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]