Pointy-Headed Leftists Dumbfounded as Commander in Chief Does His Job.

Pres. Truman OKs Atomic Bomb on Birds

been any real science or testing been done to actually prove the problem? And how much testing has been done? Doesn't the navy usually use passive sonar, just listening? And, I was of the opinion, according to the environ literature and speeches, that whales were pretty smart, therefore they'd get out of the testing area before there was any damage, or is the 'smart fish' theory just a myth?

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

Maybe it is just Rosie out for a swim?

Ken you forgot to mention this whole issue is based on enforcing the Endangered Species Act which the Dept of Defense is bound by law to follow.

Trying to make it seem as if it's a single liberal judge is taking the side of whales over national security is misleading.

And judging by the ignorant posts here it couldn't hurt to enlighten people.

This issue has been around for some time now. It is congress that balked at changing the law not some judge that is keeping the navy from using these areas.

As it was originally proposed in April, the Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative, part of the National Defense Authorization Act, would have enabled the agency to perform military trainings that could jeopardize the health and welfare of both humans and wildlife. Specifically, military trainings and bases would have been exempted from many requirements in laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Air Act, and the Superfund.

The Senate and House, however, have stripped the initiative of some of the proposed exemptions. In early May, the full House narrowly passed the authorization bill with three amendments attached, one prohibiting military lands from being designated as critical habitat under the ESA, another allowing the military to kill migratory birds during training exercises, and a third weakening the protections of the Wilderness Act in Utah. However, the House balked at weakening the MMPA at the behest of the Navy.

The Senate Armed Services Committee refused to add any anti-environmental amendments to its version of the authorization bill, and the full Senate passed the bill without those amendments. It's now up to the conference committee to reconcile the differences between the two versions of the bill, probably before the August recess.

The proposed exemptions would be disastrous for animals and the environment, and would set a dangerous precedent by allowing the government to sidestep the very laws it is supposed to uphold. The need for the exemptions is hard to fathom, as the DOD already has the authority, through the Office of the President and the Secretary of the DOD, to waive compliance with animal protection and environmental laws when necessary for national security.

What's more, in a poll conducted by Zogby in late April 2002, 85% of registered voters did not want any government agency, including the DOD, to be above the country's laws. The survey polled 1,002 registered voters, and has an error margin of +/- 3.2%.

Following is a partial summary of some of the exemptions requested.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The goal of the ESA is to preserve endangered and threatened species as well as the habitats on which these species depend for survival. The ESA works in two stages: First, the government protects a species from possible extinction, and then it takes steps to restore the species' numbers to a point where it is no longer threatened. This goal can only be reached if the habitat that houses the endangered or threatened animals is protected. Congress has made it the duty of each federal agency to conserve species listed under the ESA as well as the habitat that is critical to species' survival.

The DOD initiative would exempt the department from its legal requirement under the ESA to designate critical habitat necessary to preserve and promote endangered and threatened species. The exemption would exist for all "lands, or other geographical areas, owned or controlled by the Department, or designated for its use." Thus, the initiative would automatically eliminate federal protections for the more than 300 endangered or threatened species living on DOD lands.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)

The MBTA was enacted to preserve migrating birds and to "aid in the restoration" of migratory bird species where they have become—or have the potential to become—scarce or extinct. The MBTA prohibits the killing of any migratory bird except as permitted by the Secretary of the Interior. The MBTA regulations provide that "[n]o person shall take. . . any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such bird" without a valid permit issued by the Director [of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior.] The Fish and Wildlife Service currently requires all federal agencies to obtain permits prior to killing, harming, disturbing, or harassing any migratory bird or its nest.

The DOD initiative would exempt the department from securing a permit before a take (killing, injuring, harming, disturbing, or harassing) of migratory birds or destruction of their nests. The DOD would not be required to present scientific evidence to prove a need for the take; nor would any party oversee the methods used or number taken. Essentially, the DOD would have an open season on migratory birds.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

In 1972, Congress passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in response to certain species that were in danger of extinction because of human activities. The MMPA put in place a system designed to limit or eliminate those activities that could injure or harm a marine mammal species. The MMPA also placed greater limitations on the harassment, capturing, hunting, or killing of marine mammals.

The DOD initiative changes the definition of "harassment" and expands the number and type of activities that are exempt from review by the agencies in charge of implementing the MMPA. For instance, the initiative would remove MMPA protections against destructive military operations such as the Low Frequency Active (LFA) Sonar program. DOD activities have already injured and killed beaked, minke, and humpback whales. An exemption would simply increase the potential for death and injury to marine mammals worldwide.

Resources Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Superfund

RCRA is the nation's premier law for regulating hazardous wastes. The goals of the law are to prevent toxic pollution and to ensure that the parties responsible for waste are also responsible for the cleanup.

The DOD initiative would exempt explosives and munitions under both statutes by amending the definition of "solid waste" under RCRA to exclude "explosives, unexploded ordnance, munitions, munitions fragments, or constituents thereof." The change in definition would allow the DOD to leave hazardous and toxic materials on the ground on lands owned or controlled by the DOD—materials that can leach into groundwater and surface water and pose a health and safety risk to the public and wildlife.

Clean Air

The initiative would also exempt the DOD from federal standards and delay compliance with state standards under the Clean Air Act, thus hampering any state's plans to improve air quality and protect public health and safety. Those living in areas with military bases or training grounds would be forced to breathe dirtier air, which could lead to a greater incidence of asthma, lung cancer, and premature death.