Representing North Carolina’s Ninth District                                                                        

                The United States military is defined by our preparedness.  The recent conflict with Iraq demonstrated the benefit of being militarily prepared, as well as equipped with the necessary technology.

                Testing military preparedness and state-of-the-art weaponry takes time, practice and very importantly –locations.  Recently, however, environmentalists have argued that these tests of military readiness at certain types of locations are harmful for the surrounding environment and natural habitats.  While it is important to keep in mind the environmental implications of military training activities, it is also important to ensure that the training is not compromised by extraneous environmental restrictions.

            For instance, certain environmentalists argue that if a porpoise is forced to alter its swimming path because of the sonar on a submarine, that submarine is harassing the porpoise and intruding upon its environmental habitat.  Other environmentalists have suggested that if military troops practicing on a beach cause a seal to turn its head and look at them, the seal has been harassed and an environmental infraction has occurred.

            I am not suggesting that there be no consideration given to environmental concerns when deciding military training locations.  But can you imagine if a submarine suddenly had to halt a training exercise because a porpoise got to close or a Marine Corps unit had to stop a practice beach invasion because a seal turned its head to look at them?

            Examples like these have been at the center of a contentious debate in the United States Congress recently.  Although the Department of Defense will spend $4 billion for environmental protection in 2004, it is important to strike the proper balance between protection of the environment and military readiness.  As such, DOD has requested exemptions from certain provisions of a number of federal environmental laws.

            For instance, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) often prohibits the military from using lands that endangered species could inhabit in the future –even if they are not currently in the vicinity.    The House version of the FY2004 Department of Defense Authorization Act, which passed on May 22, 2003, contains exempting language clarifying such military provisions of the Endangered Species Act.  It also clarifies portions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act.  The Senate version contains language allowing for exemptions of only the ESA.  The House and Senate will soon meet in conference to come to a compromise on this issue. 

###