Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act Penalty and Enforcement Act of 2009; By: Zane Butter

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Penalty and Enforcement Act of 2009
Introduced to the House on April 23, 2009, the MBTAPE Act of 2009 was created to establish the consequences of killing or wounding a migratory bird in an aggravated manner. This bill establishes the exact jail terms for wounding or killing a migratory bird and also defines the term “aggravated manner.” This act was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife. This bill was also looked over by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Committee on November 18, 2009, this bill was then passed by the House on December 7 later that year. The last action that has been placed on this bill was on April 21, 2010 when the committee on Environment and Public Works ordered the bill to be reported without amendment favorably.
First introduced by Democrat Representative Peter Defazio along with eighteen other cosponsors, this bill has particular significance during the time of the oil spill and the affects this spill had on the environment down in the Gulf Coast. The new MBTAPE Act is an add on to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as it explains the penalties for those intentionally and maliciously “take” any migratory bird in any way not allowed by the Act guilty of felony and subject to a fine of up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for up to two years. By making these penalties harsher, this should be of great benefit to migratory birds such as the Bald Eagle, the Red-tailed Hawk, and the Ruby-throated Hummingbird and hundreds of other migratory birds.
Other than making harsher penalties for those who harm migratory birds, this bill would have no significant cost to the federal government which is a very big positive because of the government debt already. One of the main workers behind the scenes of this legislation was Portland Audubon after they had learned of the deliberate killing of thousands of birds of prey on the west coast by pigeon hobbyists. Overall, this legislation is significant because it should show drastic decreases in migratory bird deaths intentionally caused by humans as the penalties are much stricter now.






Stationary Source Regulations Delay Act
The SSRD Act was introduced to the House on March 4th and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on the same day. Sponsored by Democrat representative Nick Rahall along with Democrat Representatives Rick Boucher, Alan Mollohan and Jay Rockefeller, this bill is an attempt to “To suspend, during the 2-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, any Environmental Protection Agency action under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane pursuant to certain proceedings, other than with respect to motor vehicle emissions, and for other purposes. Furthermore, the act is meant to put limits on the Clean Air Act with some exceptions.
The four sponsoring congressmen have come under fire because of the Obama administration’s aggressive actions to dominate in the surface coal mining industry and support cap and trade legislation before Congress. According to one article, Representative Boucher said: “EPA regulation of greenhouse gases would be the worst outcome for the coal industry and coal-related jobs.” Boucher went on to say that, “the measure I have introduced will prevent the EPA from acting to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for two years, providing Congress time to approve a thoughtful regulatory program.” Boucher believes that we must find a balance between the actions of EPA with the limits proposed in the SSRD Act. Boucher along with the other representatives realized that they cannot do away with the EPA as a whole but rather finding a balance between the wants of both sides is the best solution. Other supporters of this act include the United Mine Workers of America. President of the United Mine Workers of America, Cecil Roberts believes that the Clean Air Act is not suited to provide the right technology needed to advance carbon capture and storage that the USA will need to combat climate change.
Overall, this bill was created and introduced into the House as these four representatives along with many other supporters believed that limiting the EPA’s capabilities would be best for the environment and greenhouse effects as well as impact on the economy. However environmentalists are fighting to keep the EPA’s authority in place to manage greenhouse emissions and curing the global warning problems. But in the end, the less Congress does on energy and climate, the more important it will be that the Clean Air Act can be allowed to do its job and cut global warming pollution from the largest polluters.