The administration recently submitted a series of legislative proposals to Congress, including amendments creating military exemptions from the Endangered Species Act; the Marine Mammal Protection Act; the Clean Air Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Congress rejected similar proposals pushed by the Pentagon last year, but the administration continues to argue that the threat of terrorism and now the war in Iraq necessitate such exemptions.
Meanwhile, in a memo obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Wolfowitz instructed the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force to abandon their “past restraint” in seeking environmental waivers from 10 of the nation’s major environmental laws. “Under current law, many environmental statutes have exemptions for activities deemed by the President to be ‘necessary’ for reasons ‘of national security’ or in the ‘paramount interest of the United States,’” according to PEER’s announcement of the Wolfowitz memo. “These exemptions, however, have never been used.”
A June 2002 investigation by the General Accounting Office (GAO) was unable to corroborate DOD claims that environmental laws hinder military preparedness, and in fact found training readiness to be high. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman concurred, telling the Washington Post, “I don’t believe there is a training mission anywhere in the country that is being held up or not taking place because of environmental protection regulation.”
The administration’s efforts, which imply that military preparedness must come at the expense of public health and the environment, could prevent enforcement of the aforementioned environmental laws on military bases; for example, under the proposed RCRA exemptions, officials could leave toxic substances lying exposed on the range, where they could leach into groundwater, surface waters or the air,
according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The House and Senate committees on armed services have held hearings on the administration’s proposals, but their future is unclear.