Overview
Title
To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to further restrict the Secretary of the Interior from designating certain lands used for national defense-related purposes as critical habitat for any species under that Act and to broaden exclusions and exemptions from that Act for such defense-related purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to let the military use certain lands without worrying about protecting animals that are in danger of disappearing forever. This means they can do their important work like practicing with big trucks and planes, even if it might be bad for some animals.
Summary AI
The bill H. R. 65 aims to change the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from labeling certain military areas as critical habitats for endangered species. It seeks to broaden the exceptions for military-related activities, allowing military personnel to conduct operations that might otherwise harm endangered species without facing legal restrictions. The bill outlines what constitutes national defense-related operations, including training and testing military weapons, and specifies who counts as military personnel, including both military members and civilian contractors.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, referred to as the "Armed Forces Endangered Species Exemption Act," aims to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The bill seeks to limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior in designating certain lands, particularly those used for national defense purposes, as critical habitats for endangered species. It also proposes broadening exclusions and exemptions from the protections provided by the Endangered Species Act specifically for defense-related operations.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the most notable issues raised by this bill is the broad discretion it grants to the Secretary of Defense to exclude lands from being designated as critical habitat. This could potentially undermine environmental protections, as such habitats may be crucial for the survival of endangered species. Furthermore, the bill provides significant exemptions for defense-related activities from the constraints of the Endangered Species Act, which have raised concerns about potential environmental degradation without sufficient checks and balances.
Another issue is the broad and undefined nature of terms such as "national defense-related operation" and "military personnel." These terms could lead to widespread applicability of the act's exemptions, stretching beyond traditional military activities to include a wide array of civilian employees and contractors.
Impact on the Public
The passage of this bill could have broad implications for both environmental conservation and national defense. On one hand, by prioritizing military operations over environmental concerns, it could lead to significant reductions in designated critical habitats, which may have lasting impacts on biodiversity and conservation efforts. This could affect public perception of the balance between national security and environmental responsibility.
On the other hand, supporters of the bill might argue that it allows the military more flexibility and efficiency in maintaining national security without having to navigate the complex requirements of environmental regulations, which could be seen as beneficial from a defense perspective.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For environmental groups and conservationists, this bill poses a significant challenge. It can potentially hinder efforts to protect endangered species, as essential habitats may no longer receive the legal protections necessary for their preservation.
On the flip side, the Department of Defense and military contractors may view this bill positively. The exemptions and exclusions could facilitate more rapid and unobstructed access to land deemed necessary for national defense, allowing for expanded training and development activities without the delays associated with environmental regulatory compliance.
In summary, while the bill seeks to balance national security needs with environmental protections, it appears to heavily favor defense-related interests, raising concerns about the adequacy of environmental safeguards under its provisions.
Issues
The bill gives broad discretion to the Secretary of Defense to exclude certain lands from being designated as critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act. This potentially undermines environmental protections, as such lands could be significant for endangered species. This is specified in Section 2, which allows military and state-owned National Guard installations, and other lands used by the Department of Defense, to be excluded. This issue raises environmental and ethical concerns about prioritizing military over conservation efforts.
Section 3 provides significant exemptions from the Endangered Species Act for national defense-related operations. This exemption applies to activities that would otherwise violate the prohibitions of 'taking' endangered species. The broad and undefined nature of 'national defense-related operations' could lead to extensive environmental degradation without sufficient oversight. This could set a precedent that weakens environmental protections under the guise of national security.
The language in Section 2 allows the Secretary of Defense excessive discretion in determining which areas are necessary for military uses and does not require consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. This lacks transparency and accountability, leading to potential imbalances where military priorities consistently override environmental considerations.
The definition of 'military personnel' in Section 3 is broad, including civilian employees and contractors. This potentially expands the scope of exemptions to people who might not traditionally be considered as part of military personnel, thus broadening the act’s exemptions and creating possible legal ambiguities.
The short title in Section 1, 'Armed Forces Endangered Species Exemption Act', is not self-explanatory and could lead to misunderstandings about the scope and intention of the bill, potentially affecting public perception and transparency.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the law to be called the "Armed Forces Endangered Species Exemption Act."
2. Exclusion of military institutions as critical habitat Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Endangered Species Act to specify that military and state-owned National Guard installations, as well as any areas needed for military use, cannot be designated as critical habitats. Additionally, it states that the Secretary of Defense does not need to consult with the Secretary of the Interior regarding actions in these areas, even if they have a natural resources management plan.
3. Additional exclusions and exemptions from Endangered Species Act of 1973 for defense-related operations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section adds an exclusion to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, stating that the prohibitions on harming endangered or threatened species do not apply to military personnel engaged in national defense activities, such as training or developing weapons. It also defines the terms "national defense-related operation" and "military personnel" to include various military and civilian roles within the Department of Defense and related agencies.