Despite the fact that the Senate forest bill will not guarantee any
increased protections for communities, the Bush Administration and many
Members of Congress have been relentless in using the current fires in
California to push their logging agenda forward.
We heard today that Senators Wyden and Daschle have been pushing hard for
Senate Majority Leader Frist (R-TN) to bring the bill up this week. We need
to be prepared for the bill to come up this week. If not this week, they
are going to push and push for the bill to come up before Congress adjourns
for the year. Congress could be in session as late as the third week in
December. We need to keep pushing back!!
Thanks to Senator Harkin for his objection last week to the forest bill --
see details below.
Update for Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
FORESTS
Democratic objections lessen chance for wildfire bill this year
Dan Berman, Environment & Energy Daily reporter
The push for the Senate to pass H.R. 1904, the "Healthy Forests Restoration
Act," a bill designed to streamline logging projects to reduce the risk of
catastrophic Western wildfires, took a major hit yesterday when two
Democratic senators objected to a unanimous consent agreement.
The sources of the objections, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
ranking member Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Agriculture Committee ranking
member Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), want hearings on a compromise amendment crafted
late last month by a bipartisan group of senators that would provide
statutory protections for old-growth forests in exchange for restrictions on
appeals and legal challenges of fuel-reduction projects.
The Bush administration and congressional Republicans blasted the timing of
the move, which could cripple efforts to pass wildfire legislation this year
and limit the ability of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to
implement forest thinning projects before the 2004 wildfire season.
"It turns out that the Forest Service doesn't have a monopoly on 'analysis
paralysis,'" said H.R. 1904 author Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.). "Exactly 5
months after a bipartisan majority acted in the House, the Senate itself has
been crippled by a couple of Democratic senators whose passion for appeals
and lawsuits obviously trumps their alleged love of the forests."
But Bingaman and Harkin say they need more time to review the proposed
amendment, which was filed Oct. 14. "We're just trying to understand this
thing," said Bingaman spokesman Bill Wicker. "Sen. Bingaman is not trying to
hold this up forever, we're not trying to be obstructionists. We just can't
really make heads or tails out of the text."
The deal was manufactured by a bipartisan group of senators, including
Agriculture Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Forestry Subcommittee
Chairman Michael Crapo (R-Idaho), Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle
(D-S.D.), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and
features statutory protections of old-growth forests from a bill Feinstein
and Wyden had introduced earlier this year.
Environmental groups have criticized the amendment, objecting to alleged
loopholes in the language on old growth and restrictions on project appeals
and judicial review. In addition, many fear the Senate version will be
trumped by the House language in conference committee.
The Democrats involved in the compromise have said they will not support the
House language and have called on the White House to publicly support their
compromise amendment in conference.
Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey yesterday repeated the administration's
support for the compromise but said it is too early to endorse conference
language before the Senate actually passes a bill. "I'm confident the Senate
compromise is close enough to the House bill that reconciliation won't be a
problem," Rey said, "but that's assuming the bipartisan compromise gets
through the Senate."
Once the compromise gets to the floor, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) may offer
amendments that would alter or repeal provisions in the bill regarding the
project appeals process and judicial review, likely based on a bill he
introduced with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) this summer. Boxer and Leahy
did not object to the request for a unanimous consent agreement, staffers
said.
Senate Republicans defended the path H.R. 1904 has taken and called for
swift action on the floor. "I find objection to letting this bill come to
the floor beyond belief," said Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.). "After long months of give and take, we
have an amendment and a bill that is balanced and fair and good for our
forests and our communities."
Bingaman is calling for hearings in the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, as opposed to the Agriculture Committee which considered the bill
in July, but Domenici praised the job Agriculture Committee Chairman Thad
Cochran (R-Miss.) did with the bill and in the negotiations for the
compromise amendment. "They did a better job than we could have," Domenici
said.
Still, Bingaman and Harkin showed no sign of backing down. "The reality is,
this is an entirely new piece of legislation," Wicker said. "There were too
many deals that were being made in other rooms, and we feel we have the
right to have a hearing."
Even though it did not have formal jurisdiction over H.R. 1904, the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee did hold an oversight hearing on the issue
in July.
Domenici spokesman Chris Gallegos rejected the call for additional hearings,
saying the Senate has held numerous hearings on the issue over the past
several years. "At this point there's not a whole lot of use to repeating
issues at hearings," Gallegos said.
Senate Republicans are calling for a cloture vote, which would open up 30
hours of debate that would only end if they can muster 60 votes. After that,
another 30 hours of debate would be followed by a majority vote. Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) had previously said he would not bring
H.R. 1904 to the floor without 60 votes to avoid a filibuster.
"We believe there's 60 votes for this legislation, so if we can't get a
consent agreement we will pursue other ways of getting it passed," said
Frist spokeswoman Amy Call. Under Senate rules, a cloture vote on the bill
could not occur until Thursday at the earliest.
Fuel-reduction projects generally occur in a 100-day window after winter
runoff subsides and before the wildfire season kicks up in early summer,
meaning the Forest Service and BLM could not use the abbreviated planning
methods the bill would authorize if it does not pass before Congress
adjourns, Rey said.
"I suppose that will incentivize some people to move faster and get others
to drag their heels even more," Rey said.
Language differences
In addition to the provisions on old-growth forests, the Senate compromise
amendment would avoid using proceeds from timber sales to pay for fuel
reduction projects by authorizing $760 million annually, with a requirement
that at least half of those funds be used in wildland-urban interface areas
near residential communities. Other funds would go towards thinning in
watershed areas, endangered species habitat or areas damaged by insect
infestation.
The House bill, on the other hand, includes regulatory changes that would
limit alternatives that can be studied under required National Environmental
Policy Act assessments, thus increasing the use of categorical exclusions
that allow agencies to bypass the study process altogether. Supporters say
the NEPA rules and lawsuits by environmental groups slow down needed
thinning projects.
The House bill would give federal judges 45 days to review preliminary
injunctions against logging projects, while the Senate compromise would
grant 60 days as well as remove a provision requiring judges to give weight
to findings by the Interior or Agriculture departments when making
decisions. Such language would end a pattern of environmental groups
delaying projects using procedural measures, supporters say.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
|
