The Pentagon last year had no success persuading Congress that it should be exempt from provisions in environmental laws concerning air pollution, toxic waste dumps, endangered species and marine mammals. So this year, when a war with Iraq was imminent, it appealed to Congress again, arguing that its troops’ readiness depended on receiving the exemptions, but it still hasn’t made the case that the exemptions are needed. The exemptions are before the House and Senate armed services committees this week, which should request the Pentagon show new evidence of a problem or reject the bill.

The Bush administration largely supports the plan to grant exemptions for the sake of troop training and readiness, a definition that could extend to nonmilitary activities, including driving on a military base and pesticide spraying. It would lift the Navy’s burden of proving that its low-frequency sonar system was not the danger to whales that numerous scientists claim – the radar system is on hold until a court trial on the issue is held. Certainly, no one would want to block troop readiness, but the Pentagon already has a poor record of environmental compliance and its request might jeopardize the health and safety not merely of ecosystems but also military families and nearby communities.

The environmental rules already include mechanisms to waive its important protections for national security. But, more importantly, Christie Whitman, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, testified earlier this month, “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.” Her observation is backed up by the General Accounting Office, which recently concluded, “Our analysis of readiness reports from active duty units in fiscal year 2001 showed that very few units reported being unable to achieve combat-ready status due to inadequate training areas.”

The Pentagon responded to this report not by changing its thinking on the effect of environmental rules but by ordering military-service chiefs to produce information that would help President Bush invoke national-security exemptions to the laws, according to the Wall Street Journal. The directive from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, which warns there would remain a “high hurdle” for granting the exemption, nevertheless suggests an unhealthy regard for environmental laws and a tacit understanding that broad exemptions aren’t necessary while the narrow national security exemption exists.

Environmentalists had argued that the bill to grant exemptions should not be heard by the congressional armed services committees, but by the environmental committees only. They hoped to get a more sympathetic, more informed hearing through this change of venue, although given the makeup of the committees, their reasoning is difficult to understand. A floor vote is their best chance in either case, when Maine’s delegation should reject a weakening of environmental laws based on insufficient evidence.