The Lufkin Daily News 9/19/03

How best to maintain the ecological health of America's national forests is
currently on Congress's agenda in Washington, D.C. But unable to lock up the
support needed for President Bush's "healthy forests initiative" - which
several environmentalist groups have labeled as a license for unlimited
logging - the administration's allies in Washington, D.C., are maneuvering
to avoid a public debate and get the measure passed through a legislative
back-door.

That is unacceptable. As bill that could have a considerable effect on East
Texas and other forest communities, it needs to be debated fully in the
open.

Bush last year announced the initiative to reduce the risk of devastating
wildfires. A centerpiece of the program would give forest managers more
leeway to remove the underbrush and other excess growth that fuel forest
fires. To help accomplish that, the plan would allow the U.S. Forest Service
to enter into "stewardship contracts" with private contractors - that is,
loggers - and other organizations that would allow them "to keep wood
products in exchange for the service of thinning trees and brush and
removing dead wood."

The initiative is currently being tested in 10 pilot projects in national
forests, including the Boswell Creek watershed in Sam Houston National
Forest.

Removing that growth can contribute to the health of a forest - as long as
doing so does not at the same time hurt the environment for other vegetation
and wildlife. However, determining that could be more difficult under the
Bush plan, which also would reduce environmental and public reviews of
fuel-reduction programs.

The Bush administration has almost a blood lust for removing environmental
regulations, even if doing so wouldn't address the problem it claims it is
trying to solve. The administration argues that studies and hearings delay
efforts to prevent wildfires, but a new General Accounting Office report
found that the weather and firefighting, not a pesky public, are more likely
to delay fuel reduction programs.

The GAO report also stated that Forest Service officials could not tell
investigators, for example, how much new fuel reduction efforts would cost
or which areas are most susceptible to fires.

These are all issues that deserve a full debate. Legislation needed to
implement much of Bush's program has already passed the U.S. House and is
currently pending in the Senate, where it faces an uncertain future.
Supporters have been unable to win the 60 votes it would take to avoid a
filibuster.

But prodded by the Bush administration, Republican leaders in the Senate are
reportedly considering doing an end-round the American people and attaching
the healthy forest legislation as an amendment to an appropriations bill.

No matter where you stand on the initiative, such a slippery move, when used
to advance such an important piece of legislation, is an unacceptable
affront to our democracy.