National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 -- (Senate - May 21, 2003)

Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, as chairman of the subcommittee which reviewed this proposal and included this proposal on the Endangered Species Act, I want to spend a couple minutes to educate our colleagues on why it is important to defeat this amendment that has been proposed.

First of all, we held two hearings--Senator Akaka and I did--and we worked beautifully together. Senator Akaka is a wonderful person to work with. Our staffs worked really well together. On several of the proposals the administration had put up on the environment, we held hearings. We brought in experts from both sides. Everybody was represented. We had very fair hearings. I think everybody who was in attendance would agree the hearings were fair and balanced.

Out of those hearings came a couple of findings: One is that over the last 20 years the military has done a fabulous job with its ranges in protecting habitat as well as endangered or threatened species. I think there is no disputing that.

In the past, I think there certainly were some mistakes that were made by the military. But in the last 20 years or so we have done a really good job with our armed services protecting the habitat and the species on these various ranges.

What has happened now is we are in a situation where the courts, instead of allowing what has happened with some of these what are called Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, which are in place and have done a great job protecting the species and the habitat--what the courts are threatening to do, and it looks as if it is going to happen, is those will no longer be able to be used. We will have to go with much stricter definitions, much more costly ways of doing business, and a lot of the ranges will be shut down.

I am the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee. We are in charge to make sure our armed services are ready when they are called upon to defend the United States of America.

I have a letter I would like to have printed in the RECORD. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

Mr. ENSIGN. This letter pretty much sums up what we try do in this bill. We are balancing environmental protections with military readiness. Sometimes these are competing concerns.

We did not overreach in this bill. We struck a balance. We struck a very delicate balance, but we think we have struck a balance.

If anybody has any questions, they just have to go visit our military ranges in Southern California, in the Carolinas. Wherever you go across the country, visit our ranges and you will see some of the most pristine areas you can find, some of the best protected habitat you can find, and these endangered and threatened species are flourishing.

It is not a question of this bill rolling back environmental protections. We do not want the courts putting such limits on the military that they cannot go forward in this balance in the future, where we protect species and habitat and we ensure military readiness for our armed services.

A couple of specific problems with this amendment:

The INRMP sites and the Endangered Species Act are complementary statutory frameworks that together ensure protection of endangered and threatened species. The Lautenberg amendment introduces an unnecessary and complicated requirement, and we believe--the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior believe--it will lead to more lawsuits, not less. We are trying to get away from the lawsuits and make sure we are spending the money instead of fighting legal battles in protecting the species and making sure we are ready for what our armed services are called to do.

I ask our colleagues to seriously take a look at this. We just saw the results of great readiness in Iraq. The arguments were made: We are ready; there is not going to be a problem.

We were ready because our ranges were able to be used. If we roll back the ability to use our ranges, we will not be ready. We will not have the kind of military readiness we need in future conflicts. That is why it is so important that we do as the language in the bill suggests, protect the balance between environmental protection and military readiness.

I reserve the remainder of my time.