NEWS RELEASE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE DEMOCRATS
Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member

Washington, D.C. – Not satisfied with current assaults on America’s precious natural resources and wildlife, the Bush Administration has set its anti-environmental sights on the nation’s oldest conservation law, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). This Act provides protection for over 850 species of migratory birds, including many that are threatened or endangered, and is often their only protection from human harm. The Act also sets forth U.S. obligations under four separate treaties to protect migratory birds and guide cooperative conservation management with Canada, Mexico, Japan and Russia.

At the Administration’s urging, language included in the final version of the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense Authorization Bill being considered by House and Senate negotiators could exempt the Department of Defense (DOD) from complying with MBTA. The provision could effectively give DOD license to bomb and destroy at will the natural habitats of migratory birds, endangering more than one million birds and curtailing the enjoyment of more than 50 million bird enthusiasts in this country. The provision will also provide an exclusive legal immunity from third party lawsuits which challenge DOD non-compliance with the Act.

"Once again the Administration has demonstrated its unilateral approach to government policy," said Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), Ranking Member on the House Resources Committee which oversees the MBTA. "Exempting our military from the MBTA drops a bomb domestically and internationally as it endangers our wildlife heritage and compromises our international treaty obligations. I find it ironic that while we contemplate restoring freedom abroad, the Bush Administration is pushing a proposal that takes dead aim at our symbol of freedom, the American bald eagle."

Rahall is joined in his opposition to the provision by Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MI), Ranking Member on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, a fierce conservationist, and the longest serving member of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission that was established by the Act to oversee federal migratory bird conservation efforts in cooperation with each state.

"I have dealt with the military for years and they constantly seek to get out from under environmental laws. But using the threat of 9-11 and al Qaeda to get unprecedented environmental immunity is despicable," Rep. Dingell said. "We have fought two World Wars, the Korean War, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War with this law in place, and there is no demonstrated need to exempt the Department of Defense now." 

Dingell and Rahall also noted DOD’s contorted arguments against compliance with the Act. For example, DOD claimed in federal court that "the more birds that the defendants (DOD) kill, the more enjoyment Mr. Frew (the plaintiff) will get from seeing the ones that remain: ‘bird watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one’." The judges’ finding with respect to that argument was that "there is absolutely no support in the law for the view that environmentalists should get enjoyment out of the destruction of natural resources…The Court hopes that the federal government will refrain from making or adopting such frivolous arguments in the future."

Moreover, the Secretary of the Interior already has the authority under current law to issue permits for actions that might kill, harm or injure migratory birds in the course of government activities. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and DOD have been developing regulations pursuant to Executive Order 13186 to resolve migratory bird disputes. And, in March 2002, a U.S. court recognized for the first time the DOD must comply with the MBTA and ordered the military to apply for the administrative remedy already available. The DOD has chosen to fight this court ruling.

The House Committee on Resources held no hearings to understand the impact of such an exemption, providing no opportunity for public input or scientific analysis. Numerous environmental and conservation organizations strongly oppose this exemption.

Reps. Rahall and Dingell wrote to House and Senate negotiators in September asking them to withdraw this damaging exemption, noting this provision is unwarranted and unnecessary. Alternatives to address the DOD’s concerns include requiring DOD to implement conservation measures, requiring conservation measures be incorporated into regulations and directing the Secretary of the Interior to permit – instead of exempt – military readiness activities.

- 30 -

[Editor’s Note] Reporters interested in obtaining the DOD Authorization Conference Report language concerning the MBTA exemption provision should call Laura Sheehan at 202-225-3641.