.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aimee R.
Houghton                    
            
Associate Director, CPEO
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC  20036
tel: 202-452-8039; fax: 202-452-8095
Email: aimeeh@cpeo.org
www.cpeo.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at 

http://www.cpeo.org/newsgrp.html

If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a blank message with no subject to: 

cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com

==^================================================================
This email was sent to: cpeo-military@npweb.craigslist.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxieS.a3Z0qo.Y3Blby1t
Or send an email to: cpeo-military-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html