by REP President Martha Marks published in June 2003 in Hearst newspapers around the country
The Defense Department's request for exemptions from environmental laws could lead to serious unraveling of wildlife protections on land and sea.
Anti-environmental opportunists in Congress have seized on the Pentagon's proposal to try to jam through sweeping legislation that would cut large holes in conservation laws, well beyond what the Defense Department is seeking.
By itself, exempting the military from requirements of the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and other environmental laws raises serious questions. Accommodating readiness need not come at the expense of air, water, land, and wildlife, essential to the nation our troops defend.
If one federal department is excused from obeying environmental laws, what's to stop other departments from seeking similar exemptions? If the House Resources Committee gets its way, they won't have to bother asking. The committee approved a bill, later incorporated into the defense authorization legislation, that allows a waiver of endangered species protections for all federal agencies that manage land.
The revised bill relieves the departments of Interior, Defense and Agriculture—the nation's three largest land managers—from requirements to designate critical habitat areas for endangered plants and animals to recover. These three departments are responsible for approximately 665 million acres that provide habitat for many of this nation's threatened and endangered species.
Similarly, the bill would weaken the Marine Mammal Protection Act, not only for military readiness activities, but also potentially for all government and commercial activities in coastal waters.
Such a gratuitous assault on landmark environmental protections is a slap in the face to every American who cares about the nation's natural heritage. If Republicans now in Congress fail to support well-established conservation laws that were enacted with bipartisan support, both the country and the party will become poorer.
The timing and scope of the congressional action are appalling. Rather than opening a rational debate when leaders could reflect calmly on accommodating both military readiness and conservation needs, Congress is rushing to approve sweeping, ill-considered exemptions in the afterglow of a successful military action, with little public involvement.
In such a politically charged climate, legislators are loath to risk being branded as unpatriotic for asking pointed questions about troubling Defense Department requests.
There is no inherent conflict between conservation and military readiness. At bases such as Fort Lewis in Washington state, innovative commanders have found ways to carry out their duties to both train soldiers and to comply with the nation's environmental laws.
Protecting wildlife on land and sea benefits the nation in countless ways. We use thousands of plants and animals for our daily needs of food, fabrics, paper, and lumber. Many medicines on the market are derived from plants, some of which are rare or endangered. Bees and butterflies pollinate crops, birds control harmful insects, trees moderate the climate. As we depend on other species for our sustenance, so do they rely for survival on an interlocking web of countless other creatures.
Republicans trying to weaken environmental laws are turning their backs on the party's conservation heritage and on the bipartisan spirit in which the laws were passed. Richard Nixon signed the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act into law after their passage by a Democratic Congress, at a time of global tension when readiness was no less important than it is today.
Only when the leaders of both major parties take up a cause do Americans see genuine, lasting progress.
The dramatic erosion of environmental protection we are witnessing has come about because the issue has needlessly been polarized—one party appears to take the environmental vote for granted and the other party dismisses it. As long as lawmakers put hard-edged partisanship above their consciences, environmental travesty will result.
The defense authorization bill should not be used as a Trojan horse for an anti-environmental agenda. Gratuitous attacks on wildlife protections must be removed before the bill is adopted.
If Republican lawmakers with an environmental conscience band together and speak with one voice, we can save a generation of environmental protections. More importantly, the party's true conservatives can restore the Republican tradition of environmental stewardship.
